Committee on Finance. - Motion by Minister for Finance. – Dáil Éireann (16th Dáil) – Wednesday, 4 Mar 1959

Minister for Finance (Dr. Ryan)

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £38,000,000 be granted on account for or towards defraying the Charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for certain public services namely:—

	£
1 President's Establishment	2,900
2 Houses of the Oireachtas	80,300
3 Department of the Taoiseach	9,400
4 Central Statistics Office	43,000
5 Comptroller and Auditor General	12,150
6 Office of the Minister for Finance	58,000
7 Office of the Revenue Commissioners	707,000
8 Office of Public Works	200,000
9 Public Works and Buildings	1,350,000
10 Employment and Emergency Schemes	273,800
11 Management of Government Stocks	66,250
12 State Laboratory	9,200
13 Civil Service Commission	20,000
14 An Chomhairle Ealaíon	6,500
15 Commissions and Special Inquiries	3,000
16 Superannuation and Retired Allowances	362,000
17 Secret Service	2,000
18 Expenses under the Electoral Act and the Juries Act	—
19 Supplementary Agricultural Grants	1,200,000
20 Law Charges	41,700
21 Miscellaneous Expenses	11,500
22 Stationery Office	191,000
23 Valuation and Boundary Survey	28,340
24 Ordnance Survey	33,430
25 Rates on Government Property	20,000
26 Office of the Minister for Justice	33,900
27 Garda Síochána	1,706,620
28 Prisons	61,420
29 District Court	33,400
30 Circuit Court	44,330
31 Supreme Court and High Court of Justice	35,760
32 Land Registry and Registry of Deeds	38,600
33 Public Record Office	3,250
34 Charitable Donations and Bequests	2,120
35 Local Government	1,705,000
36 Office of the Minister for Education	125,000
37 Primary Education	3,320,000
38 Secondary Education	480,000
39 Technical Instruction	630,000
40 Science and Art	50,000
41 Reformatory and Industrial Schools	136,000
42 Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies	40,000
43 Universities and Colleges	460,000
44 National Gallery	4,130
45 Lands	888,000
46 Forestry	611,000
47 Fisheries	117,100
48 Roinn na Gaeltachta	190,000
49 Agriculture	3,692,000
50 Industry and Commerce	580,000
51 Transport and Marine Services	588,000
52 Aviation and Meteorological Services	330,000
53 Industrial and Commercial Property Registration Office	9,500
54 Tourism	200,000
55 Posts and Telegraphs	3,495,000
56 Wireless Broadcasting	145,500
57 Defence	2,241,300
58 Army Pensions	559,000
59 External Affairs	142,400
60 International Co-operation	31,800
61 Office of the Minister for Social Welfare	160,000
62 Social Insurance	1,455,000
63 Social Assistance	6,827,000
64 Health	2,080,000
65 Dundrum Asylum	16,500
66 Repayment of Trade Loans Advances	—
TOTAL	£38,000,000

The Vote on Account is the forerunner of the financial year 1959-60. It is the sum required for expenditure on the Supply Services for roughly the first four months of the new year. By the end of four months the Dáil has normally considered the Estimates individually and passed the Appropriation Act, thus giving full authority for the proposed expenditure on Supply Services. Without a Vote on Account, however, the Government would be without finance after the 31st instant.

Mr. Norton

Would the Minister find it possible to speak a little louder?

Mr. Sherwin

I suggest we should have an amplification system here. We have to complain repeatedly that we cannot hear what is being said.

Dr. Ryan

The total expenditure proposed for the new year, as shown by the Estimates Volume, is £115,547,070. The Vote on Account is for £38,000,000, roughly one-third of the total. The items covered by the Vote are set out on the Order Paper.

Before looking at the details, I think it would be well, for a few moments, to take a broader view. The total of £115.55 million compares with £110,000,000 on the face of the Volume last year and with actual audited expenditure of £111.4 million in 1957-58. The Estimates for 1959-60, therefore, show an increase of £5.55 million over the original Estimates for the present year. Taking account, however, of the Supplementary Estimates already passed or introduced, we find that this year's requirements will amount to £113.69 million. Compared with this more up-to-date figure for the present year the 1959-60 total shows an increase of £1.86 million. Dividing the totals into capital and non-capital services, the comparisons are:—

1959-60	Capital	£14.42
1958-59	,,	£12.31
(original plus supplementaries)
Increase	,,	£2.11	million
1959-60	non-capital	£101.13
1958-59	,,	£101.38
(original plus supplementaries)
Decrease	,,	£0.25	million

Mr. Dillon

Might I interrupt the Minister to inquire if he proposes to circulate copies of this speech?

Dr. Ryan

No; I have not copies. Let us examine first this net decrease of £250,000 in the provision for non-capital services as compared with this year's total provision for such services.

The change is the net outcome of a number of "ups" and "downs" of which the most important are as follows:—

DECREASES (NON-CAPITAL).

As most of the loss on the disposal of the 1958 wheat crop, as well as the balance of loss on disposal of the 1957 crop, is being met out of this year's total provision, the provision carried over into 1959-60 shows a reduction of £1,490,000. The provision for butter subsidy is down by £1,025,000 as it is expected that the quantity available for export will be substantially lower, owing to the fall in production throughout the late autumn and winter months, and that a better price will be realised on the export market than in 1958.

Another major decrease arises on the Vote for Transport and Marine Services. The decrease in this Estimate is almost entirely accounted for by the reduced provision being made for C.I.E., as capital expenditure is no longer being provided for by way of voted moneys and as there is a transfer to the Central Fund of interest payments on transport stock which were formerly a charge on this Vote. The effect is to reduce the non-capital element by £963,000.

Other decreases are shown on the Estimates for Supplementary Agricultural Grants and for Social Assistance. In the case of the former, actual experience in the current year, on which the Estimate for 1959-60 is based, enables a reduction of £100,000 to be made. In the case of social assistance the decrease arises mainly on widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions but is offset by an increase in children's allowances.

It will be seen that the Vote for Roinn na Gaeltachta also shows a decrease of £60,800, the item mainly responsible being the drop of £110,000 in the Grant-in-Aid of An Bord Gaeltarra Éireann. The sum provided in the current year has proved too large and the figure provided for 1959-60 is regarded as a more realistic appraisal of the board's requirements.

INCREASES (NON-CAPITAL).

Under the heading of increases, I shall take first the three main Votes in the Education group, viz., Primary Education, Secondary Education and Technical Instruction which show an aggregate increase of £723,750. It is necessary also, in the context of general education, to take into account the additional provision being made in the Vote for Public Works and Buildings for the expanded national school building programme and the additional £260,430 which is provided in the Universities and Colleges Vote for increased grants to the universities. In the case of primary, secondary and technical education, the major part of the extra provision is attributable to higher pay for teachers but a part is due also to the continued growth in the number of pupils and teachers in secondary schools and to the continuing expansion of the technical education system. Further increases arise from the abolition of the 10 per cent. cut in secondary school capitation grants and from an increase in the provision for grants towards the cost of heating, etc., of national schools.

The total increase in the Universities and Colleges Vote amounts to £260,430 attributable mainly to increased grants for University College, Dublin, University College, Galway, University College, Cork, and Trinity College.

General Mulcahy

Has the Minister included some capital moneys in the last figures he gave, in the general figures for education?

Dr. Ryan

I am just mentioning these now.

A substantial portion of the increase in the grants for University College, Cork, University College, Galway, and Trinity College is in respect of the provision of additional permanent accommodation and, accordingly, this amount (total £55,000) has, for 1959-60, been treated as a capital service.

There will, I am sure, be no questioning of the desirability of the increased provision—amounting in all to some £1.3 million—which is being made in 1959-60 for education and research.

General Mulcahy

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but did he include in respect of primary and secondary education some capital sums?

Dr. Ryan

No, not in that context, only in the ones I mentioned, the universities. A new provision in the Vote for Local Government is the £200,000 grant to the Road Fund to help pay for improvements to roads required to carry heavier traffic because of railway closings in the North-West and industrial developments. There will also be an advance of £200,000 from the Central Fund for this purpose. Another item of increase in this Vote is the additional £140,000 provided for contributions to loan charges of housing authorities.

The increase of £476,740 in the Estimate for Posts and Telegraphs arises mainly in respect of the provision of equipment for the Civil Aviation and Meteorological Wireless Services, for engineering materials and telephone capital repayments.

In the Defence Vote the items mainly constituting the increase are:— (1) pay, (2) civil defence, (3) clothing and equipment and (4) provisions. Part of the overall increase arises out of provision for an increase in the strength of the Permanent Defence Force.

In the Estimate for Garda Síochána the increase is almost entirely attributable to additional provision for pensions, gratuities, etc.

The increase in the Vote for Repayment of Trade Loans Advances results from provision being made for repayment to the Central Fund of amounts outstanding in the case of four companies that defaulted in the repayment of guaranteed loans.

In other words, most of what we are saving on the non-capital services mentioned earlier, we shall be spending on education generally, including increased aid to the universities and the first year's provision for An Foras Talúntais, on a contribution to the Road Fund, on the provision of equipment for the Civil Aviation and Meteorological Wireless Services, engineering materials for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, and on Defence, as well as meeting the full cost of the pay increases granted last year to those remunerated out of public funds. So much for the non-capital side of the Estimates.

On the capital side the net increase as compared with this year's total provision is £2.11 million. This arises out of the declared policy of the Government with regard to the development of our capital resources as outlined in the Programme for Economic Expansion published last November. I would, therefore, like to take this opportunity of making a brief progress report on that programme since its initiation last November.

As Deputies are aware, the Programme for Economic Expansion referred to contained an outline of the Government's projected contribution to economic development in the crucial years immediately ahead. The objective of the programme is to double the present rate of increase in real national income. It is hoped to achieve this by encouraging private enterprise, by giving productive expenditure a higher priority than before in the public capital programme, and by additional productive State investment amounting to £53.4 million in the five-year period from 1959-60 to 1963-64. The figure of £53.4 million is additional to the amount required to finance the public capital programme on the basis of existing policies. As the maximum possible productive development will not be achieved unless the people are willing to co-operate in fulfilling the objectives of the programme, it is heartening to record that the public response has been encouraging. A broad measure of support for the programme has been forthcoming from organisations representative of agriculture, industry, finance and commerce.

In the short period since the publication of the programme a satisfactory amount of progress has been accomplished. In some cases amending legislation is necessary, and the work of preparing the amending legislation is well advanced. Bills have been introduced to enable the fleet of Irish Shipping, Ltd., to be increased and to provide for additional expenditure by Bord na Móna and further Bills will be introduced to provide for additional expenditure by the E.S.B., to make available additional resources to the Industrial Credit Company Ltd. and to Bord Fáilte and to provide for the financing of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company. Other legislation which is in preparation will extend the functions of An Foras Tionscal, establish Córas Tráchtála as a permanent State agency, and give effect to the agreement providing for oil and natural gas exploration.

Consultations with agricultural, industrial, financial and other organisations are an essential preliminary to action in the case of such proposals as the improvement of agricultural credit facilities, the establishment of a meat research unit, the modernisation of bacon factories, etc. These consultations are proceeding.

The superphosphate subsidy was introduced with effect from the 1st September, 1958; the net cost this year is estimated at £500,000, and the Supplementary Estimate for Agriculture agreed to last week includes provision for this sum. Revised grants, approximately double those previously in force, have been made available for the construction of silos. Research into cattle breeding problems has been intensified and steps have been taken to expand the broiler industry. A Farm Management Survey will be started this year to improve the technical and economic efficiency of the farmer.

More attractive facilities for the purchase of fishing boats have been announced. The first part of the survey of fishery harbours has been completed. It is hoped that the construction of the first of two exploratory fishing vessels will commence shortly and £45,000 has been provided for this purpose in the 1959-60 Fisheries Estimate. Grants towards the cost of fish ponds have been announced.

The Industrial Credit Company has introduced and extended hire-purchase facilities and is prepared, in appropriate cases, to make available loans on terms which provide for deferred repayment of capital and for reduced interest rates. The organisation of the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards is being reviewed and the productivity committee foreshadowed in the White Paper has been established. A scheme is being prepared to assist private firms in the exploration and development of mineral deposits. It is hoped to announce shortly the details of the grants which will be made available for the development of major tourist resorts.

This brief survey, which does not, of course, cover all projects, gives some indication of the progress which has been made in implementing the Programme for Economic Expansion. I do not propose, on this occasion, to attempt any analysis of our general economic position and prospects. This, I think, is more appropriate to Budget time.

I shall confine myself to mentioning the provisions in the 1959-60 Estimates which relate to the Programme for Economic Expansion.

The first and largest is the provision in the Vote for Agriculture of £1,750,000 for subsidy on phosphatic fertilisers, following upon the initial provision of £500,000 included in the Supplementary Estimate for Agriculture which was agreed last week.

The other major increase in the Estimate for Agriculture relates to the bovine T.B. eradication scheme for which an additional gross sum of £1,680,000 is being provided. This represents a net additional provision of £936,000 when account is taken of receipts from the sale of cattle slaughtered under the scheme. It is vital that this scheme be pressed ahead with maximum speed in order to protect our productive capacity and external earning power. I have no doubt that Deputies will use every endeavour to impress on those concerned in the scheme and with whom they may be in contact the urgent need to bring the campaign to a successful and speedy conclusion.

There is a further increase in 1959-60 in the provision for the farm buildings scheme even as compared with the recently increased provision for the current year.

A total amount of £150,000 has been provided in the Vote for Tourism in respect of projects arising under the White Paper Programme. The principal item is £100,000 for resort development. The purpose of this provision is to defray the cost of schemes for the improvement of major tourist resorts. As already indicated, it is hoped to announce shortly details of the grants which will be made available. The other item is £50,000 for grants to encourage the provision of additional bedroom accommodation at tourist resorts.

The Vote for Fisheries contains various provisions in respect of projects arising out of the programme. On the sea fisheries side, £30,000 is included in the Grant-in-Aid of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara for grants for the additional boats mentioned in the White Paper. £100,000 is the total allocated for this purpose in the White Paper but £70,000 is provided for in the repayable advances from the Central Fund to the board and the balance is included here as grants. A provision of £34,000 is also included in this Grant-in-Aid for normal grants as distinct from grants for additional boats—these are grants of 15 per cent. of the cost, which the fishermen formerly had to borrow in full. In addition, this Grant-in-Aid includes a total sum of £37,800 in respect of grants for plant and premises. A further sea fisheries item is the amount of £45,000 being made available for the provision of an exploratory fishing vessel.

On the inland fisheries side a provision of £4,000 has been made for pond fish culture and the scheme of grants has already been announced. A sum of £4,000 is included for improvement of salmon fisheries in the subhead for contributions to the Salmon Conservancy Fund.

In the Vote for Public Works and Buildings the increase of £532,870 is attributable mainly to expanded programmes of arterial drainage and national schools building.

In the Aviation and Meteorological Services Vote the greater part of the increase is attributable to constructional works at Shannon and Cork Airports.

In the Estimate for Local Government an increased provision of £400,000 has been made for housing grants arising out of increases in these grants and extensions in their scope under the 1958 Housing Act. As Deputies are aware, grants for repairs and improvements are now available on a more generous scale.

I have already mentioned that part of the total increase in the Universities and Colleges Vote is to cover increased grants to University College, Cork, University College, Galway, and Trinity College, towards the provision of additional accommodation.

I have now given a general explanation of the non-capital and capital provisions contained in the Estimates for supply services for the coming year. The services for which provision is made in the volume represent expenditure undertaken on behalf of the citizens for the common good. I am satisfied that the changes as compared with the current year are changes which, on balance, are to the national interest, in the economic and social fields. I refer in particular to the increased provisions made for education in all its branches and for the improvement of agriculture, fisheries, industry and tourism. I ask the Dáil with confidence to agree to the Vote on Account.

Mr. McGilligan

The only thing I have been able to collect in the way of information from the speech the Minister has read is that he hopes that in the coming year, there will be a lot of people who will refuse to go into butter production to the same extent as they did last year. He asks us to accept the madness which, of course, affects this House round about this time of year in respect of C.I.E., and his hopes are based, as far as reductions are concerned, on the belief that C.I.E. will not require—or, at least, will not be given—the same amount of subvention as they had in earlier years for what are called capital schemes.

There is also a reference to this Programme for Economic Expansion and the Minister is right in saying that the programme has been very well received. It has been well received by the public: I wish it were better received by the Government and that they were in a position, even at this early stage, to give at least some idea of the results that may accrue to the benefit of the community from the expenditure of the money set out in the last few pages of the programme.

Finally, we have what is called "Aids to Education." The aids to education, in the main, are the provision of such sums as will enable the teachers and their various allied groups to buy more or less the same amount of food at something more than the old price, before the food subsidies were reduced. Those are the salient items as they appear to me in what I understood from the Minister's rather hurried reading of the matter he had before him.

It is just two years—all but a couple of days—since the Taoiseach, exulting in his victory at the polls, announced what he thought would be the openings for the future of those who corresponded with him. It is reported in the papers of the 8th of March, two years ago:—

"Commenting on the elections ...Mr. de Valera expressed his thanks to all who organised and worked for the success of Fianna Fáil."

Then he said:—

"The battle of the polls is over. I am glad the result has been decisive. We can, again, look forward to a stable Government. The battle with unemployment and the other economic ills from which the country is suffering has now to begin. We must as a people see to it that the result of this battle will be no less decisive. For that we shall need the combined effort of every section."

