Unfortunately, when it was quoted, the smile went off his face very quickly. Last night, the Minister for Health tried to present the picture here that everything in the garden was so much more rosy than it had been for the last few years. Had that been true, there would have been no need for this motion, but even the Taoiseach, great statistician as he may be, cannot deny the fact that no matter how the figures are jumbled or mixed up, the cost of living is higher now by 11 points.
We condemn the Government in view of that, and in view of the fact that, in the past eight or nine months, the Government, through their activities and by various means, went so far, in spite of the increase in the cost of living, as to deprive—until they found it was too dangerous to go further—certain sections of the community of the extra 10/- a week salary increase to which they were entitled and which they ultimately had to get in spite of the Government.
I have no intention, in the time allowed, of going into the details of departmental matters, but I believe it is essential, in view of the statements made by the Minister for Health last night, that the House should know that that Department under the present Minister has completely cut out the allocations to the local health authorities for such important buildings as dispensaries. Apparently, despite the fact that I have read that there is £220,000,000 floating around, the same Minister refused an increase to two farm workers employed at Youghal Mental Hospital. Beyond that I do not intend to go. In spite of the smoke-screen put up, I think that it is well that people should know that much could have been said at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis had the delegates been allowed to say it, but, naturally, the Ministers would much prefer that these things be left unsaid.
The Minister for Local Government spoke at great length here to-day and also during the week at his Party's conference and he made a very interesting statement at the conference regarding grants for reconstructed houses. Apparently applications are not coming in as fast as he would wish. He ended by saying that if these facilities were not being availed of, it looked as if the increased grants would not be necessary. Unemployment is caused here to a great extent through inactivity in the building trade and this talk about the proposed increases in reconstruction grants is all eyewash because in the Department presided over by the Minister, they are completely underestimating the cost of reconstruction, which means that nobody can hope to get to the present maximum not to mention qualifying for the increase of £20 which is being dangled before them. It is not real. By underestimating, this Government, through the Minister for Local Government and his Department, are choking the activities and the initiative of the building trade.
To that I can add that a prominent member of the Taoiseach's Party said openly in Cork that it was his personal conviction that because of underestimating people were not in a position to spend money and thereby give employment in the repair of houses.
Other members have spoken about the Local Authorities (Works) Act. I shall not repeat their remarks, except to say that I think the line taken by the Minister for Local Government was unique. The Act is on the Statute Book and, thanks be to God, that happened during the period of office of a Labour Minister, the late Deputy Murphy, God rest his soul, and no thanks to the present Taoiseach and his Party. But now a Fianna Fáil Minister has the audacity to tell us that it is on the Statute Book and if the local authorities want to spend money under it, they can do so. It was very nice of him to make such an offer, realising as we do that there is £220,000,000 floating around. Yet, in Cork or Donegal, local authorities, under the present administration, cannot hope to get one brass farthing to provide work for men, particularly in winter-time. "Slush money" was the term used by the Minister for Health last night in condemning the Local Authorities (Works) Act, but that "slush money" was welcome in many a home in County Cork and many other counties. It was far better to have it than to be forced to go to the employment exchange or to the home assistance officer. It has not been reduced—it has been wiped out through the activities of the Government.
With all those millions floating around, would the Taoiseach or any member of his Party explain why it is that during the debate at the Party conference during the week, when members from various parts of the country—and I give them full credit for it—made a recommendation for an increase in the old age pensions, according to Press reports, the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that it would be terribly dangerous and it would be unfair to ask the Government to give 1/- a week increase because the total cost, as he pointed out—I have the actual figure given— would amount to £426,000 per annum. They could not afford to give the people over 70 £426,000 a year, even though it would only mean 1/- per person. Deputy Blowick was right when he said of the £220,000,000 that it seems it will go to nobody except the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Ultimately, of course, we know it will go nowhere.
The main point I wish to touch upon in relation to the Labour Party motion is the question of financial policy. How often have we heard the Taoiseach bemoaning the dangers of anyone making what might seem a revolutionary suggestion in relation to our present monetary system? Of course we know that, when in opposition, the Tánaiste did make such statements, statements which were more or less in accordance with Labour Party policy but that was when he was in opposition. What does he say now about the £220,000,000 he is going to find during five years which will come, automatically, as Deputy Norton said yesterday, year by year out of the ordinary accounts? He will provide the money from three different sources: one, the private sector; two, the voluntary repatriation of external assets; and, three, loans.