"Economic ills" were summed up in two newspaper accounts written, one about a year and the other about 18 months after that. One of those accounts set out the picture this way:—

"The shadow of unemployment grows darker every day; the population is steadily dwindling; emigration is threatening the existence of the race; people are eating into their savings and their capital. The external trade has been somewhat redressed, but this is largely due, on the one hand, to the cattle exports which are enjoying a prosperity that nobody can say will endure, and, on the other hand, to illusory benefits from other agricultural exports which are artificially maintained by costly subsidies."

Mr. J. Lynch

Would the Deputy give the reference, please?

Mr. McGilligan

It is from the Independent of March 8th, 1958, a year after the Taoiseach set out to conquer the economic ills of the country.

General Mulcahy

Be sure to look it up now.

Mr. J. Lynch

I just want to establish the identity of the newspaper.

General Mulcahy

The Minister can go and look it up. The Minister might read something the Cork Examiner says from time to time.

Mr. J. Lynch

I often do.

Mr. McGilligan

In the Sunday Independent of December 7th, 1958, the editorial writer said:—

"The man who is trying to make a living, the man who is bringing up a family, the housewife who is daily faced with the problem of making ends meet, are all much more concerned, and very properly and urgently concerned, with bread and butter. They look around them and they see the young men and women fleeing the land. The farmers are desperately and courageously endeavouring to put their industry on a sound basis. The businessman is watching the wolf approaching his door because of the oppressive demands of the national tax-gatherers and the local rate-collectors. The cost of living remains an economic nightmare. The building trade is depressed, and unemployment is driving whole families out of the country."

Those were the ills which the Taoiseach set out to cure. In the time of his glory and exultation, he had addressed a meeting at Limerick and he asked the people to:—

"make up their minds when it comes to pass judgment on politicians who come before them at election times, that they will be ruthless with those who lied to them and who tried to degrade the political life of this country to be a dirty political game."

An Ceann Comhairle

From what is that quotation?

Mr. McGilligan

The Independent, Sir, of November 19th, 1957.

General Mulcahy

But the words are the words of the Taoiseach.

Mr. J. Brennan

This is the banshee's wail.

Mr. T. Lynch

There are good reporters on the Independent.

Mr. McGilligan

I do not know that the Taoiseach will deny that he said that.

Mr. T. Lynch

They reported the Minister for Local Government properly here recently.

Mr. McGilligan

He asked the people to be "ruthless with those who lied to them and who tried to degrade the political life of this country to be a dirty political game."

I have a memory, though it is not my memory alone that I rely on, of the statements made with regard to subsidies—the statements made by the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and by the Minister for Justice. There is no necessity to quote the words, as they are so well known. The Taoiseach referred to the fact that there were stories going around that the Government intended to cut the subsidies. The Tánaiste referred to the same thing and wanted to know "how strong must be our contradictions of these falsehoods." The Minister for Justice described those rumours as "blood-curdling". All three agreed that Fianna Fáil had no intention of cutting the subsidies—not only that, but they did not believe in that sort of thing. We said it would happen; and it did not take very long to show how right we were in what we had prophesied. Unemployment and emigration are, I take it, two of the main things.

Mr. O'Malley

On a point of order, is it correct that the quotations or the references which Deputy McGilligan gives are not correct, in so far as the three speakers he purports to quote from qualified their statements by saying that it appeared to them there was no necessity for the removal of the subsidies, but that they did not yet know how bad exactly the national finances were?

An Ceann Comhairle

That has reference to what was said in the quotation: we only want to indicate where the matter appeared.

Mr. McGilligan

The statements have been made—they have been quoted often in this House and we can get the exact words if they would be any more pleasing to Deputy O'Malley. "We do not believe in these things, we have no intention of cutting the subsidies"—and yet they were cut. One has to inquire whether that benefited those who were looking for employment or those who wanted to get employment in our country.

Deputy Haughey committed himself last week to the statement that the people were better off. He said things were 50 times better off than last year.

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy repudiates that, but Monsignor Moloney was not repudiated in any paper I read afterwards. I heard many people commend him for what he said to bring the City of Limerick to the notice of people, including the notice of the Deputy. The parish priest of Ballyfermot, which is fairly near the area Deputy Haughey knows is 50 times improved, said around Christmas that there were 700 families destitute in Ballyfermot. If Deputy Haughey does not believe what the P.P. of that area said, would he address himself to some of the members of the St. Vincent de Paul who do their merciful errands around that area and listen to what they tell him with relation to the situation which is developing in one part of the city, the city which Deputy Haughey thinks is so much better off than before?

I asked for a count to be made of the people who were unemployed during the Fianna Fáil period from 1934 to 1947. I asked for it in different ways. The question was replied to on 29th October, 1958. I asked, in particular, for a record of the unemployed as ordinarily calculated without any reference to Employment Period Orders. I got a list giving the figures year by year from 1934 to 1947; and the situation there revealed is that from 1934 to 1942 unemployment ran at the steady level of 100,000 people. Although it dropped a little in the years after that, the tot from 1934 to 1947 shows 94,000 people regularly unemployed, and that at a time when, of course, emigration was proceeding fast.

This is the twentieth year in which the Taoiseach has headed the political Party having control of this country. Emigrants have been running at the steady rate of 50,000 per year all that time. Somewhere this year, we shall reach the millionth count of the citizens who have been deported from the country because of lack of provision for them by the Government who controlled this country from 1932 to 1947 and, with two intermittent periods, up to 1958.

We know what the situation was with regard to capital development all during the years from 1932 to 1947. Public moneys sought by way of loan amounted to about £1,500,000 per year over the 20-year period. Yet this country was in a state of stagnation illustrated by the fact that, as I say, an average of 100,000 people per year remained unemployed right through the whole period and there was a vast outpouring of people by way of emigration right through the whole period.

The Minister for Lands is not satisfied with the efforts that were made from 1948 to 1951. He thinks that people will now have to put up with 20 years of living at a lower standard —20 years at a definitely much lower standard of living. His only hope for this country is that he can persuade people to pay more for whatever goods are produced here, when they are sold at home for domestic consumption, so that manufacturers will be able to export cheaply and feed the foreigner at lower prices than we ourselves pay for what we ourselves produce.

In 1948 to 1951, for the first time since 1932, the curve of earnings and of wages rose above the cost-of-living curve. The workers paid for that in 1952 when they were subjected to all the penalties of the savage Budget introduced in that year. The people, according to the Minister for Finance of the day, Deputy MacEntee, were too well off. The increase in wages had outstepped the increase in the cost of living and there was no social or economic reason for continuing the subsidies. The first cut was made on them.

During our term in office, we inaugurated the capital development schemes. We have left that mark on the finances of the country. Notwithstanding the fact that those schemes were not liked and notwithstanding the fact that they were criticised, and criticised in a most defamatory way, they are being maintained or, rather, there is hope they will be maintained, if there is any sincerity behind the declared programme for development. We reduced emigration and we brought unemployment to the lowest point it ever reached since the State was founded.

Mr. Galvin

What about the £10,000,000 the Deputy was to save in ten months, or was it ten minutes?

Mr. McGilligan

I never said that. Will the Deputy get me the quotation?

Mr. MacEntee

It was £20,000,000.

Mr. McGilligan

I should like to get that one also.

General Mulcahy

They are merely trying to get Deputy McGilligan's eye off the present-day picture.

Mr. McGilligan

At the moment, the situation with regard to unemployment is serious. Deputy Briscoe, touring America on his own, told an American audience when he landed at an airport there that there was about 12 per cent. of our people unemployed; he said that, were it not for emigration, there would be 50 per cent. unemployed. Now, 12 per cent. is bad enough. I take that 12 per cent. to mean those who are potentially industrial workers, not counting as a labour force the farmers and their relatives who help them in the farming business. In that context, 12 per cent. is a staggering figure. In England recently, there was consternation and a Gallup poll indicated that what was revealed is likely to have a serious effect on the Government there.

Unemployment has risen to 630,000 odd; that is about 2.8 per cent. of the labour force. In America, unemployment has risen by 600,000 odd, which represents a total of 2 per cent. of their labour force. The Six Counties are regarded as a deeply depressed area. The unemployment there is about 7 per cent. Our unemployment figure runs at over 80,000 people and those 80,000 come from a labour force which has been desperately weakened and depleted by emigration over the last two years. In each of the past two years, there have emigrated from this country what would represent the normal tot for three years. One can easily understand how there could be a slight lessening in unemployment if one remembers that there have emigrated in two years what, at the ordinary level, would represent the figure for three years.

We had a policy with regard to wages. We did not think it was necessary to bring about national stagnation or national recession of production simply to keep wages low. Over the same two matters, people have been fighting a controversy in England. Some people believe that it is right to bring about a lack of expansion and even stagnation in the industrial development of England in order to trim the ambitions of the labour people. We never gave in to that idea. We introduced arbitration. We opened the arbitration tribunals to all State personnel. We favoured and fostered the idea of approach to the Labour Court, in order that, from 1948 to 1951, wages might be brought up with some approach to the increase in the cost of living. We were so successful that the curve of the increased wages crossed the curve of the cost of living in 1949.

We know that this policy was not approved of. When I was in the Ministry of Finance, not merely weekly but daily I got correspondence addressed to me from various people, bankers, finance houses, chambers of commerce and other bodies of that type, asking—the demands all ran on the same lines—that wages increases should be stopped, that the Labour Court should be closed down, the policy of arbitration abolished and that neither the State nor the local authorities should be allowed to engage any further in capital expenditure. I used to meet some of these people and I asked them if they realised the consequences of what they were asking because one cannot forget the free opening there was in the better conditions in England. I asked whether they desired a still greater diversion of our population to England than there was at that time. The answer I got was that it was my job as a politician to see to that, that they spoke purely from the angle of the economist. That was the cry, a cry that has been repeated in all the reports coming from capital advisory committees and all organisations of that sort. The line is an echoing of the 1952 Budget period, that people are too well off here and if they have money, they will spend it and if they spend it, there is difficulty with regard to imports drawn in from across the water and there may be some difficulty with regard to our balance of payments.

This which we face is the third effort Fianna Fáil has made since the standstill Order days to cut the standard of living of the people, to depress their standard of living by cutting wages because its effect in the end is a cutting of wages in that people must pay more for the things they must buy if they are to live. If we raise the cost of food, butter, flour, bread and the people get the same old wage which they used to get when these commodities were subsidised, they have less to spend on other things, and they will spend less on clothes and all the things that go to the adornment of a house and so the precious balance of trade will be kept right at the cost of an enormous amount of suffering to human beings in this country through the operation of such a policy.

I still cannot understand what happened to the money that was saved by the removal of the subsidies. I have two sheets here indicative of the Budget proposals of 1952 and 1957. The saving on food subsidies in 1952 was £6,668,000. There was a payment of compensatory benefit of £2,750,000, so that the net saving was over £4,000,000. In 1957, the saving on the food subsidies is down as £7.10 millions and there was a compensatory benefit at the rate of 1/- per seven days and the amount was calculated at almost £2,000,000. Taking this calculation, £4,000,000 was hacked out of the people's pockets by making them pay more for their food in 1952 and in 1957 we extorted from them another £5,000,000. But that is not the true picture.

I have the cover of the Book of Estimates for 1957-58, 1958-59 and the present volume. On the cover of the present volume, "Other Services" are down as costing £101,000,000 and in the Estimates for 1957-58—which we left to the present Government—"Other Services" were £102,000,000, a drop apparently so far as the Government are concerned, of £1,000,000, but do not forget that in the booklet for 1957-58 the subsidies were there. The subsidies were under two different heads, the heading for dairy products subsidies and the heading for food subsidies and the figure was £9,500,000. We were expending £9,500,000 on food and that swelled this total of the volume for 1957-58 to £102,000,000.

The figure now stands at £101,000,000 and not one penny piece has been paid of the £9,500,000 which we provided in the Book of Estimates for 1957-58. Where has the money gone? That saving is a saving to the State and not a saving to the people who still have to buy their foodstuffs, if they desire to live in this country.

The matter of rates is one of the matters referred to in one of the two editorials I have mentioned. The various local authorities are making up their accounts in order to strike their rate for the year. I have a list of a certain number that appeared in the last couple of days. Donegal has struck a rate of 48/3 in the £. It is up by 2/9 on last year and the county manager wanted an extra 2/4. He wanted the rate to be struck at 5/1 higher than the previous year.

In Louth, the actual rate struck is up by 1/5 and again the county manager wanted an extra 1/6, making a total of 3/1. In Mayo, the rate is at 45/-, up by 1/9, after the council had refused to grant the additional 2/- which the county manager required. Waterford is running at 40/9 which is an addition of 11½d. on last year, and the county manager wanted an extra 1/1½d. Limerick is being considered at 35/3, showing an increase of 4/3 on the previous year. Carlow farmers are, I see, staging a protest meeting against an increase of 4/9 in the rates which are now running at 35/3. This morning's paper has an announcement that Cork City is likely to see an increase of 4/8 and there will probably be an increase of 3/-. Wicklow stands out as good amongst all these. There is only an increase of 1/5 in the rate they are charging.

These are the economic ills of this country and can anybody say that life has been made easier for those fortunate enough still to remain in this country? We are harassed by the loss of friends, relatives possibly; harassed by emigration, harassed by those who are miserably signing on at the labour exchanges to the number of 83,000 or so, harassed by the increase in the cost of living, harassed still more possibly by increases in taxation arising from the Minister's present proposals, and harassed still more again by heavy increases in the rates. That is what has happened after two years battling against the evils of the Budget in 1957.

The Tánaiste, busying himself travelling around the world, has made many uneasy flights across to London and Paris. He stops at London to call in to see the British Minister of Agriculture in order to get assurances from him that our cattle trade—not always so beloved by the Tánaiste— would still be maintained at its present lucrative point for our farmers. Then he hies off to Paris where he makes the case that this country, with four others, should be given special treatment as being under-developed or undeveloped, amongst those who are clamouring about the Free Trade Area and the Common Market. Then he hies himself back here in order to tell us that we must think about abolishing our protective equipment for industries, but, while he is advising that, he adds on a few duties here and there by Imposition of Duties Orders that are made from time to time.

The one thing he is certain about is that there is to be no free market for agricultural produce, whatever agricultural produce this country may be capable of exporting. He says there will be no free market for agricultural produce, but unless we are deemed to be an under-developed country, we may have to abolish our protective machinery, built up at the cost of very much sweat and blood over so many years, and, of course, there will be a corresponding drop in our cost of living, if that should ever happen. Of course, it is not going to happen, but there will be a woeful increase in unemployment, much worse than in the worst days Fianna Fáil ever gave us.

We have aids to exports and for companies setting up to manufacture goods for export. Sites are to be given free. The rates are to be subsidised on new factories for export; the plant will get certain remissions; and income-tax on the profits that are made will be remitted for a number of years. What must be remembered is that while we are trying to subsidies exports out of this country, we are definitely subsidising the export of human beings, because, by the wage policy the Minister attempted to follow over the past couple of years—which has luckily broken down—there was a definite incentive being given to our people to leave this country and to go to England, where conditions were better, though they were often reported as being much better than they actually were.

One wonders in all this where is the aid to the main producer in this country? It is only to the industrialist who gears himself to export business that these aids are given—remission of rates, help in regard to plant, help in regard to sites, and remission of income-tax for five years on whatever profits he may make in regard to exports. What is the farmer getting? The farmer has kept this country going over all the years, and often in the face of the hostility of previous Fianna Fáil Governments. The former Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon, has often said that in ten years the agricultural exports from this country doubled in volume and trebled in value. Yet what aid does the farmer get? He is paying more rates than ever he paid before. The price of his food has been increased by Government action. The price of his clothes has gone up. Of about 200 items that go to make up the cost-of-living index figure over 150 items have been increased in cost since the Government took office, and the farmer buys his share of all these dearer things.

The farmer now claims an increase in the price of milk. He thought he was promised an increase in the price of wheat. He certainly had been promised an increase in the price of barley, and there is a scheme for subsidising grade A pigs. The farmer has been disappointed in all these things, milk, wheat, barley and grade A pigs. These all cost more than they used to, and the farmer has to stand by and see, while industries live on his exportable surpluses, he is not assisted in his economic or domestic life to produce any better or greater exportable surplus than he did before. All this time we are deluding ourselves that there is to be a vast outbreak of industrialisation, particularly in the Shannon area.

Deputy Haughey told a meeting in January of last year that there was a tendency for Americans and Canadians to come into Ireland as a springboard into the Free Trade Area. He said, and it is almost repetitive, that many Americans and Canadians were investigating the possibility of setting up factories here because Ireland would be inside the Free Trade Area. Deputy Briscoe, on landing in America, however, said that the situation at home was not good. He said, to put it mildly, it was bad. We were unable to absorb our unemployed in industries and consequently our emigration figures were at the highest peak. We had about 80,000 unemployed and if the percentage were 50 per cent., that figure would be 350,000, were it not for emigration.

On his way home, the same Deputy told us he had five prospects for industrial development in this country. They included a chewing gum company which was considering establishing a factory at Shannon, a shirt manufacturer and a company thinking of building motels. He boasted that his progress in America had increased exports to America fourfold. He told the people in America that they should never think we would have a depression in this country because we had never been prosperous enough to be faced with a depression.

We have various manufacturing industries being talked of at present. One is a factory to manufacture skittle ball alleys. I see that Dr. Adenaur was operating one of those, sent out, of course, as a sample to a firm. We were told at one time that certain firms were thinking of establishing a juke-box manufacturing industry at Shannon. We know that somebody intends to do big business at Shannon and there is some scheme, I understand, for starting the breeding of chinchillas there. That is the new industrial development, juke boxes, skittle ball alleys and chewing gum factories.

Mr. O'Malley

We are exporting the rabbits that Deputy Dillon at one time said would be running wild around Shannon.

Mr. McGilligan

There is one person, very like a rabbit, who runs a bit wild around this House. I wish we could export him. What folly is this about these things! Let them be developed—it will be at least something —but I am thinking of the days when the industrial exports of this country covered three big groups of industries, and they were very valuable. Guinness used to do their main brewing here; Jacobs did most of their biscuit production here, even for consumption abroad; and we had a marvellous industrial development in the way of tweeds, the reputation of which was world-wide. The last report I saw of the Guinness firm indicated that half their profits had been made on what they produced here, no matter where it was consumed, and half from what was produced elsewhere.

Fianna Fáil helped to drive that group out. Fianna Fáil were definitely responsible for making Jacobs transfer part of their production to England and the Fianna Fáil policy of tariffs, of course, induced those who used to make tweeds for the foreign market to concentrate on the easier market at home. We have lost three big industrial exports and it will take many years of all these helps and aids before we will—if we ever do—laboriously come near to equating the prosperity that used to be here in these things and the results we got from it.

I noticed in the last debate about remuneration of civil servants that the question of employment as opposed to unemployment was raised here. I have this quarterly industrial inquiry sent round to Deputies from time to time and I see that the number of people engaged in manufacturing industries, the average number for the four quarters of 1956 was 145,000 people. The average for the four quarters of 1957 was 140,000 people and the average number for the four quarters of 1958 was 142,000 people. There are more unemployed; there are more emigrating; and there are fewer in the manufacturing industries. Now we are told everything will be all right if we go according to the White Paper.

The White Paper has two appendices, Appendix I and Appendix II. Appendix I is the full public capital expenditure inclusive of the additional expenditure in Appendix II. Appendix II certainly represents schemes and projects that we had or that we had established in 1948 in the main, so that if there is anything new, it is to be found in Appendix I—"Development Proposals." These new items run to £53,000,000 in five years at £10,000,000 a year. What are they? In agriculture, there is to be credit provided through the Agricultural Credit Company, £7,500,000. There is to be subsidisation of phosphate fertilisers, £6,500,000. I suggest that this £6,500,000 will not add one person to the employed community of the State. It will undoubtedly make for better productivity and we may have a better exportable surplus, but so far as employment is concerned it does not matter.

There is to be an expansion of credit through the Industrial Credit Corporation of £17,500,000, and there is to be the famous nitrogenous fertiliser factory, costing £7,000,000. That is £38,000,000 of the £53,000,000 built up in the provision of credit through the Agricultural Credit Company and the Industrial Credit Corporation, in the hope of course that people will avail themselves of that credit, if it is made available. But can anybody say that is a programme for development? It is certainly not a plan. There is certainly a target in it to the extent that it says: "We will give so much money and we hope people will come along and avail themselves of it."

It represents, of course, a vast increase in the use made up to the present of either the Agricultural Credit Company or the Industrial Credit Corporation. It is a sevenfold increase in one case and a fourfold increase in the other, but who is optimistic enough to believe that will take place? The subsidisation of phosphate fertilisers is a good thing, but looking at it from the employment angle, it does not matter. The nitrogenous fertiliser proposal has come up again and it is amazing to see it recur. I think if a proper tot were made, a proposal for a nitrogenous fertiliser factory came before the Department of Agriculture at five separate times and four Fianna Fáil Ministers for Agriculture, including, I think, the present Minister for Finance, turned down the project. Deputy Dillon, when he was Minister for Agriculture, refused to have it. Is there something new about this project? Has any new development occurred? Is there some way of getting nitrogenous fertilisers produced more cheaply than the scheme originally forecast, because if not, either this £7,000,000 will not be spent or if it is spent, we will find ourselves in respect of nitrogenous fertilisers in the same position as we are in now in regard to butter. We will have to export about half the production annually to make such a factory an economic unit and that after charging the farmers more for fertilisers at higher subvented prices, if we are to try to get into competition with Imperial Chemicals for the sale of this material elsewhere.

That is the additional expenditure that is proposed—£14,000,000 between the two items for agriculture, £17,500,000 in respect of the increase in agricultural credit and credit for industry and £7,000,000 for the fertiliser factory. It does not leave much in the way of new capital expenditure in this famous White Paper. One could, and one must later investigate and analyse what is contained in Appendix II to see how far are these fictitious or real items. But that is the programme for economic expansion. If one thought it was well accepted by the present ministerial group and that it was to be effectively put into practice, there might be a little residuum of hope, but previous performances of Ministers over the years from 1932 to 1947 and their attitude of welcoming stagnation and being afraid of development and afraid of wages that would be spent on development does not give one much hope that the programme will be given effect to.

This is the Presidential year; it is the year in which we must elect a new President and the Taoiseach puts himself forward as a candidate. He leaves all the economic ills that were in his mind when he spoke on 8th March of two years ago by no means remedied. I do not believe that they are to any degree lessened. Somewhere around the middle of this year, somewhere about now, he hits the 20th year of his control of this country, and emigration has been running at about 50,000 a year in all that time. So somewhere this year we shall have reached the point where the one-millionth person will have left the country.

There is a system I know that when a cinema or an airline gets its one-millionth patron, they generally give him some present. Does the Taoiseach think he is deserving of the Presidential office because in his time he has exported 1,000,000 people? Or because in the last two years he has increased the rate of emigration to a higher figure than was ever reached before and when the situation is, and the calculation has been made, that of every three people born in the country now two are destined to die abroad?

Of those who remain, whether in employment or otherwise, the position as revealed by the provisions of the Health Act is this: under the Health Act, people are entitled to free medical services, if they possess this peculiar qualification—that they are unable by their industry or other lawful means to provide any part of the medical requirements of themselves and their families and the calculation has been accepted that that applies to 1,000,000 people out of the less than 3,000,000 we have in the country.

One million of our people are reduced to the position that their industry or other lawful means do not allow them sufficient to have imposed on them the obligation of providing any part of the medical requirements of themselves or their families.

Mr. Galvin

On a point of explanation, Deputy McGilligan referred to the quotation of 10th May, 1952. He said in that quotation that if they could get the present Government out before the 1st July, a new Minister for Finance could then save £1,000,000 a minute.

Mr. McGilligan

We did not get the Government out at that point. I wanted to bring that quotation out because it depended on a certain condition. However, within four years, we were able to knock off £7,000,000 in less than seven minutes.

Mr. T. Lynch

This Government have been in office for just two years and we have to consider what was their policy over those two years and try to define what is their policy at the moment. We understood, when we came in here and when Fianna Fáil formed the very strong Government they have at present, that we would be the busiest House of Parliament in the world carrying out the work that Fianna Fáil promised during the election. They said that they could put the people to work, that they would get cracking and that it was only a matter of giving them the opportunity.

Now they have been in office for two years and instead of doing what they promised to do they went into the red-herring business in a big way. We had the Tánaiste saying that he had £100,000,000 up his sleeve, but when he got into office and had eaten a few chambers of commerce dinners, that amount turned into £250,000,000.

Then they brought up the question of the European Free Trade Area. This was to be another of their solutions for our problems. It was to be a wonderful thing, but any ordinary man in the street knew that whatever else we were tied to, we were tied to Great Britain as far as imperial preference, to use the old term, was concerned. We were enjoying imperial preference in the British market and if we allowed certain continental countries to send their manufactured products in here on the same terms as British products, we would lose our imperial preference in their markets.

We were told about all the Canadians and Americans who were to invest in industry here. That was two years ago, and since then they have not come along in any numbers that would make any impact on our unemployment problem. We were told, when the Minister for Finance introduced his first Budget, that he had allocated £250,000 for the expansion of our markets abroad. I should like to know if there is any report about that £250,000. I put down a question here last year when about 15 months had gone by and only a couple of thousand pounds had been spent by that time.

Mr. O'Malley

On a point of order, Sir, I should like to point out that there is not one member of the Labour Party present in the House.

General Mulcahy

That is a point of ignorance.

I should like to draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that there is not a quorum.

Mr. J.A. Costello

There are only six members of Fianna Fáil in the House now.

General Mulcahy

Who is responsible for keeping a quorum? What is the object of keeping a quorum when it is the Government's policy to interrupt and disconcert Opposition Deputies who are making constructive contributions to the debate? Is it in order for Ministers to interrupt Deputies when speaking?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is a quorum present. Interruptions, no matter from what side of the House they come, are disorderly and the Chair will endeavour to see that they do not continue.

General Mulcahy

The interruptions came first from a back bencher of the Government Party and were followed by interruptions from Ministers.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Lynch is in possession.

Mr. T. Lynch

I did not agree with Deputy O'Malley's point of order. He never had a point of order and this is only another red herring. I said that £250,000 had been allocated to expand the markets of this country. What happened to that money? Was it just another red herring to draw the people's attention away from all the fundamental difficulties facing the country? The people on the opposite benches, if they had £250,000,000 to spend, would not know what to do with it. They would not know how to spend it in a proper way or how to set up an organisation to have it invested in a proper way.

They have been two years in office, the two years after which they said that everything would be in hand. They have a majority that no Government in this country ever had before. No matter what Bill is brought in here, they have a majority big enough to pass it. In spite of that, they have not produced any policy, but they did get a member of the Civil Service, a very eminent gentleman, to produce this programme of economic expansion. I should like to say that I suspect that this was produced only to draw people's attention away, to give them something to read. On reading it, I agree with most of it, because most of it is Fine Gael policy.

Mr. Kitt

Oh!

Mr. T. Lynch

Oh, oh! I am glad I got that from the Deputy, as that is all they ever say over there. They are able to make only that sound.

Mr. Galvin

Is that so?

Mr. T. Lynch

There is Demosthenes for you. This White Paper produced by the Government now tells what we could do to improve our grassland. I remember the Minister for Agriculture in the inter-Party Government being hounded to death as the "Minister for Grass" by the Fianna Fáil catch-cry men all over the country.

Mr. MacEntee

We had better not talk about that. That is not so.

Mr. T. Lynch

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think that would be a matter for the Estimate and not for the Vote on Account.

Mr. T. Lynch

Mr. T. Lynch

There is nothing personal in that. With all due respect, when the day comes that criticising a Minister will be regarded as tantamount to indulging in personalities Parliament will be finished.

There is a provision of £25,000 for the sale and expansion of various products. We are told our main market is Britain. Sometimes Ministers say the most uncomplimentary things about Britain, its people and its Government. Two days later, or perhaps a day later, they state publicly they want to improve our market in Great Britain and we should do everything we can to promote a better understanding. That was stated recently by the Minister for Industry and Commerce at a very important chamber of commerce dinner here in Dublin, and on at least two other occasions. Consider his attitude towards Great Britain and its traders. He was not very long in office when he brought in a Bill to prevent anybody here buying tea from an English merchant in Mincing Lane. That was not good policy. How would we like it if a British Minister brought in a Bill in the British House of Commons to prevent Englishmen buying Irish cattle from Irish cattle dealers? Simultaneously with bringing in that Bill to confine the tea trade to five nominees of his own here in Dublin, he was looking for European free trade. Probably the Minister for Finance thinks I am being personal again. I hope he will pardon me; there is nothing personal in this. If we intend to do business with Britain—I hope we do so intend—we ought to stop this anti-British nonsense that goes on, especially on Government platforms.

On the famous day on which the Minister for Finance read his first Budget here, he mentioned that a sum of £55,000 would be allotted for the development of the fisheries at Dunmore East. I was delighted because I have always believed that my constituency has always got the thinnest slice of cake. On that auspicious occasion, we were actually mentioned in the Budget statement. That night, on the radio, I and all those who listened heard the statement repeated. We read it the next day in newspapers. Before the Estimates concluded, however, I got a smell of stinking fish. I asked the Minister for Fisheries, for Lands, for Forests, and so on, what was the position. I was told that Dunmore East was getting £5,000 and that the £55,000 had been a misprint. That was all the satisfaction we got.

Greater care should be taken in the preparation of the Budget statement. No Minister should make a mistake of £50,000. We had copies of the statement over here and the figure was clearly £55,000. A short time afterwards, a fish factory was erected in Galway. It has never functioned. Is that the kind of policy that is being inaugurated now? If enough pressure is brought to bear, installations of various kinds will be erected in constituencies, irrespective of whether or not they are likely to pay? Now, I will stand over the results as far as the returns from Dunmore East for the past four or five years are concerned. The Government's policy in relation to fisheries is plain poppycock—putting fish factories where there is enough political pressure.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That again is a matter for the Estimate on fisheries.

Mr. T. Lynch

It is very important in relation to policy. Apart from that, I have seen hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on various installations throughout the country, in places where the installations were not necessary at all and despite requests for installations of the same kind in areas where the installations were necessary and where they would be a paying proposition. But these areas were ignored.

I had, perhaps, the rather infelicitous acuteness to refer to the Labour Party as the tail-end of the Coalition. I was rapped on the knuckles by Deputy Mulcahy for so expressing myself. I now take it that, if they were not the tail-end, they must have been the head and intelligence and driving force behind the last Coalition. Yet, in a debate of this sort, one would have expected that the general line of criticism or perhaps of commendation which the Labour Party proposed to pursue in the course of the debate, would have been laid down for us by the Leader of the Party.

Having listened to what Deputy McGilligan had to say on behalf of the Fine Gael Party, and hoping to have heard from Deputy Norton on behalf of the Labour Party, I had intended to follow. It is necessary for me to make that explanation in view of the suggestion made by Deputy Mulcahy that the Government are failing in their duty to the House. After all, surely it is the duty of the Government to listen to the criticisms which can be made against its policy and, if possible, to refute them. We have not heard from Deputy McGilligan any criticism of the Government's policy; we have not heard from Deputy Norton any criticism of the Government's policy, for the simple reason that he was not here to criticise. We have heard some criticism from Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Lynch. I do not want to pursue Deputy Lynch's speech. I shall only say that, having prepared it last night and to-day, he was, so to speak, wide off the beam, in that he addressed himself to controversies which were settled as far back as the years 1932 and 1933.

I listened to part of Deputy McGilligan's speech and I ask any member of the House who heard the speech to tell me what it was about, what relevance, short of the consideration which is extended by the Chair to all members of the House on an occasion such as this, had it to the present situation? We had the old tirade of misrepresentation. We were told what somebody said in 1952 or even earlier. We were told about the emigration which Fianna Fáil had caused. We were told about the stagnation which Fianna Fáil had caused. We had in short—and I think it is a rather charitable description of Deputy McGilligan's effort—a regurgitation of all the red herrings that have characterised the speeches of the Opposition since they were displaced from office in 1932. We had arguments made about the subsidies which, as was pointed out by Deputy O'Malley, were highly selective statements which were fallacious, in so far as they told only half the truth.

We were told that in the past two years, emigration had reached a rate which was the equivalent of what had been regarded by Deputy McGilligan as the rate representing total emigration over three years. That is a very interesting statement coming from Deputy McGilligan. If, in two years, the emigration from this country had equalled what it would have been in three years, one must ask oneself how did that situation come about.

It is not easy to drive people out of any country. It is not easy to coerce people, who are in a settled way of life and who have a substantial business, to the conclusion that there is a better future awaiting them outside this country than they can ever hope to attain here. Yet that is exactly what did happen here in the years 1955 and 1956, and it was mounting to a peak in the beginning of 1957. I, of my own knowledge, know that there were people, men who were in a good way of business in this country, men with families, who said to themselves that under the Coalition there was no future for themselves and their children. They sold their businesses and went elsewhere. I think they are very sorry now that they took that step, but the tide of which they were a part began to rise in the years 1955 and 1956, and possibly may have reached a peak about the middle of 1957.

It has been receding ever since and in the year 1958, in the second year after the Coalition went out of office, the outflow of emigration from this country has come under control and has been vastly diminished. The reason it has been vastly diminished is, first of all, that there have been changes on the other side of the water. We may as well be candid and frank about these things. Conditions in Great Britain do not seem to be as attractive now as they were is 1956 and 1957, as compared with conditions which existed here; but the great reason why people are not emigrating in the volume in which they did, in the numbers in which they did in the year 1956 and in the early part of 1957, is that they have begun again to regain hope in the future of their own country. They have regained that hope because of the policy which has been pursued by the Fianna Fáil Party, and because of the success which has attended the efforts of this Government to undo the evils manifested for the second time in Coalition Government.

Deputy McGilligan said they had a policy in regard to wages and that they did not think it necessary to bring about national recession. If that is the case, why, at the end of 1956—why, as a matter of fact, in the early spring of 1956—did the Minister for Finance in the second Coalition feel called upon to come in here and impose the special levies which marked the first stage in a severe deflationary policy? Why did he follow that in the late autumn of 1956 by a second special levy, again imposing severe deflation upon the economy of this country? Why did he do that if, as Deputy McGilligan says, the Government of the day did not believe that it was necessary for them to create a recession? Was it not to put a curb on the inflation about which they were warned in the middle of 1955 when they reintroduced the subsidisation for tea, and which inevitably followed upon the policies on which they then embarked? I do not say that the Coalition Government willingly created that situation in 1956; I do not say that the Coalition Government desired that the economic dislocation which followed upon their policy would be brought about. I do not say that they wanted to have unemployment in this country. I do not believe that for a moment, but they found themselves in this situation that, unless the State and the whole economy were to go bankrupt, unless we were to have financial chaos and confusion rampant throughout the country, they had to take steps in 1956 to undo the evils which they had initiated with their policy in 1955.