Will the Taoiseach, or any member of his Cabinet or any one supporting them, say what all the commotion was about and why they were attacking the previous Government about the voluntary repatriation of external assets when they are going to do it themselves? Is it not about time they made some attempt to be sincere about their policy? Will the Minister for Health say he agrees with this voluntary repatriation of external assets? How does it fit in with the views expressed by the Minister for Lands? How often has the Taoiseach spent time explaining the deadly dangers to the economic welfare of the people if they should depend on an inter-Party, or as he may wish to call it, a Coalition Government? Could we have a more complicated coalition of views and individuals than we have, not alone in the Party itself but in the Cabinet?
At least two members of that Party who have already spoken on this motion, the Minister for Health and the Minister for Lands have expressed the most conservative, reactionary views that could be expressed on behalf of their Government; whereas, at the same time, their Tánaiste, the second in command of the ship of State, shows quite clearly that his views on the method of providing this money are completely at variance with those expressed by his colleagues in the Cabinet. This is truly a healthy coalition, truly a mixum-gatherum.
We all received recently a copy of the annual Report of the Central Bank. What strikes me very forcibly now is how it comes in line with what the Taoiseach had been telling us when he interrupted Deputy Lynch here to-day on the question of increased productivity. The Central Bank report issued on 16th May states particularly that the shortage of money does not apply here. That is important, that the wizards of finance upon whose advice the present Government rely to an extraordinary extent should say that the shortage of money does not apply here. I have taken those words from page 32 of this report. Further on, they point out that what is wrong is the failure to apply that money with sufficiently productive effect. That, in my opinion—and it is the opinion of many members of this House—is where the whole problem arises. Apparently we have the money, but we have not the ways wherewith to spend it.
Is it not about time the Government realised that in the fishing industry alone, even in forestry or the improvement of harbour facilities, there is sufficient work which could be considered productive and which could be considered of such importance to the overall economy that the "plenty of money" which is available, according to the returns of the Central Bank, would be made available? Oh, no; it would not suit the Taoiseach; it would not suit the dyed-in-the-wool policy that has been dragged across the floor of this House and across every part of the Twenty-Six Counties. "Live horse and you will get grass" has been their policy. When they are out, they are determined to get in but, when they are in, they produce no results except the words, not the actions, of the Tánaiste. His is the only voice which seems to differ from the other voices in the Government whose policy has not relieved unemployment to the extent that anyone had hoped.
I have not, nor has any other member of the Labour Party, accused them of being drastic in any respect but we have accused them of being careless. We have not come into the House to blow our trumpet about what a Labour Minister for Industry and Commerce did. The Minister for Health expressed bitterness here last night with regard to what might have been established in Dublin in 1937 but for what he termed the opposition of Deputy Norton—the oil refinery. It is not in what might have been established in Dublin in 1937 we are interested; it is what is now in Cork harbour, and good luck to those who have been engaged in any improvement to that important part of our country. If it helps by relieving the unemployment figures in the employment exchanges in those areas, that is what we are interested in.
May I say to the Taoiseach and his Ministers that instead of wishing to have forgotten their statements of the past, they should even at this late stage take into consideration the divergence of views expressed from time to time by the governors of our Central Bank who are advising the Government, and the views of all those in the other banks in the country? On 16th May, last, we were warned in the Central Bank report of the deadly dangers ahead. We were warned of the dangers which would overtake the economy of this country if workers got increases in their wages; yet a few months after that severe warning, a warning accepted by the Fianna Fáil Government at all times, we have the completely opposite action by other banks in the country in regard to credit and in regard to the easing of the credit squeeze.
At no time has there been from the Labour Party any argument or any attempt to expose any weaknesses that may exist in relation to the unfortunate position of unemployed people and people who may have to emigrate. It is far more important to be honest with the people and be sincere in the determination to relieve their difficulties, even if it is by means of a policy as explained by the Tánaiste which may give results, although we do not believe it will. At least it is more important than to come to the House quoting statistics against the Opposition and telling them: "We, the Fianna Fáil Party, are in power and are satisfied." The Taoiseach may be satisfied but the Opposition are not satisfied and condemn the Government for such inactivity in the past year and a half.