I remember the advent of the first Coalition in 1948. We can all recall the speech of the Tánaiste, on the occasion upon which Deputy Costello became Taoiseach, when he pointed out the sound condition in which this country was being handed over, the enterprises upon which we had embarked, the fact that our credit was standing possibly the highest in Europe, and that our dead weight national debt was modest by any standards then current in the world. He said to the Taoiseach: "We are handing this country over to you in good condition; make certain that you hand it back to us likewise". There was no problem then about balance of payments, at least not any that did not reflect the running down of stocks which was imposed upon us during the war years, and the backlog of technical development which again the war had imposed upon us.

But the deficit on external account was a modest one by comparison with what subsequently followed. It was, I think, of the order of £29,000,000. In the middle of 1948, the then Taoiseach and present Leader of the Opposition, informed the country that, in his opinion, the fact that this deficit had begun to manifest itself was a serious matter and that drastic steps would have to be taken to remedy the situation and put our financial position again in balance.

That, of course, was a preliminary to the policy which was then initiated by the first Coalition, the policy of deliberately creating a recession, because in this case it was deliberately created. The policies of economic development which had been initiated by Fianna Fáil immediately after the war, from 1945 to 1957, were drastically curtailed. Two instances occur to me. We had decided, having regard to the advantages of our geographical situation, that we would get into the air transport industry. We had an excellent opportunity of coming in then on the ground flour. We bought three Constellations which were then, as I think yet, the leading passenger-carrying aircraft in the world. We were ready to initiate one of the first transatlantic passenger services. Everything was set for commencing that service on St. Patrick's Day, 1947. These arrangements, however, were scrapped; the Constellations were sold and sold at a profit showing the potential opportunity which other people saw in the development of air transport across the Atlantic.

With the sale of the Constellations, something else happened. The repair and maintenance depot which was to be established at Shannon by one of these large American aircraft manufacturers and which would have given employment, we were informed, to at least 400 men skilled and semi-skilled, was strangled. That was the first manifestation of the attempt to impose a deliberately restrictive policy on our people.

The next thing that happened was this: in 1940-1941 it had been decided to try to ascertain what was the real value of the mineral deposits in Wicklow. During the war, the exploration work was carried out under circumstances of great difficulty and danger—in fact, I think, men lost their lives in that work—for the Government of the time had no adequate plant and no skilled personnel and were faced with the situation that there was a deposit there honeycombed with old workings of which there was no permanent record. We were setting out to explore these in the same way as a person might set out to cross the Antarctic, but we persevered. From 1941 until 1947, that work was carried out under circumstances often of great difficulty and when other people might have given up and said: "We will abandon the idea; we can find nothing worth while here." But it was carried on until the year 1948 when, for the sake of saving a paltry £50,000 and showing what spendthrifts the Fianna Fáil Governments who preceded it had been, the Coalition shut down that exploration work for many months. They were induced to resume the exploration only under pressure from their own supporters in County Wicklow. They carried it on in a half-hearted manner from 1948 to 1951. Incidentally, when we came in again, we pursued that exploration and we succeeded in proving that there was such a considerable body of ore there that it could be exploited profitably and economically. When the Government changed again in 1954, we had reached the stage at which proposals for the economic opertion and exploitation of the Wicklow deposits could be received and were being sought from competent organisations.

There is the policy of deflation which was being deliberately pursued when Deputy McGilligan was active as Minister for Finance from 1948 until some date in 1950 when he went on a sit-down strike—and this is the Deputy who got up here, and, relying, I suppose, on the ignorance of the people in regard to these matters, relying on the fact that the public have forgotten all about the circumstances —and I suppose he will be reported to-night on the radio—said that he did not think it necessary to bring about national recession.

That was alleged against us, but, at least, in the year 1954, when our position was certainly difficult in Dáil Éireann, we did publish the Book of Estimates and let the people see what State expenditure would be for the year 1954-55. We did have a debate on the Vote on Account, in which the Opposition had a full field of misrepresentation to range over. We did bring in a Budget in June, 1954, and the people had an opportunity of seeing for themselves what their fate was to be. Why did the second Coalition not pursue that course? I do not know what internal difficulties there may have been; I have heard the Coalition was not always a happy family—I have heard that—but, whatever the reason was, there was no justification that would appear to any person of common sense for dissolving the Dáil in February of 1957 and keeping the people in the dark as to what the real financial position of the country was.

Now, we inherited that situation. We inherited a budgetary deficit of almost £11,000,000. We had two successive heavy deficits in our balance of payments—one in 1955 and one in 1956. In addition, unemployment was running at a rate that had not been attained for over 20 years previously. Deputy McGilligan talked here to-day and he mentioned a figure of 100,000 people on the live unemployment register when we were in office. That situation had not developed at any time when we were in office. People did register in substantial numbers for employment in 1933 and 1934 when we made it quite clear that certain useful works would be carried out where the unemployment situation seemed to warrant them. People accordingly registered for employment in the hope that, by doing so, they would get useful works done in their area for their community without cost to themselves.

In January, 1957, the actual number on the unemployment register was 94,600 persons, all but the 100,000 Deputy McGilligan talked about. It fell to 92,600 in February, and to-day the number is far below that. On 20th February, the number on the total live register was 70,806—a reduction of almost 30 per cent. on the figure which Deputy McGilligan left behind him.

Mr. Lindsay

Does the Minister attribute any of that to emigration?

Yes, the success of the National Loan. Everything has improved. The rates at which our stocks are now being marketed indicate that public confidence has been restored. I have here the Financial Times for 13th February, 1959. No one can say that the Financial Times does not look rather objectively at this country and here is what it has to say. The heading is: “Ireland on the Turn” and the leading article begins:—

"The Irish economic scene looks considerably more promising now than it did a couple of years ago."

A couple of years ago was 1956-57 when the Coalition were last in office. It goes on:—

"The recovery in employment and business activity, therefore, imposed little or no strain on the reserves and appears to be continuing steadily."

It goes on to talk about the White Paper and says that the:—

"rate of national income growth is sufficiently realistic for the widespread optimism it has created to be well founded."

I have kept the House perhaps unduly. I do not wish to weary it. I did not intend to rise so soon. I hoped, as I said at the beginning, we would hear some expression of view from the Leader of the Labour Party or some authoritative speaker on his behalf. We have not heard from them and I have to content myself with dealing with the criticisms of the existing situation made by Deputy McGilligan. I have shown that these criticisms are hollow, unscrupulous and mendacious in the extreme.

General Mulcahy

The Minister was not in a great hurry to follow him.

Mr. MacEntee

On the other hand, I have read to the House the judgment of an impartial observer. I could give quotations from many other sources, but, as I say, I have detained the House too long. I want to say I feel, and most people agree that it was a very good thing for this country that Deputy Costello fled from the responsibilities of his office in February of 1957, when he called for a general election.

Mr. Kyne

When I considered speaking in this debate, I did not think I would be called so early, so the Minister for Health can keep the sympathies he was expressing for Deputy Lynch for me. The Leader of the Labour Party intends to take part in this debate and intends to give the Labour reactions to the speech on this Vote on Account made by the Minister for Finance. Certain circumstances over which he had no control deprived him of the opportunity of giving the Minister for Health the advantage of hearing him. I do not know that that is a crime, but I am just stating that Deputy Norton intends to take part in the debate and to give his views. I am not nor is any other Deputy being put in as a substitute for him. Our views are the views we express as individual Deputies of a Party.

As I was saying, when I decided to speak, I debated with myself as to how I should open and it struck me that in the past ten years during which time I have been a member of Dáil Éireann, on the debates on Votes on Account, we had the experience of Deputies on both sides shifting the blame for all that befell the country in the past from the shoulders of one to the other. We had recriminations as to who started the civil war. We had denouncements of Ministers and ex-Ministers which did nothing but lead to confusion and doubt throughout the country and caused the public to distrust politicians as, undoubtedly, they have come to do at the present day.

The speech which the Minister for Health has just delivered has convinced me that that certainly was not the correct line, because in no way did he attempt to deal with the present economic position, with the future, and with what the year has in store for us. Rather, he went back to the Shannon scheme of 1924 and to the various other half-truths, half-lies, doubtful quotations and suggestions that something underhand was done by people who were previously in charge of the Government of the country. Surely, if he can get the people to believe that, the very same people will believe the same type of suggestion coming from this side of the House at the present day.

General Mulcahy

Hear, hear!

Mr. Kyne

I suggest that is a disservice to the country and, in the few words I propose to contribute to the debate, I shall not in any way attempt to follow that line, but I shall try to express either approval or disapproval of what, in fact, is proposed in this Vote on Account, and leave the past where I believe it should be left. Let us all look forward in the future to try to improve this country as we all want it to be improved. I listened to the Minister's opening speech very carefully. It struck me as cold, calculated and devoid of any promise or hopes. By means of the manipulation of figures, he sought to prove that £5,500,000 increased expenditure on the Estimates was, in fact, not an increase at all, but a decrease on the figure needed for 1958-1959.

Perhaps it is my inability to follow his reasoning, or the fact that when figures are read out, it is not so easy to follow them, but it has struck me that it must be pretty clear to everybody that, whether or not there is an increase or a decrease as compared with 1958-59, certainly had the food subsidies not been withdrawn, and had they to be included in the Estimate to allow for the subsidisation of the necessary foods of the people, the sum we are now being asked to vote would be considerably higher. In 1957, when the food subsidies were withdrawn those of us on the Labour Benches pointed out that it was likely the organised workers, the trade unions, would demand and would secure compensation from the various industries with which they were connected. As the members of the Dáil are aware, that has taken place, and practically 500,000 workers have secured, at the expense of private industry, the compensation necessary to make up for the withdrawal of the subsidies.

What did this mean in actual fact? It meant that private industry was being called upon to pay part of the money that had heretofore been provided out of Government funds, and I suggest that the consequent increase in the cost of exported articles is reflected in the fact that in the year just passed, notwithstanding the exhortations and pressure for an export drive, our exports are actually lower than in the previous year. The Minister, in announcing the various headings of the Vote, in pointing out the various increases, has made it clear that many of the increases are simply a reluctant repayment by the Government of the amount of money necessary to offset the increase in the cost of living, a repayment that was wrung from them by the various organisations representing Government employees. Nowhere could I find any hope, or any promise of dealing with what we must all admit is a serious economic position for the country, beyond the Minister's statement that the White Paper on economic policy was to be implemented.

While it is agreed that the White Paper is sound and could be made to bear fruit—something we would all like—the immediate indications, and the outlook for the year, seem to hinge upon the promise that a shipyard will be established at Haulbowline to provide for the building of ships in three or four years' time, and that an alteration in policy is taking place at Shannon Airport. The policy of catering for passenger traffic is now being altered to deal with freight, and to encourage that, provision is to be made so that a continuance of the employment given there will be assured. These two things seem to be complete and separate issues, but I suggest that there is a connection. If it is true that increased freight by airlift from the United States and other places is to be the order of the day, then it would indicate that a policy of improving our shipping to the extent of an expenditure of £5,000,000 on a shipyard is a shortsighted one.

The expenditure of a vast sum like £5,000,000 on shipbuilding can only be contemplated on a long-term policy that ships and shipbuilding will be in urgent demand for a long time to come. If that is so, then it is ridiculous to believe that we are justified in our increased expenditure at Shannon, in seeking to provide for increased freight by airlift. I believe that the improvements at Shannon are good and are essential, but I have grave doubts, though I wish it well, as to the wiseness of the course of devoting money to the development of shipbuilding in this country, at this late period in that traffic.

In the Estimates for 1959-60, no provision is being made for subvention to C.I.E. This follows upon the Transport Bill passed here some months ago. Under that Bill, the Government shed the responsibility of finding the money to keep that industry in being. They gave the green light to the manager of C.I.E. to discard the nonprofit making portions of the company's activities, irrespective of the effects on the workers employed in that industry. I suggest that if C.I.E. are deprived of what money is necessary to keep that industry on its feet, we can have no other result than a repetition of what has happened in the Dundalk Engineering Works, and that vast unemployment will follow in the years to come. That seems a poor outlook for the 70,000 unemployed people who have been awaiting the fulfilment of the promise of the Government that they would be put back to work.

If the Transport Act had not been passed some months ago, we would to-day have to find some figure of approximately £2,000,000 in the present Estimates and consequently we would have been asked to-day to pass an increased Vote on Account. Taking the abolition of the food subsidies and the withdrawal of the subsidies to C.I.E. into account and putting these at a figure of some £6,000,000, together with the £5,500,000 increase we have here, we find almost £12,000,000 more is being spent on government now compared with 1956. At the same time, emigration continues and an admitted 70,000 are unemployed.

It is amusing, were it not such a tragedy, to hear the Minister for Social Welfare passing over emigration with the simple statement that it has stopped because the people now have confidence in the Government. Replying to Deputy Lindsay, I think, he said: "I have dealt with emigration long ago. Everybody knows that emigration is now practically solved." I wonder did the Minister read the Cork Evening Echo of November 14th, 1958? The heading said “40,497 Irish Emigrants in Britain This Year.” Underneath it read:—

"Mr. Ernest Davies (Labour) asked the Minister for Pensions and National Insurance in the House of Commons what was the number of people arriving from the Irish Republic who applied for National Insurance cards for the first time during 1958 to the latest date available.

Miss Edith Pitt, Parliamentary Secretary, in a written reply said: In the period January 1st to October 31st, 1958, the number of people arriving from the Irish Republic who applied for National Insurance cards for the first time was 40,497."

In a period of ten months, 40,497 people who had never previously held an English insurance card left this country seeking employment and the Minister says: "The people have confidence in us: the people are not emigrating".

It is quite true that the Taoiseach announced that half of those who go come back. While admitting there was no reliable means of knowing the number who went, he was able to announce calmly that half of them returned. He must be living in a dream world; if he went anywhere through the country he would hear of emigration. His Ministers who do go through the country surely hear the people talking about the emigration that is taking place. In the little town in which I live, with a population of a little more than 5,000 people, in the past 12 months, some 400 workers left to seek employment in Britain, according to the figures kept by the trade union office there. In my own immediate neighbourhood, in the past four months, four families comprising over 23 people, man, wife and child, left that village.

I am appealing to the workers, when that day comes, not to forget the Minister's speech to-day in which he put forward no solution for the problems of emigration, unemployment or the cost of living.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present.

Mr. Haughey

The Book of Estimates which has just been published shows an increase of £4,482,000 in the Estimates for the coming year, as compared with 1958-59. I should like to draw attention to the fact that, of this increase, no less than £2,687,000 is applicable to capital services. If we examine the heads of the capital services responsible for the increase, we find that they are almost exclusively devoted to productive investment. The principal items involved are: £150,000 for resort development and grants towards the provision of additional bedrooms in hotels; £545,000 for the development of Shannon and Dublin Airports; £50,000 to assist the development of industries in the West of Ireland; over £2,000,000 for agriculture; £150,000 for fisheries and £62,000 for forestry.

These figures which I have been giving are the amounts by which the various productive capital outlays will be increased during the coming year. We find therefore that the amount of the increase in the Estimates which is attributable to current expenditure, as distinct from productive capital investment, is less than £2,000,000. Indeed, if the Supplementary Estimates which went through during the year 1958-59 were added to the original 1958-59 Estimates, there would in fact be no increase at all foreshadowed for the coming year. The increases on the current side are in the main attributable to unavoidable—indeed, justifiable—increases in the remuneration of State servants. I think the Minister and his entire Civil Service is to be congratulated on the efforts they have made in these Estimates. In the preparation of the Book of Estimates, they have been careful, obviously, to prune all uneconomic and wasteful expenditure to the bone. They have seen to it that the Estimates are as economical as they can be, consistent with keeping up the policy of the Government in relation to productive investment.

I said here last week that, in my opinion, the situation in this country had improved—I think the phrase I used was "things in general are 50 times better than they were in the winter of 1956". What I said, of course, was twisted by the Opposition into meaning something different. I was referring to the change which has come about in the country generally since the Fianna Fáil Government assumed office. There is no doubt whatever about it. Anyone examining the situation must honestly admit that there is a complete change of mind and heart. The despair and the despondency which were so rife in the winter of 1956 have gone and a new mood of optimism has taken their place. One does not hear any more of a lack of belief in the future of the country.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I wonder if that is because Fianna Fáil are not in Opposition to say it?

Mr. Haughey

Factories are being opened and projects are been started now, whereas in 1956 they were closing down. When I was referring to the state of things being so much better, I was referring mainly to that change of mind, to that change of mentality, the replacing of despair by optimism. However, there are also some facts and figures which I can quote to show that that new feeling is based on a foundation of reality.

For instance, the statistics show clearly that, on the last Saturday of December, 1956, the figure for persons unemployed on the Live Register was 84,093. On the same date, the last Saturday of December, 1958, that figure was down to 70,302. Admittedly, I must be the first to confess that 70,000 people is still a very high number of unemployed persons, but the point I want to make is that the trend is downwards from 84,000 down to 70,000.

The national income, for the first time in the history of this country, dropped in 1956. It was £461,000,000 in 1955, and in 1956 it dropped to £457,000,000. It rose again in 1957 up to £477,000,000 and this year it will be substantially in excess of that figure. Again, the figure go to show that out of the bottom of the trough into which we had descended in 1956 the trend is continually upwards.

Revenue figures are also a good guide to the prosperity or otherwise of an economy. In the period from the 1st April, 1957, to the 22nd February, 1958, the revenue into the Exchequer was £109.7 million. In the same period in the current financial year, that is, from last April, 1958, to the 21st February, 1959, at the same rate of taxes, the revenue into the Exchequer was £113,000,000. There we have one of the best indicators of the prosperity of the economy, namely, a buoyancy in revenue.

Generally speaking, over the whole financial scene the picture is the same. Take deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank. At the 31st December, 1956, they were £84.9 million. At the corresponding date in 1958, they were £91.2 million. The figures for savings certificates also show an increase. At the 31st March, 1956, they were £23.8 million and at the same date in 1958 they were £27.1 million.

Probably the most important statistics in the national life to-day are the figures which show the trend of foreign trade and our balance of payments position. Here again, there has been a consistent improvement since Fianna Fáil assumed office. In 1957, for the first time for a long period, the balance of payments showed a surplus; and in 1958, the year just passed, the reliable estimates are that, while there may not be a surplus, the balance of payments will almost certainly be in a state of equilibrium. When one thinks of the dreadful prospects facing us in 1955 and 1956, the recovery in that very short time in this particular direction is little short of miraculous.

Exports for the period January to November, 1956, were £94.9 million. For the same 11 months in 1958, they were £116.2 million—again a heartening and cheering indication of the manner in which the economy has recovered and improved since that time. As a result of the favourable development in our exports and in our balance of payments position, the external assets of the banking system over the last three years have gone as follows: 31st December, 1956, £180,000,000; 31st December, 1957, increased to £189,000,000; 31st December, 1958, a further increase to £192,000,000. There is no one on this side of the House who would set the target of an increase in the external assets of the banking system alone as one of the overall objectives of economic policy and the real significance of these figures is that the downward trend in our external resources to a dangerous level has been arrested and they have, in fact, now been built up again to a reasonably safe one.

Bank deposits between January, 1957, and December, 1958, increased by 10 per cent. Between the same dates bank advances increased by 22½ per cent. In the last two years the banks lending rates have been reduced on five different occasions. The significance of these factors is that they have brought about a radically different approach in banking policy; and Irish banks, with their faith now restored, as everybody else's faith has been restored, in the future of the country have adopted a new approach to financing farming and agricultural activities and, as we have seen in the newspaper announcements, very definite and very specific credit schemes are now being organised by the banks to aid agricultural production.

During 1958 also we had the experience, the absence of which was such a disquieting feature in 1956, of successful public flotations. The E.S.B. floated a loan for £5,000,000 and the Minister for Finance floated a loan for £15,000,000. Both of these were over-subscribed. That is an excellent indication of the stability and prosperity of the economy.

There is, as I said, a completely new feeling abroad, a feeling of optimism, and a belief that things are once again moving towards progress and towards prosperity. It is not very useful for Deputy Kyne to begin his speech by stating he will be constructive and blaming the Minister for Health because he was not constructive and then going on to make a speech in which not one constructive suggestion was put forward. I listened carefully to the Deputy. The only thing he did, in fact, was to throw some doubt on the desirability of some of the progressive expansionist schemes which Fianna Fáil have embarked upon.

Among the things that have gone to contribute towards this new feeling of hope, enthusiasm and optimism throughout the country are the imaginative proposals for the expansion of the Haulbowline Steel Mills, the Cork shipyards and the proposed nitrogenous fertiliser factory in the Midlands. During 1958, 38 new major enterprises were started. There are 12 more new enterprises scheduled to start within the next few weeks involving a capital expenditure of approximately £2,000,000. That is a picture of an economy successfully restored to prosperity. On all sides, new ventures are being started, new activities being commenced and new projects being embarked upon.

Deputy T. Lynch, for some extraordinary reason that I could not understand, said that since Fianna Fáil assumed office there has not been one single piece of legislation which would help us to overcome our problems of unemployment and emigration. That statement is so utterly farcical and so utterly nonsensical that it is to me quite extraordinary that even he would make it. In the short lifetime of the present Government to date there has been a whole host of measures expressly designed to promote the conditions necessary for the expansion of production and the provision of employment. The Government have, at the same time, positively assisted in the setting up of many new ventures and projects.

The capital of the Industrial Credit Company has been substantially increased by legislation and funds have been placed at the disposal of that company to the extent that the Minister for Finance is able to say here, for the first time in the history of the House, that no worthwhile industrial project need now be held up because of lack of capital. Surely, that is an important and significant development and sufficient in itself to rebut what Deputy Lynch said, if anybody were foolish enough to take him seriously.

The Minister for Finance has, since coming into office, been concerned to do all that he can to achieve an overall condition in which an expansion of production and employment can take place. He has put through this House imaginative and original proposals giving tax incentives to industry to expand and develop. The Industrial Development (Encouragement of External Investment) Act was passed with the specific object of facilitating the importation of foreign capital, foreign skills and foreign know-how. We have joined the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation. With the issue of Exchequer Bills for the first time and by adding to the functions of the Central Bank we have laid the foundations of an Irish money market. In the last few weeks Bills have been introduced here to increase the capital and resources of Irish Shipping and Bord na Móna. Legislation has been passed to bring about a completely new pattern of industrial development in Shannon Airport. The air companies—Aerlínte and Aer Lingus—have been encouraged to expand their activities across the Atlantic and into the Continent of Europe. With all that activity, how can Deputy Lynch say that nothing is being done to tackle the fundamental problems of unemployment and emigration?

With regard to my proposition that the atmosphere generally is so much healthier to-day as compared with 1956, I am sure nobody will accuse the Central Bank of being in any degree partial to Fianna Fáil. Neither, I am sure, could anybody say that the Central Bank would be guilty of wilfully giving Fianna Fáil any ammunition to use in these debates. I shall quote therefore from this unbiassed source, from the Quarterly Statistical Bulletin in which, having discussed the position generally, the Central Bank says:—

"The economy is, however, more soundly based and less vulnerable so that better progress is likely in the near future if continued restraint is shown both in the private sector and in the sphere of current Government outlays. The present situation should encourage greater optimism on the part of private enterprise in general, especially as regards carrying out schemes for the extension of production or the reduction of costs."

That type of statement issued by a completely impartial institution can be multiplied from the many other journals and the many writers who have discussed this situation recently.

I maintain that the Minister for Finance has directed all his efforts and has been at great pains to introduce the necessary legislation to create favourable financial and economic conditions for the development of our economy and these measures have achieved very considerable success. They have culminated in the publication of the White Paper on economic expansion. That to my mind is certainly the most significant and important document that has been published in this country, for the past 20 years.

In this connection I had hoped that in this debate the discussion would be kept away from the rather pathetic note on which Deputy McGilligan started and that we could get down to constructive discussion of the White Paper and all that is outlined in it and in the Estimates and that possibly helpful suggestions would be made to the Government in relation to them. In so far as the Book of Estimates which we have before us is carefully prepared and clearly indicates the determination of the Government to pursue vigorously a programme for economic expansion as outlined in the White Paper, we should have no hesitation whatever in approving of this Vote on Account.

Mr. Manley

I do not think that Deputy Haughey has been entirely just and fair to Deputy Kyne. I must compliment Deputy Kyne on his opening remarks. He said we should get away from the desire of one side to find fault with the other for whatever was done in the past. I admire his approach to the debate. His contribution was reasonable and not emotional in any way and he should get credit for that. I hope his words will have some effect on the proceedings of the House.

I cannot share the optimism of the last speaker. The greatest criterion for judging the social conditions of this country is to be found in the views of those who are members of sick poor societies such as the St. Vincent de Paul Society. I am near enough to Cork City to know many members of these societies who work so gratuitously and unselfishly. Recently one of them, a man of great standing— I do not know what his political views are—told me that never before were they faced with such difficulties and such frustration in their efforts to get money for the needs they are called upon to supply. Is that a good sign that all is well with the country? Personally, I do not think it is.

I was pained to hear the remark of the Minister for Health when he was winding up, when he said it was a good thing for the country that Deputy Costello had fled. That is a very unworthy remark and I am sorry the Minister finished on that note. I hold no brief for Deputy Costello, any more than I do for anybody else, but I have admiration for him in that he demonstrated to the Irish people and to the world at large that Irishmen in Irish Parties could agree to differ. When he came here to lead the Irish people, he undertook a major task and no one in this House made such a monetary sacrifice as he made in taking the office of Taoiseach which he had never ambitioned. As Head of the Government from 1948 to 1951, he did a good job. I believe he would have achieved the same success in 1956, were it not for the unfortunate position that arose then.

Deputy Haughey talked about our balance of payments being righted. It was well on the road to being righted when Deputy Costello left office and it was righted at the cost of a great sacrifice to the Irish people. It is very unfair to castigate the ex-Taoiseach for his efforts to save the trading position, the balance of payment position. I should be very slow to castigate the Taoiseach for anything he did and we should all, as Deputy Kyne said, leave the past behind us and face the issues now confronting the nation.

We all realise the position is anything but good. We all realise that our national concept of territorial freedom has changed considerably in recent years. We now know, saddened by experiences, that there is no such thing as economic independence. That is why we see the great nations of the world coming together in order to establish for themselves some form of economic security and independence. We in this little island have very little hope of competing with the world at large to-day, except on the basis of a united effort of all our people. There would be some hope if we could get rid of Partition in the morning and work as a united nation for the development and advancement of our people.

I come now to the Book of Estimates. The Irish people are very disturbed since they read in Saturday's daily papers what the Government contemplate spending in the coming 12 months. I have no doubt that a great part of the expenditure is inevitable and quite justifiable, but there is quite a percentage of it that one finds very hard to explain or give excuses for. One thing that strikes anybody, from a casual perusal of the Book of Estimates, is the extraordinarily high percentage of the Estimates that go towards public administration. I am sure that is why the Estimates appear so large at the moment.

There is not very much comfort to be gained by the Irish people in perusing this Book of Estimates. We had thought that the experience gained during 1956 would have given future Governments to understand that they should be very prudent about public expenditure and that they should be very careful so that, in case the same difficulties arose, they would be in a position to meet those difficulties by the imposition of certain tariffs on imports here as was done in 1956. That is not so obviously possible now, should a situation similar to that of 1956 arise again.

The Book of Estimates is not complete in so far as there is nothing in it to show that we must also provide £20,000,000 for the Central Fund services for the coming 12 months and nothing to show that we must also provide approximately £21,000,000 in rates for the coming 12 months. Combining all these, a simple calculation will bring the conclusion that this country contemplates spending a total of approximately £157,000,000—an overall £54 expenditure per head of the population.

I think we should not be very happy about that position, no matter on which side of the House we sit. At the moment, local authorities are feverishly working on their estimates, trying to bring in estimates that will be generally accepted and, as Deputy McGilligan pointed out this afternoon, in the case of most of those authorities that have already made decisions and have already completed their estimates, there is a general increase, a sharp increase, in very many instances.

Who would have thought, 37 years ago, that we here, with our own native Government and our own native Parliament, would have to face a bill of such major proportions as £157,000,000? The extraordinary thing that strikes me is how patiently people have endured this down through the years, but will their patience last? Will there come a day of reckoning when they will assert themselves and say that this cannot go on, that there must be an end to all unproductive investment in this country? The position is all the more staggering when we find we have such a number of unemployed here at the moment and, talking about the unemployed, it is no harm to say that there is never any record of all those who come out of our universities, our secondary schools and our vocational schools, fit and ready and equipped to take up jobs. There is no record of those, and they never come into the unemployment figures, until they have already worked in some form of insurable employment.

We have this high emigration running at a rate of 50,000 a year, accepting the figures generally given by economists and statisticians. These people have left the country in despair. They see very little hope for employment here, and in the past few months, it has been my sad experience to find that I never before was approached by so many, asking me to try to help them to get some job here. I am sure that has been the experience of many other Deputies also. As long as that position lasts, we cannot sit back and say all is well in this State.

I have not objected to Deputy Manley pointing that out to the House. My fear is that the Deputy may go on to discuss various Estimates in detail.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Surely the Chair cannot rule in anticipation.

Mr. Manley

I have no intention of ignoring the ruling of the Chair, and I had no intention of going into the Estimates in detail. I wanted to point out that the decreases were really negligible, with the exception of the withdrawal of the grant to C.I.E., because, by legislation, C.I.E. is now compelled to stand on its own feet. I have mentioned that and I suppose I may leave it there. That is the material side of the picture as I see it, but what do we find around us throughout the country to-day? Our whole social system is changing rapidly and I think that all the disappointments, frustrations and disillusionment of former years, with the loss of faith in Government and in parliamentary institutions, has brought about a spirit of recklessness.

We find to-day a complete disregard for private property, a complete disregards for owners' rights with regard to their property, and damage to property is becoming an everyday occurrence in many parts of the country. We find that those principles we all cherished, the high principles of integrity and honesty, are all going by the board, and that is due to the political confusion, political despair and political disappointment that has arisen over the years. I do not know what will happen in the future. I cannot share the optimism either of the Minister or of Deputy Haughey. I feel that this nation is living, to use the common jargon, from hand to mouth.

It is a good thing to see that foreign capital is coming in here and that men of enterprise are coming here to start industries, but let us be careful that we have not a national sell-out of our people. Deputy Haughey has spoken about our banking deposits. They have increased, but how is it when our own people with capital and means have not confidence enough to invest their capital in this country, we have to go abroad to secure that capital? We assert, on the one hand, that we have the capital at home in our banks and yet we go abroad seeking capital. That is a question I cannot answer. It is a question I pose for people more familiar with economic development than I. I had more hope some years ago than I have now. I sympathise with the public who have to face this bill, because, in the last analysis, it is the people who foot this bill, and it is no consolation or encouragement to them to find themselves faced at this stage with such a formidable bill.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I was rather shocked, listening to Deputy Manley, whom I look up to as a very decent, honourable man. I have been very shocked by the speech he has made. If he spent a week trying to write out a defeatist speech and misrepresent the situation, he could not have done better. I do not believe there is any disregard for law or order. The same petty crimes have happened before from time to time. The police force are doing their job and the citizens respect the law. I live in an area, two-thirds of which is within the city boundary, and I find the people are law-abiding and there is no evidence of lawlessness.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This would be a matter for another Vote.

Mr. Burke

This Vote on Account gives great encouragement to the people and to public representatives. Fianna Fáil has again established confidence in the country and I would remind Deputy Manley that whatever loss of confidence there may be in public representatives is due to the actions of the Deputy's Party and the inter-Party group as a whole.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This has nothing to do with the Vote on Account.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Burke

I was just replying to statements made by Deputy Manley and if the Chair rules me out of order, I shall have to make a new approach. If Deputy Manley or any other Deputy were making a constructive contribution to this debate, I would be a most attentive listener, but while I admire him as an honourable man, I must say that he made no constructive proposal or suggestion. He criticised everything in a general way—"Everybody was out of step only our Johnny". That was his attitude.

The people will now listen only to honest statements. They have been hoodwinked too often by false promises of certain politicians who said there was a short cut to prosperity, if Fianna Fáil were put out. We went through that phase and we now find the only way to prosperity is the hard way that other nations have tried and found successful through the centuries. We must produce for our own needs and get an export market for the surplus. We had no suggestions from the Opposition on these lines. The great countries of the world who have become prosperous succeeded in doing so because they produced first for their own needs, cut down imports of goods they could make themselves and then developed an export market. Fianna Fáil are gradually following that plan by every means in their power. We have established confidence and credit in contrast to the situation in 1957 when people were told that there would be money for everything but found it was not there when they wanted it for certain projects.

To-day anybody who is creditworthy and wishes to start an industry which is a bona fide proposition has credit available through the Agricultural Credit Corporation and the Industrial Credit Company. People wanting to get into the export market are helped in every possible way. I want to appeal to industrialists who have enjoyed protection from native Governments and who had an opportunity of going into the export market and have failed to take it, to do their duty, so far as the State is concerned.

We cannot get full employment merely by talking about it. We hope that the industrialists who have been protected here over the years will respond to the advice and the encouragement given to them. We are helping the industrialists to get into the export market and we hope they will appreciate that. It is disappointing that some of our industrialists are not as good in that regard as they ought to be. It is a disgrace to the people of this country that the people of the neighbouring island should be ahead of us in the export of a commodity in which we should lead, that is, the export of whiskey.

We will have to get down to these problems. If there is an article coming in here that could be produced at home, we should produce it here. Fianna Fáil have always realised that, but now we have reached the time when we must compete with other nations in the export market in order to provide employment for our people. There is no other way to do it.

A number of the people at present in our schools and colleges will have to go abroad until such time as our economy is improved. It should be part of their education that when they go abroad, they will be good ambassadors of this country and buy Irish products abroad. By educating the people in our colleges and universities in that way, we would help the various export organisations which are trying to sell our goods in foreign markets. I know our people are going. We have no cure for that state of affairs except to get into the export market, or else find gold or minerals in this country. We have to accept the situation as it is and to educate our people going abroad so that they will be good ambassadors against the time when they or their children will be able to come back.

I am confident that our country is going well; I am confident that we have established economic and political stability. I hope that when the Minister for Finance comes in here next year, he will be able to report still further improvement in our economic position. We are going ahead slowly but surely. We in Fianna Fáil have nothing to fear from the people of Ireland because we are doing our job.

Mr. Coburn

We all know that every year around this time there is considerable speculation as to the outcome of the Minister's work in compiling the Estimates. There is that speculation year after year and it usually results in disappointment. We have the optimists who expect that the Government will be able to reduce expenditure and the pessimists who shake their heads and say that the Estimates will inevitably increase. We have a third category of people who hope that things will at least remain as they have been.

This year, we have again an increase in the estimated expenditure which this House must provide for the various services. We have only to recall the widespread protests which have appeared in the daily papers and which have been heard amongst the people to realise that there is a grave spirit of discontent throughout the country at the ever-increasing cost of the public services. That does not apply only to Government expenditure; it applies also to the finances of local authorities.

The lot of the Minister for Finance and of the local councillors is not a happy one, because, on the one hand, you have people clamouring for increased services and on the other hand, they expect and demand a reduction in expenditure. The trouble is that it is very difficult to reconcile these two expressions on the part of the people. It is because I acknowledge the difficulty for any Government in meeting the demands of the people for increased services and, at the same time, for reduced expenditure that I approach this Vote with a sympathetic attitude.

We find, in the Book of Estimates, 66 items to be disposed of, and we see that the overall expenditure is increased by approximately £5,000,000 as compared with the current year. Included in the total estimate of £115,000,000 is £14,500,000 to be met by borrowing for capital works. It would not be too bad if we could say to ourselves that that £115,000,000 is the maximum which this Government will spend in 1959-60. However, we must remember that there is an additional estimate to be made of the amount required for the larger capital projects undertaken from year to year to the value of between £20,000,000 and £30,000,000.

The Book of Estimates now before us shows the result of the Government's efforts to fulfil the promises which they made during the election campaign. I do not think the Government can pride itself on the results as we see them to-day.

I should like to make a very brief analysis of some of the Estimates in general. I find that, of the 66 various Votes, there are ten which show a reduction. That is to be commended, that is very good. There are three which are maintained at the present level. Again, that is good. Unfortunately, the picture is discoloured very much by the fact that the remaining Estimates, 53 in number, have increased, some of them very considerably, but, I agree, some of them unavoidably. In the case of those Estimates which have been reduced, the reduction amounted to £2,288,100. The increased value of those which were increased amounts to over £6,000,000, practically £7,000,000. That leaves a net increase of almost £5,000,000 on the current year's Estimates.

Those figures show that the Government were very foolish, to say the least of it, when they made promises to the people at the last election that they would do this and that to reduce expenditure, reduce taxation and generally make this country into a Utopia. It shows that a Government is foolish to promise people, to dangle the carrot of prosperity before the people, in an endeavour to persuade them to cast their votes in favour of a particular Government.

In common with many other Deputies, I would urge the Minister that when he is providing capital moneys he should provide these moneys only for productive purposes. We have reached the position now, in this year 1959, when we cannot afford to do otherwise. We cannot afford to indulge in philanthropic enterprises for the benefit of the people, even though they may be worth-while, looking at them from the broad point of view, though in reality they are purely luxuries. Under Capital Services, we find a number of hospitals and sanatoria now becoming not obsolete but superfluous. We must admit that the cost of providing them was worth-while when we consider the great reduction in the incidence of T.B. I would urge the Minister to investigate every channel whereby these sanatoria and other superfluous public buildings might be utilised for productive purposes and not allowed to deteriorate through want of attention.

I have very little to say on this particular Vote, for the simple reason that each individual Estimate will be before us and I presume that it will be more relevant to go into detail on the individual Estimates. However, I must comment on the alarm and general disappointment at the present time amongst our people, at the annually recurring increased expenditure which must be provided. It is a mistake for any Government to take on themselves the credit primarily for the prosperity of a country. If they take on themselves credit for prosperity, they must likewise, in justice, accept the blame for any lack of prosperity. One cannot have it both ways. The various members of the present Government and their colleagues went about the country during the last election campaign, dangling the carrot before the people. I doubt very much if the carrot was accepted; it certainly was not eaten. The people realised and have come to appreciate that the promises made by succeeding Governments down the years are not to be taken seriously.

To my mind, it is the fluctuating fortunes of industry—and by industry I mean private industry—which determine whether a country is going to progress economically or not. It is not so much what a Government will do or can do—except I suppose in totalitarian States or States where dictatorships are the rule.

I am firmly convinced that there are three or four remedies for the present plight of the country. When I speak of the present plight of the country, I do not suggest for a moment that things are as bad as people sometimes suggest. They have been bad before and better before, and please God they will improve, but they will not improve unless there is greater co-operation, in the first instance, between people in authority and those under them. I would especially pinpoint the domain in which you find the employer on one hand and the worker on the other. Some of the difficulties are due to lack of co-operation between them. Another remedy would be increased production—that is an axiom, but I say it because increased production in recent years has been hampered and handicapped by a lack of trust amongst employers and workers.

What I want to refer to now may be a delicate matter, but I feel obliged to refer to it. It is the spate of strikes which we have experienced, particularly in the past year or two. I have not the figures for the number of industrial disputes for this year compared with previous years, but one knows that in recent weeks one cannot take up a newspaper without finding that some group or other has walked out and that there are strikes here and there, sometimes unofficial strikes. I feel that these unofficial strikes are not condemned strongly enough by those who should condemn them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I feel that would be a matter for one of the Estimates.

Mr. Coburn

Very well. I thought I would get it off my chest. Another remedy which might merit consideration is that we should cease trying to ape other countries, especially in regard to luxurious amenities and services. If there is a particular service which can be done without and which cannot be supplied by private enterprise, I do not think it is the duty of any Government to step in and supply the finance requisite to provide that amenity. As the Chair correctly observed, it would not be relevant to go into details of the various Estimates on this Vote on Account. As I said, it is unwise for any Party to promise the people that success will automatically follow, if they are elected as the Government of the country. No Government can make a country prosperous unless there is the will to prosper in the various sections of the community and unless the people are prepared to work harder, mentally and physically. It is only when the people generally accept that ideal that this country will prosper to its fullest degree.

Mr. J. Brennan

The last speaker was the fourth speaker from the Opposition Benches. He was the first honest speaker on those benches to whom we have listened to-day. We have heard a good deal of criticism from most of the speakers without a single constructive suggestion. Certainly Deputy McGilligan made no constructive suggestion. He even produced the old cuttings from his pocket, cuttings that he has been using for years. Some of them are brown with age. He made the same speech as he has made on every occasion here, with the exception of the one he makes when the Coalition are in office.

Deputy Manley talked about frustration and the disillusionment from which the people are suffering because of the political acrobatics. If there is disillusionment and frustration, it is caused solely by those people who get up and condemn in toto any efforts made to improve things, without, at the same time, offering a single constructive alternative. The last speaker was an honest speaker. He said no Government can make a country prosperous without the co-operation and goodwill of the people. That is perfectly true.

The Vote on Account before the House contains certain important and significant proposals. It is possibly the most significant Vote on Account we have had in this House so far. It is criticised because it shows an increase. In the past, whenever the Vote on Account showed a decrease, there was criticism because of the reduction. That kind of approach creates more frustration and disillusionment than anything else.

The Estimates show an increase of £5,500,000. That increase is due mainly to the effort being made to implement the proposals contained in the White Paper, proposals which meet with the approval of every organised section of our community. What is the use of panic measures? We have had panic measures in the past, too many of them. We have had too many temporary measures to cure unemployment, measures dictated by nothing more than political expediency. We will never strengthen our economy or expand production, unless we have some sound plan to guide us, such as that adumbrated in the White Paper, towards which the increase in the Estimates is now mainly directed. We have had a good many years' experience of Government now and those on the other side of the House ought to be mature politicians by this time. They should have some mature experience in relation to economic development generally. Surely they are capable of making a better contribution to an important debate of this kind than using a string of superlatives to condemn and criticise, without making a single constructive suggestion.

I am quite pleased with the increase shown in the Estimates for the coming year. Anyone interested in the economy of the country could not be other than pleased. We either believe there is a remedy, or we do not. The proposals laid down in the White Paper outline the proper road to travel in the future. I do not claim to be an expert economist, but we have all of us had a certain amount of experience. We know what the facts are. We know what has succeeded in the past. We know what mistakes were made. We know that certain efforts failed. With all that to guide us, we should now be able to signpost the road to the future. It is only elementary economics that an expanding production, increased activity in industry and agriculture, increased exports generally, will strengthen our economy. Such expansion is absolutely essential if we are further to enhance the standard of living we now enjoy.

We have gone a long way in our programme of social development. Deputy Manley criticised the burden of rates in the different counties. Every Party, and every member of every Party, in this House has contributed towards that burden. No one can put the blame for it on someone else. The burden is largely due to the acceleration of our social development programme. I have heard Deputies here take credit for housing, hospitals, water supply schemes, and other amenities, all involving heavy borrowing by local authorities. It is in respect of that borrowing that we are now repaying both capital and interest charges. There is a huge indebtedness which has to be met out of local rates. On occasions, we try to reap political capital from the efforts which created that burden. We boast about the houses we have built, the vocational schools, the hospitals, and the public services generally which we have made available for our people. Now that we have to pay for them in the form of accumulated loan charges, we talk about the heavy burden the local rates have to meet—a burden weighing down the unfortunate people who pay rates.

The burden of local rates and taxation generally is a serious matter, but it is a question largely of an optimum, it is a question of striking a proper balance between two things. We are told that increased taxes and extra charges are pressing our people out of the country at the rate of 50,000 per year. If we had not these amenities, if we did not pursue the programme of social capital development which we have pursued in the past, it would be pointed out that people did not think it worth while living in a country which did not provide the fundamental social amenities and services. We have got to have them. We have got to keep reasonably well in line with many other countries and we are far behind them in our social amenities and services.

Something has got to be done now that we have reached a stage where we want to strengthen our national economy and increase our national income. We have shown a slight upward trend. We want that upward trend to continue, we want to strengthen our national economy and income to the extent that we can start a sound programme of social capital development—and that is really what we are doing in the Estimates this year. There are certain things which we know are productive of wealth that will also tend to increase employment activity in the country and these are the only things that create national prosperity. It is towards the expansion of those things that money is directed in the Estimates for this year.

Nobody in the House will deny that a good deal of useful and essential money is being canalised into agriculture in the Book of Estimates. Not merely are we retaining our position on the foreign market by an increase in our output from the land, both in live-stock and agricultural products generally, but also we have the bovine eradication scheme which everybody in the House appreciates is a "must" so far as the country is concerned. It accounts for £3,500,000. I shall not go into the Estimates in full, but it is no harm to pin point some of the matters that have caused the increase in the Estimates before us.

Tourism is productive of real wealth. Every possible effort to expand in that direction is being made. There are also forestry and fisheries and industry generally. I heard some Deputies making vague references about hunting abroad for foreign capital. We are not the only Government to do that. When the Coalition Government were in power, they excelled in their efforts to bring foreign capital in here.

Deputy McGilligan deplored the rate of emigration as if it started only when this Government came into power two years ago. Towards the end of his speech, he made a reference to the open market for employment which is on our doorstep and the difficulty of keeping our people from seeking employment on that market. That was the difficulty really. In our economic development, we cannot at any stage hope, no matter how well we develop our economy, to compete with Britain in the matter of wages and living standards. We all know perfectly well that many people who had remunerative employment left the country and went to similar work abroad for almost twice the wages paid here. I should like to hear if the Fine Gael Party or the Labour Party have any proposal for the solution of that problem. I do not say that everyone who goes away leaves a remunerative post behind, but I know, and each Deputy can point to many occasions, where there was decent employment available and people saw fit to leave it and go abroad. Who can blame them if they improve their position financially?

In addition to providing extra money for productive employment and for an expansion of production in the various fields of agriculture, tourism, fisheries and forestry, we have also in the Estimates this year a considerable increase in the amount of money available for education. That is completely in accord with the provisions enshrined in the White Paper proposals. It is definitely pointed out that increased production by improved methods and lower costs of production is more important in so far as they enable us to get into the export market on a competitive basis than is increased production as a result of incentives, subsidies or otherwise, and in that respect any extra money expended on improved agricultural education is of the greatest importance.

I did not hear anybody criticising these different items which have been increased and in fact if some of these items which account for an increase on the non-capital side of the Book of Estimates had not been granted, we would have had criticism from the other side of the House. That is the type of thing—criticism for the sake of criticism—that has led to the disillusionment and frustration in the country which members opposite have talked about. There has been no unity, no agreement or purpose, obvious in an important debate of this kind. There has been no Deputy on the opposite side getting up and saying: "I agree, in so far as those Estimates are implementing the sound proposals laid down in the White Paper on economic expansion, they are good." That is not being said by anybody but every Deputy on the other side of the House may agree with that and know it to be true, but he sets about explaining the "crippling burden" which Deputy Manley has said the people will shortly revolt against.

The last speaker said the Government cannot do everything to create prosperity, particularly in a country where private enterprise is the paramount factor in our industrial expansion and economy, but they can point the way to certain essential and desirable factors towards real economic expansion and, after that, they can only depend on the co-operation, as the last speaker said, the goodwill of the people, and their determination to make themselves prosperous, using the implements of prosperity placed at their disposal by the Government. That is a perfectly sound statement by the last speaker, and these Estimates now before the House cannot be denied by any speaker as other than a serious attempt—the first serious step forward —towards implementing the sound principles of that programme of economic expansion and, for that reason, I welcome them.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

It is usual to regard the Vote on Account as an opportunity of discussing the Government's policy and its effect in general terms, rather than to deal with the Vote on Account as a kind of statistical exercise or analysis. It seems to me that the Deputies opposite are all travelling very much along the same lines. They are getting up, one after the other, to boast about the restoration of confidence in the country, to deplore the fact that they do not hear any constructive suggestions from the Opposition and to talk about the White Paper. As far as this question of confidence in the future of the country is concerned, I think that anyone in these benches can claim, with every justification, that if there is one man more than another in this country who has, day to day, preached both in Government and in Opposition, the necessity for people to have confidence in the country, in the financial structure of the country, and in the future, that man is Deputy J.A. Costello.

Deputy J.A. Costello did not merely talk about and appeal for confidence in this country and in its future when he was speaking from those benches as Taoiseach. He made the same speeches and the same appeals as an Opposition Deputy, both in the House and outside the House, and I certainly think that anyone speaking from the Fine Gael Benches behind him can be proud of the fact that, in Government and out of Government, he recognised the necessity for the people to have confidence in the future of the country, and he did that whether it suited him politically or not. The lead Deputy Costello has given to the people, the lead he has given in his appeals for confidence in the country, the lead he has given to the youth of the country in appealing to them to take an active interest in political affairs, in economic affairs, and in asking them to lend their support to building up the welfare of the country and the confidence of the people in the welfare of the country, is something on which we should compliment him, and something for which the members of the Fianna Fáil Party should be grateful.

If confidence has been restored, I certainly shall welcome it, but I shall deny that that has come about because of any change of Government, or that it has been achieved because of any worthwhile work that has been done by the Government since they came into office. I think it is fair to remind the Dáil, and the people of the country, that Fianna Fáil have been here in office for two years. A year ago, they were able to make the case that they had been in office only 12 months, and that they had not yet an opportunity of implementing their policy. They cannot make that case now. They have been there for two years and we are entitled to remind them, and the country, of the campaign carried on by the Fianna Fáil propagandists during and leading up to the general election of 1957. We are entitled to ask the people to place the Fianna Fáil propaganda, during and prior to the 1957 general election, side by side with the Fianna Fáil performance since 1957.

I do not think any Fianna Fáil Deputy will disagree with me if I say that the theme of Fianna Fáil propaganda right through the year 1956, and during the year 1957 up to the time of the general election, was that we had too much unemployment, that we had too much emigration, that prices were too high, that taxation was too high. The Fianna Fáil opposition to that state of affairs was all summed up in the notorious poster which they plastered around this country, during the general election campaign: "Beat the Crisis—Let's get Cracking", and the equally infamous poster which placarded every dead wall up and down the country: "Wives, Get Your Husbands Off to Work." Will any Fianna Fáil Deputy sit down now and compare the work of the Government which he is supporting, and set it side by side with all the propaganda we heard in 1956 and 1957?

What are the principal features of Fianna Fáil administration since their return to office in 1957?

Mr. J. Brennan

We beat the crisis.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

You beat the blazes out of the people in the Budget of 1957——

Mr. J. Brennan

We beat the crisis.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

——by removing the food subsidies. Remember, though there is an increase of £5,500,000 in this Book of Estimates, it does not contain a penny piece towards subsidising food for the people, because in the year 1957, at the expense of the breakfast table of every poor person, the Fianna Fáil Government saved £9,000,000 and, were it not for that action, there would be not an increase of £5,500,000 but an additional increase of £9,000,000.

Mr. J. Brennan

If you were still in power, they would have no breakfast at all.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order! Deputy O'Higgins should be allowed to make his speech.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

That was the first and principal task of the Fianna Fáil Government in their 1957 Budget. What was the next thing they did? We remember all the criticism about the levies which were imposed by Deputy Sweetman as Minister for Finance. We remember the ill-effects we were told those levies were having. We remember all the difficulties which encountered him as Minister for Finance and made it necessary for him to take those steps. That criticism was made.

The second feature of Fianna Fáil's financial policy since their return to office was to retain the levies and make them part and parcel of the permanent tax framework of the country. Food subsidies were withdrawn and the levies, netting something like £4,500,000 were retained, but instead of being merely a temporary financial device to meet a particular situation, they became part of the permanent tax framework.

The third main feature of the Fianna Fáil Government's actions since their return to office two years ago concerns what we have been doing for the past six months in this House. We have been discussing an electoral system. The final and crowning achievement of Fianna Fáil in their two years is their decision that it is better to do away with P.R. Will any Fianna Fáil Deputy disagree when I say those are the three main features of the Government since they came back to office?

"Wives, get your husbands back to work." What has been the impact of this Government on the unemployment situation? There has been some decrease, but is there a decrease to a degree which the people were entitled to expect, having regard to Fianna Fáil propaganda during the election campaign of 1957 and before it? Twelve months ago, Fianna Fáil might well have been excused, and I am sure did excuse themselves here and behind closed doors in their cumainn throughout the country, by saying they had not yet had a chance to prove themselves; that this poster: "Wives, get your husbands back to work" could not begin to work immediately and that while Fianna Fáil sought an opportunity to get cracking, they had to crank themselves up first. They have been cranking now for two years.

There is a slight decrease in unemployment figures. I have not figures for agricultural and industrial employment, but I clearly remember that as between 1956 and 1957—1956 having been painted as the black year by Fianna Fáil—there was a decrease of 24,000 in the figures, and I think they are estimated figures, for industrial and agricultural employment. I have not the latest figures and I do not know whether that situation has improved or continued to disimprove, but disregarding that entirely and keeping purely to figures for unemployment, is any Fianna Fáil Deputy satisfied he can be complacent about the work the Government have done, this Government with an overall majority in the House in a position to pass any legislation they like, to implement any plan they like to put through the House as legislation? In that situation, are any members of Fianna Fáil satisfied with the slight decrease in unemployment figures? Are they satisfied with it remembering that it is not after 12 months but after two years in which there was no Party or combination of Parties here that could vote down this Government? They had every opportunity of implementing whatever proposals they like and their best effort has been a decrease of some thousands in the unemployment figure.

Are Fianna Fáil satisfied with the emigration position? Figures quoted here indicate a rate of about 50,000 a year. There is some unemployment in Britain at present and there has been for some time past. That is bound to affect emigration because if people cannot go from here and get work easily in England, the odds are they will prefer to be unemployed at home rather than abroad. I believe there is some slight improvement in the emigration figures, but can any Fianna Fáil Deputy be satisfied that after two years, with an overall majority, they have given all the people were entitled to expect from Fianna Fáil propaganda during the last election? Will any Fianna Fáil Deputy now listening deny that the Government were elected to do precisely those things, to end unemployment and emigration, or at least after having spent half their normal span in office, to have made a greater impression than they have made?

If any Deputy doubts that is what they were elected for, I would remind him of what the Minister for Defence said here on 15th May, 1957, speaking. I think, in the Budget debate as reported at columns 1283-1284 of the Dáil Debates of that day:—

"In my opinion, and in the opinion of any fair-minded person who even now goes back and looks over the speeches made in the election campaign, it is beyond all doubt that we were put in here as a Government to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation of mass unemployment and emigration brought about by the previous Government. It is useless for the Opposition now to try to pretend that the action we have taken has come as a shock to the people. The people definitely realised that it was necessary to take decisive and tough action and it was because Fianna Fáil were the only Party who could be trusted to do this that we were put back into office."

The tough action was taken, but what has been the effect, so far as unemployment and emigration goes? Has a decrease of a few thousand in unemployment put an end to what was described as "mass unemployment and emigration"?

What is the Government's record where prices are concerned? We remember the campaign prior to 1957 regarding prices. I shall not bother giving quotations unless Deputies opposite want them. Any of those Deputies who are sufficiently interested and active to follow their own propaganda know precisely the type of campaign that was started when the inter-Party Government were in office. What price decreases have since taken place? The cost of living has gone up; bread has gone up, butter has gone up and the prices of other commodities have increased and not accidentally or by chance, but they have been increased by deliberate positive action by the Government. That is the Government's record on prices.

They are talking about the restoration of confidence. I hope the people have confidence in their country, but how many members of Fianna Fáil had a thought for the necessity of restoring confidence prior to 1957? How many of them, speaking from these benches appealed, when Deputy J.A. Costello appealed, to the people to have confidence in the country? How many of them, in the tough and difficult year of 1956, appealed to the people to support the steps which the Government were taking at the time, steps which a Fianna Fáil Minister has since admitted were reasonable, for the solving of the balance of payments problem?

We hear Deputy Haughey, Deputy Burke and Deputy Brennan talking about the restoration of confidence and we hear Deputy Haughey, in particular, referring to the balance of payments question and describing the recovery in a short time as being miraculous. Surely they know that that was not done by Fianna Fáil. Surely they know that it was due to the steps taken by the inter-Party Government and by Deputy Sweetman, as Minister for Finance, in that Government, with the support of every Deputy sitting behind him. If there has been a miraculous recovery in the balance of payments position, is it not due to the work done by the inter-Party Government? Would it not be just as well for Deputies opposite to concede that? There is no justice in their trying to take credit for it.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce has gone on record in this House as conceding the fact that the steps taken by the inter-Party Government remedied the balance of payments problem. Lest that be questioned, I quote from the Dáil Debates of 14th May, 1957, at column 1151, when he said:—

"I do not intend to criticise the previous Government for the action it took in relation to the balance of payments difficulties that arose last year. We have had our debates upon that in the past and it was the subject of much discussion during the course of the election campaign which brought this Dáil into being. Nobody denies that a problem had arisen there which was critical for the country and one with which the Government in office had to deal. It was dealt with by the Government of the day. I did not think they were dealing with it the right way, but we certainly recognised their obligation to do something about it and as a result of the measures they took that balance of payments problem was solved for the time being."

The balance of payments problem was solved by the steps taken by the Minister's predecessor and his colleagues in the inter-Party Government.

Some of the Deputies opposite seem to be critical of Deputy Manley's reference to the increase in the rates bill which must be added to the amount in these Estimates, if we are to take proper account of the financial position of the country and the extent to which taxation, direct or indirect, has been or is likely to be increased. It is only reasonable that we should remember that very often the legislation passed by this House has an effect, and a very big effect, on the amount of the local rates. Quite apart from some matters of social welfare which are made the direct responsibility of the ratepayers qua ratepayers rather than taxpayers, other types of legislation will have an indirect bearing on the rates and on increases in the rates which must be struck by local authorities.

It is well for us to remember that when the action of a Government results, as did the action of the Government in 1957, in forcing up the cost of living, it will have an effect on the rates throughout the country. When employees of local authorities have to get wage increases to offset the increase in the cost of living, when you have the cost of maintenance in institutions and institutional treatment under the health service being forced up by direct Government action, that will have an effect which will reflect itself in increased rates.

When you have the price of petrol forced up by 6d. a gallon, it is going to have an effect in a number of cases on the rates and on the machinery of local government. It is not at all unreasonable to take into account, in considering a matter of this sort, that the legislation passed here and the budgetary policy of the Government will have its effect on local authorities and on the rates which they must strike. I often feel that members of local authorities are unfairly criticised because of the rates which they have to strike. Very often, large portions of that rate have to be struck by them, whether they like it or not.

I spent ten years as a member of Dublin Corporation and I am fully conscious of the fact that there are many items which go to make up the ratepayers' bill that the corporation can do nothing about. We can do something about it in this House, if we do not pass the type of Budget introduced here in 1957. In addition to increasing the price of essential foodstuffs, it was part of that budgetary policy that the cost of the health services to the people should be increased.

I think it was Deputy Haughey who referred, as one of the marks of increased confidence, to the fact that the bank lending rates were reduced on a number of different occasions in the past two years. I do not mind Deputy Haughey, or any other Deputy, claiming that as a mark of confidence in the Government or in the future of the country, but let us be a little realistic about it. Is it not a fact that the bank rate here has been reduced following on reductions in the bank rate in England? I do not recollect any occasion, except during the inter-Party Government's term of office, when the decision taken by the Irish banks with regard to the bank rate differed from the decision taken by the English banks. I think it was only when the inter-Party Government came into office, pursuing a particular policy for the benefit of the people, that the decisions as between our banks and the British banks in relation to lending rates differed.

Dr. Ryan

It has never been the same thing in both countries since we came in.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I am not saying that the amounts have been the same, but in the case of the increases or decreases, one has followed the other. The Minister can correct me on that, if I am wrong.

Mr. McGilligan

The pattern will be the same.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I am not suggesting that the actual rate which obtained in the different countries has been the same.

Deputy Burke referred to the necessity to seek increased exports. No one will disagree with that. I do not think there is any fundamental difference in policy on the different sides of the House in that regard. However, what have the Government done in the past two years to find increased export markets or to find new markets? It must be remembered that it was during the period of office of the last inter-Party Government that the difficulties occasioned by the supplying of Argentine meat to England had their effect on the price of cattle and the export of cattle from Ireland. I believe that difficulty does not exist now; but Deputies from rural Ireland will be able to talk with more authority about it.

It was during the period of the inter-Party Government that the Suez crisis arose. That occasioned difficulties and unrest and also a lack of confidence— I am not quite sure that that is the correct description, but there was a general state of unrest which was occasioned by that crisis. That is over and done with; that is finished; there is nothing which need occasion the Government any embarrassment there. In addition, the balance of payments problem has been solved for them by the steps which their predecessors took.

The Government have an opportunity now of getting down to the task of reducing expenditure and reducing taxation. I think I am correct in saying that, while the members of the Government were in opposition, one of them announced proudly from these benches that while in Government he and his colleagues had taken a definite Government decision that expenditure was not to go beyond a particular figure. I have forgotten the figure and the year. They have an opportunity now of looking up their old Government decision on that. They have an opportunity of giving the taxpayer some evidence that it is worth while giving a Government an over-all majority in this House.

Is there any reason why the taxpayer should believe that, from the record and performance of the Government? One must take into account particularly that the present Book of Estimates no longer carries a penny piece subsidy for essential foodstuffs. One must remember that the Government have saved themselves at the expense of the health services. One must remember that the Government have channelled into the ordinary taxation framework of the country the proceeds of the levies, or of a great number of the levies, which were imposed as temporary measures and temporary expedients by their predecessors. Having regard to those items being no longer reflected in the Book of Estimates, can the Government feel in any way complacent in their work of the past 12 months?

Would it not have been far better for the people, if the Government had spent the past six months planning how to economise, planning how to reduce taxation, planning how to give the people better Government, rather than that they should have spent the past six months planning how to wipe out Opposition Parties in this House and planning how to change the electoral system which has been in operation here for the past 36 or 40 years?

Mr. Sherwin

Each of us here specialises in particular matters which affect various sections of the community. I do not know too much about agriculture or other aspects of the national life, but I certainly have a good knowledge of the subjects of employment and unemployment. While I do not object to any rise in the amount of the Estimates, if it is for the purpose of industrial expansion or agricultural expansion, I have an idea that we could save as much as we are increasing the Estimate, if we tried to economise from the President down. It seems that the only people at whose expense we are economising are the unemployed—and perhaps the members of the Dáil here. Everyone is getting an increase. Perhaps they are entitled to it, but in very many cases they do not require it. There was a Supplementary Estimate for £1,000,000 here last week and, while I am not disputing their right to it, I would say that a good many of the recipients did not require the increase. I say that, from that class up to the President, we might be able to save £5,000,000 without adding £5,000,000 to the Estimates.

I notice that there is a big jump in the Estimates for the Army. I have a fairly good idea of matters of a military nature and I know what I am talking about, even though I may be learning in other respects. I believe we could save £1,000,000 in the case of the Army. Instead of that, there is an increase. We have no objection to increasing the Estimates and increasing the people's income, but we have no sympathy at all for the fellow on the very floor. We could just as well add another million or two to that five and give him something; or reverse the situation, economise, and give him something. While we are not ashamed to increase the Estimates, we seem to be barefaced in our attitude towards people who are at the very bottom of the ladder. Over a period of years, we granted them 1/-. We come along then and justify giving people who are employed an extra 10/-, as if one ate stones and the other required caviare. I suppose the reason is that those people are not organised. A small number, by organising and ganging-up, can do a lot of damage. That is why any organised body is always considered. With regard to the others, no matter how many there are, one will always be used against the other because they are not organised and they have no real strength. If they were organised, if they had proper leadership, they would be considered very favourably indeed. Unfortunately, one cannot organise those people and that is why advantage is taken of them.

With regard to employment and unemployment, my mind jumps back to a statement made by the Taoiseach —I referred to it some time ago—that this country should be capable of supporting 8,000,000 people. That appeared in the Irish Press in February, 1932. I can understand there were a lot of fancy notions then as to what we could do—fancy notions about bringing all our exiles home when we got our freedom, and all the rest of it. We were very amateur. We talked through our hats. This country is not an industrial country. We have no worth-while raw materials. We have many disadvantages. All that was not appreciated in the beginning. But, remembering that we are up against so many disadvantages, we really ought to model our way of life accordingly and should not live on an elaborate scale at one end of the ladder and give the fellow at the other end 1/- to compensate him for increases in the cost of living. Why not even up and down a bit?

As far as I can see, no matter what the Minister for Industry and Commerce does—I have a tremendous faith in his ability and I agree with everything he is doing—it is quite possible that he may only stave off a worsening condition of affairs, because, even if there is success, there will also be further unemployment because of mechanisation, automation and all that. The whole tendency now is to do everything without labour. The development of science will cause a worsening of the situation here. Why then are we not prepared to admit that we will always have a large number of unemployed here? Why do we not make up our minds that our aim will be to make life tolerable for them? Why do we not make up our minds that we will give them a certain amount on which to live—not too much, but sufficient to make life tolerable? We will have to put up with them. But, no. We want to keep them in a pauper state. Whether that is the decision with a view to forcing them across the water, I do not know. It appears to me it is. If they got another 10/- each, they might stay here; if they get only 10d. they will emigrate. Maybe, that is all part of the plan. It says very little for all our high hopes 25 years ago and the population of 8,000,000 which could stand on its own feet and defend itself. Have we changed now and do we believe in a skimpy little nation which will just get by with a minimum population? We seem to have changed our views a great deal. We seem to have surrendered our future and reached the conclusion that we should allow ourselves now to be wholly dependent on Britain's goodwill. Rather than independence, dependence seems to be our ambition now. I often wonder what would happen if Britain said to us: "Look: You wanted your independence. Now keep your unemployed." What would happen? I am pretty certain we might have a Labour Government, or some extreme Government.

There is £2,000 less for emergency schemes. The whole key to these Estimates is to give less —certainly not more—to those who are in want. I do not see any great hope of any employment on a decent scale. We are told 1,000 or 2,000 more were absorbed into employment last year. At that rate, we will always have 70,000 or 75,000 unemployed.

We are told we should suggest what should be done. Our function is to criticise. It is the function of the fellow with the job, getting the money, to make the suggestions. I might have ideas as to what should be done, but I am not going to say what they are. If I were in power, I might do a lot of things; I might tread on people's toes, but at least I would tread on them. I would not tell them beforehand what I would do because they would never let me in. People in opposition can only criticise; they can never say what they will do until they get in.

Mr. Moloney

I endorse the appeal made to Deputies by two speakers here to-day to refrain from going back over the past 25 years when dealing with this Vote on Account. I shall try in my contribution to be as precise and relevant as possible in my comments. The Book of Estimates shows on its face a sum of £115,547,070. In the course of the speeches made here this evening by members from the opposite benches, and particularly the Fine Gael benches, very strong criticisms were made, in the first place, as to the necessity for the increase in the figures as disclosed by the Book of Estimates. In the second place, quite a few speakers indirectly made the point that certain items of expenditure contained in the Book of Estimates need not be increased and still be efficiently discharged. During the various discussions over the past 12 months, we can all remember that on each and every occasion, in the course of their contributions, Deputies usually made the point that when a particular service was being discussed on certain measures of legislation which came forward for consideration, the Government were not going far enough in their endeavours to meet the requirements of the people.

I find it very difficult, indeed, to understand why speeches of that kind should be made in the House in one breath and then when we come to discuss the Book of Estimates, as we are doing this evening criticism should be offered in the opposite way. I, like every other Deputy of the Government Party who have given views, naturally regret that it should have been necessary for the Minister for Finance, in introducing his Book of Estimates, to show an increase. The total increase, in round figures, is approximately £4½ million of which £2½ million approximately represent capital services.

During the past week, we have dealt with a number of Supplementary Estimates. The discussions which took place arising out of those Supplementary Estimates are still very fresh in our minds. It is quite unnecessary, therefore, to go into all the increases in the Book of Estimates for the purposes of breaking them down. I respectfully suggest, Sir, that the main items have been broken down largely in the speeches that were made a couple of days ago.

I have listened with interest to speeches from the Opposition from time to time, making the case that by the deliberate action—that phrase "deliberate action" seems to be a stock phrase now—the Government removed the subsidies of £9,000,000 in the 1957 Budget and thereby put the cost of living soaring all over the country. The Government did not, I am sure, take that decision lightly. On more than one occasion, the Government have given an adequate explanation of the necessity for that move. I accept that explanation unreservedly. The Opposition would be well advised, if they propose to follow that line of action at least to try to indicate that it could have been avoided.

In the course of his speech here this evening, the Minister for Health told the House that when the Government came into office, they found a deficiency amounting, approximately, to £12,000,000. The Minister gave a complete breakdown of that deficit. It appears to me the fact that that deficiency existed at the time showed very clearly that the Government had no alternative except to close the deficiency by borrowing or economising in some other direction. They took the latter course.

Appeals have been made from responsible quarters—from Government quarters too—that a check should be put on the trend of spending. I accept the wisdom of these appeals and I only hope that sooner or later—the sooner the better—we shall arrive at the stage that a Minister charged with responsibility for the financial structure will have the necessary courage to say: "We have gone thus far and we should go no further." There is some strong feeling in that direction among the ordinary rank and file of the people. It is obvious that we have reached the ceiling in the matter of national expenditure. The day will come and, in my opinion, it will come very shortly, when very stringent measures will have to be taken to arrest any further proposed increase in our national expenditure.

I have before me a table of the details of the Estimates from the financial year 1954-55 to the current Estimates. I find on looking at the totals for the years to which I have referred that the expenditure has been increasing every year. It remained more or less the same for the two years 1957-58 and 1958-59. For the year 1954, I find that the amount was £104,975,706—nearly £105,000,000. I take it that was the Book of Estimates which was introduced by the Fianna Fáil Government before the general election of 1954. In 1957-58, the figure was approximately £111,500,000. That is an increase of £6,000,000 during that period of four years. Perhaps Deputies on the opposite benches could tell us when they are speaking at a later stage why it was necessary for them to bring about this increase when they had such an efficient and successful Government at the time.

In the course of a discussion on the Book of Estimates, I suppose it is to be expected that Deputies will travel rather widely. This is inevitable to some extent because a Deputy naturally picks out a number of subjects which he thinks he is reasonably competent to deal with. If he is not allowed to deal comprehensively, at this stage, with all the items he selects, a Deputy cannot help speaking generally.

There are about 12 headings in the Estimates for the coming financial year which account for the increase I have referred to of approximately £4,500,000. If you go into those items, in detail, you will have no hesitation in agreeing that these headings are of paramount importance to the economic life of the nation, and that it would be exceptionally unwise on the part of the Government, if they were not prepared to provide the necessary, additional money required under those headings.

The promises made by the Fianna Fáil Party prior to the 1957 general election have been referred to at length this evening by speakers from the opposite benches. They have referred to those promises in what I regard as an exaggerated way. It has been suggested by some of those speakers that the Government have now been long enough in power to be in a position to implement the promises made at that time. I was somewhat impressed by the contribution made by Deputy O'Higgins. I think his approach to this matter was a little more reasonable than many of his colleagues. He agreed that there was some appreciable improvement in the matter of unemployment and emigration. I think that is an honest and a more realistic approach to this matter.

I accept that Governments, irrespective of what Party they represent, have down the years made honest attempts to try to cure the twin problems of emigration and unemployment. After all, the people who constitute any Government here are all Irishmen, men of very high civic spirit. If it were not for that fact, they probably would not be representatives of a Party, or representatives of the people in this House. The difference between the methods of one Party and another is what distinguishes the Parties from each other.

I submit that the Fianna Fáil Party over the past 25 years, by and large, have made a very substantial contribution to the solution of the problems of emigration and unemployment. I also think that a great deal of disservice has been done to the nation as a whole by a certain amount of loose talk, particularly from people in responsible positions in connection with these problems. I appreciate that we have certain statistics here which guide us as regards the trend of unemployment, but I have always maintained that those statistics have been for many years outdated, and require to be overhauled.

The first time the real impact of unemployment was discovered was back in 1934. At that time the newly formed Fianna Fáil Government almost created a revolution in social legislation when they stated that, if the Government were unable to find work for those citizens who were unemployed, they should be entitled to some measure of unemployment assistance. That was a very big step to take at that time. Very few countries in Europe at that stage had committed themselves to such a liberal measure of assistance for unemployed. Prior to that the only statistics available were those of persons receiving and claiming unemployment benefit.

The scope of the social legislation that Fianna Fáil passed in 1933 was rather wide, and people all over the country queued up at the local exchanges for the purpose of making initial claims, and registering themselves as unemployed. It was more than a question of the possibility that once their unemployment was accepted, they would be in receipt of some benefit. Wisely, I think, it was indicated at that time that all employment schemes would be considered and, indeed, allocated on the basis of the unemployment content of particular areas.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I feel that a matter of detail of this kind should be reserved for the relevant Estimate, and should not be raised on the Vote on Account.

Mr. Moloney

Very well, Sir; I accept your ruling. I shall try to speak generally. I was dealing with the question of unemployment because it was referred to in the House. I was trying to make the point that the live register, as we know it, is grossly exaggerated. I am not taking Party advantage when I make that claim because I submit that has been the position for many years. If you say, however, that my remarks tend to be too detailed in this connection, I have to pass on and reserve them for appropriate discussion in the future.

However, it is admitted that since the Government took office two years ago, the number of unemployed has been reduced from the very high figure of 92,000, at which it stood at that time, to approximately 70,000 at present. Opposition speakers, of course, have made the point that there is no real reduction; that in fact, there are more people unemployed to-day than there were when the Government took office. They make the case that, in the interim, we have lost a very substantial part of our population through emigration. Unfortunately, there are no reliable statistics to support or disprove that latter statement. I do wish that we could get down to brass tacks in this matter, and some time or other be able to evolve a system whereby the exact trend of emigration could be registered.

When I was discussing unemployment a few moments ago I went so far as to give credit to all Parties in their good intentions to try to cure that problem. I think it is a very grave problem and it is the duty of the Government of the time being to try to solve it. I suggest that this Government, and indeed the previous Governments, to a very great extent, have endeavoured to create the necessary state of affairs in this country at least to discourage emigration.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Moloney

I was dealing with emigration and I indicated that it was one of the most difficult problems any Government can face. It will require a tremendous effort to secure an appreciable improvement in the situation in the foreseeable future. I feel this very great problem must eventually be tackled on lines somewhat similar to those used to tackle our defence problem during the emergency. There is not much point in Deputies making speeches about what has been happening as regards emigration in the past. We must accept that the rate of emigration has been far greater than any of us wish and that it is only by co-operative effort that we can cure the position. Among the unemployed is a very large proportion of persons who are unable to find work and who, through no fault of theirs, are unable to contribute the necessary effort to the national labour pool which is so vital for our economic advancement.

I have discussed the matter with various authorities. I feel that if we got down to it in some special way, we might succeed in making the people as a whole more conscious of the problem. I believe the people expect more help than can be forthcoming from any Government, no matter what Government are in power. The responsibility of a Government in this connection, I think, is to provide, so far as possible within their resources, schemes of employment of a productive nature thereby helping to absorb some unemployed. Businesses and similar organisations could help to bring about a gradual improvement. Individual employers, even though they may find it rather difficult to carry on their normal pattern of business, might be approached with some hope of success, with a view to getting them to expand employment in their own organisation. Many small businesses could, with a little extra effort and initiative on the part of the management provide some measure of extra employment. In an existing staff of 10 or 12, if even one other person could be squeezed in it would certainly mean some improvement, not so much in numbers which are important but in the co-operative spirit among the people generally. I make that suggestion for what it is worth. I hope that there is some means of bringing it to the notice of the people concerned and that it will lead to some success.

The unemployed include quite a large proportion of those who would emigrate, even if they got good remunerative employment at home. It is a gross exaggeration for anybody to say that all who emigrate do so of necessity. We know what happens in our own areas regarding emigration and if we trouble to do a little stocktaking, we find a proportion of those who go, particularly to England rather than to the United States or other countries, are not obliged to emigrate for economic reasons. There is some reason which is very difficult to get at. I have met various cases where persons of an age to take up employment here refuse to take up certain types of work, eventually emigrate and are glad to take up employment abroad without the prospects of advancement they could get at home.

A fair proportion—fortunately—of those who emigrate are anxious to return and do return and get work at home, and are all the better for the experience they get abroad. Higher rates of wages seem to attract our people. The amenities associated with employment abroad are in most cases more attractive than we can offer, even though our standard is pretty high and is advancing in recent years. I think it is necessary for public representatives, especially Deputies and members of local authorities to initiate a campaign on a national basis to inspire confidence regarding the prospects for those remaining in this country and instilling that confidence into the young men and women.

Most young people now reaching the employable age are rather cynical. In every clubroom and meeting place where the question of remaining in this country is discussed we find far too many people who should know better adopting the view that there are no prospects here and that they must go abroad. Our people are very impatient in that connection and are inclined to be rather credulous. Very often, they will accept an adverse opinion, while it seems to be very hard to get them to consider an opinion that is more honest and perhaps more realistic.

I rather feel that this House, irrespective of which side of it we may occupy, has a grave responsibility in this matter. I appeal to Deputies to adopt a more realistic approach than has been adopted in the past to the problems of emigration and unemployment. I am quite sure that the Government are fully alive to their responsibility in these matters, but no matter how a Government may handle them, if there is not that required degree of co-operation behind the Government, their efforts are generally nullified.

Mr. O'Donnell

Deputy Moloney has said a rather significant thing in relation to this question of unemployment and emigration. He said that it was a serious matter and that he thought the only remedy was a getting together of all Parties such as we had on the question of defence during the emergency. He was referring to the setting up of the defence council at that time. That was a council of all Parties, an inter-Party or coalition council.

But what have the Deputy and his colleagues been doing in this House for the past three months? They have been trying to abolish the Parties who could create such a situation. That sort of co-operation is something to be desired by all of us, but for the past three months, Deputy Moloney and his leader have tried to persuade this House that there should be no such thing as co-operation or inter-Party spirit and that we should have merely one Party with a small constructive Opposition. Deputy Brennan, my colleague in this House from West Donegal, held up his hands in horror and said that all the Opposition was good for is destructive criticism. What does he want us to do?

Deputy Davern is interesting to listen to and if he would like to explain this, I would not like to interrupt him. He says: "If only we had the cows", and that the keeping of the cows was the policy of Fianna Fáil. But the slaughter of the calves was also the policy of Fianna Fáil and if we had not the calves, where were we to get the cows? That is something I cannot understand.

Again, we know that in 1955, we had more cattle, sheep and pigs than we had from the year 1848. Then, we could not all get up and boast and crow as we are doing to-day, that we have trebled the exports. Would Deputy Moloney think for a second what the situation would be to-day, if we had permitted the 1947 policy of Fianna Fáil to continue, if we had permitted the continuation of the policy of the Minister for External Affairs, the policy which he enunciated at that time, the slaughter of calves and the abolition of the market with Britain? If we had continued that policy, where would we be to-day? If we had followed the policy of the Tánaiste in the establishment of mushroom industries in the back streets of Dublin in lieu of this wonderful traditional agricultural industry of ours, where would we be to-day?

I heard Deputy Burke say a few moments ago: "Thank God, we have political stability now." Have we political stability now? If we have, why have we been here for the past three months, trying to introduce a new method of election to give us political stability? Why should they continue to say two things which do not agree? We have Deputy Haughey telling Deputy Sherwin that the people of Ballyfermot are 50 times better off to-day than they were in 1956—50 times better off. Perhaps some Deputies would like me to quote what Deputy Haughey said here last week. It is taken from the Dáil Debates of 25th February, Volume 173, column 89. Deputy Haughey was interrupted by Deputy Sherwin and Deputy Haughey said:—

"I can give him the simple straightforward answer that, in my experience, there is not in all these working-class houses on the perimeter of Dublin any suggestion either of destitution or hunger to which there is no solution——

Mr. Sherwin: There is, in Ballyfermot and Finglas. You will see them with their orange-boxes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Order! Deputy Sherwin should allow Deputy Haughey to speak without interruption.

Mr. Sherwin: He does not represent that side.

Mr. Haughey: I do not agree. To my knowledge, things in those areas now are at least about 50 times better than they were in the dreadful winter of 1956 when the stagnation and despair and unemployment which were rife in Dublin City at that time led practically everybody in the city to the point of almost throwing in the sponge. I can assure Deputy Dillon that, in fact, practically everybody who has considered the situation is agreed that the turning-point after that black winter of 1956 came with the 1957 Budget and that things have definitely and consistently improved since that time."

General Mulcahy

He told us to-day that the accent was on the "things"—that they were there.

Mr. O'Donnell

I should like to hear Deputy Haughey speaking up there. He is very closely associated with the Tánaiste and knows what is going on. I should like him to make that speech on a Saturday night in Ballyfermot, or preferably on the night the locals draw the dole. I should like to hear his speech in Ballyfermot, saying that the people are 50 times better off than they were two years ago.

However, he goes further. There is a section about which he is a little worried—one particular section. That section is not the section which includes the person in receipt of unemployment assistance, the person in receipt of unemployment benefit, the poor widow in receipt of a widow's pension, whether contributory or noncontributory. It is not the old age pensioner; it is not the person in receipt of a disability allowance, it is not the person in receipt of outdoor relief. He is worried about one section, a section other than those. For those others, everything is grand; they are 50 times better off than they were two years ago. There is one section he is worried about and this is what he says about them:—

"My main reason for speaking is to appeal on behalf of a particular section of the community: I think this is the appropriate occasion. The Minister has very many claims being made upon him and very many appeals are submitted to him. He would need to have far greater resources at his disposal than he has if he were to meet them all. Nevertheless, it is only right that I should put forward the case of Civil Service pensioners. A considerable number of my constituents are in that category. They have great difficulty in making ends meet on the fixed pension on which they have to subsist."

Why? Because the cost of living has gone up, the food subsidies were slashed. Those poor unfortunate pensioners are entitled to increases, but no more so than the unfortunate recipients of unemployment assistance, outdoor relief, unemployment benefit or allowances in any of the other categories I have mentioned.

But I will not get a more relevant opportunity on which to tell the Parliamentary Secretary the blunders he made.

Mr. O'Donnell

I have already referred to the fact that my colleague, Deputy Brennan, complained that we were not giving constructive opposition. He said another thing. He said that no Government could make this country prosperous, unless they had the will of the people. This country is not prosperous at the moment and I take it, therefore, that the Government have not the goodwill of the people. That is the logical outcome of my friend's statement. Between Deputy Brennan's complaint that we have not the will of the people, and Deputy Burke who says we have political stability, and Deputy Moloney who says we ought to get together, while the other two are trying to do away with P.R. at the same time, I really do not know what to make of it. They should get together and agree on some policy before coming in here.

I shall not detain the House further, but I sometimes remember a statement made at the general election in 1948. I remember it was made by some disgruntled supporters of the Fianna Fáil Party—they are not so plentiful to-day as they were then—who said of the ship of State: "The skipper is all right, but he has a bad crew." He has not added to the crew since. He has taken on a bit of ballast, a bit of deadweight, but instead of jettisoning the crew, he is now deserting the ship himself. He has an eye on the Park and he will leave the ship with what was described as "a damn bad crew".

General Mulcahy

If he can.

Mr. O'Donnell

If he can. I think he is leaving the ship whether he goes to the Park or retires and I often wonder what will happen to the crew. Will there be another "Mutiny on the Bounty?" I hope there will be no grabbing of the loot, if there is a mutiny, but the skipper is leaving and with the crew that will be left, I cannot see much future for the country.

Mr. McQuillan

In introducing this Vote on Account, the Minister spoke in somewhat similar terms to those of his contribution this time last year. Deputies who had the patience to listen to the Minister expected that on this occasion he would utilise the opportunity at his disposal to give us an outline of what Government policy is with regard to the country—if there is any Government policy.

On this occasion last year, the criticism was that the Minister came in here and casually gave his statement, sat down and left the matter to the House. A number of Deputies criticised that attitude last year and suggested that it was unfair on the part of the Government and that it was treating the House with contempt. I had hoped that the criticism levelled last year would have impressed itself on the mind of the Minister and that we would, on this occasion, have had a more realistic approach by the Minister.

On these occasions, there is scope each year for Deputies to criticise, constructively or otherwise, Government policy or the policy that is in operation under the particular Government. The trouble at the moment is that so far as this Government are concerned—and they have now been in office for two years—it is impossible for any Deputy to see that their approach to the problems that confront them is different from the approach of the previous Government. So far as I can see, the old saying "The more they seem to change, the more they remain the same" is absolutely true of Government of this country, since a limited amount of freedom was achieved in 1922.

We have had, as Deputy O'Donnell said, 20 years of "de Valera" Government. We also had a Cumann na nGaedheal Government and we had inter-Party Government for six years. From the neutral point of view, from the point of view of persons who were not associated with the tragedy which split the country into the pro-Treaty and the anti-Treaty sides, it is impossible to discern any fundamental differences in the approach of either side of the House to our major problems. When Fianna Fáil are in office, the people in opposition suggest the Government are carrying out a policy which they put into operation, and when the inter-Party Government are in office Fianna Fáil sit back and say, if any good or allegedly good steps are being taken, the inter-Party are only carrying out a policy which they had in mind.

That type of carry-on and criticism has gone on in this House since I came into it in 1948. The speeches made, including my own, are the same speeches we have heard since 1948. It would save a lot of time if the speeches which are to be made for the rest of the debate on this Vote on Account were put on long-playing records and let Deputies go home, because it really amounts to this: what is said in this House does not count for as much as a snap of my fingers. The power and the control in this country now lie outside this House.

Deputies on both sides are beginning to realise that, and if that control is ever to come back to the House, there are a lot of toes to be trodden on, and if those toes are not trodden on, and if these vested interests which have their spear-heads inside the House and their listening posts in both Chambers, are not treated in the manner in which they should be treated, then it is good-bye to the limited freedom which this country has at the moment.

I do not intend to speak at any great length when I resume the debate in the morning because I am feeling very depressed and disillusioned. I do not think that in their position, Deputies should give the impression to the rest of the community by their own speeches that they are beginning to lose hope, because, if we as members of this House lose hope, then so far as the general public are concerned the situation is far more serious.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 4 Mar 1959

Committee on Finance. - Motion by Minister for Finance.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Mar 1959