Deputy MacEoin.
Committee on Finance. - Motion by Minister for Finance (Resumed).
May I point out that three Deputies have already spoken on the opposite side of the House and no Deputy from this side?
Did any Deputy from the Government side offer?
I offered now.
I did not see the Deputy now.
Perhaps you did not look in my direction. I do not think it is quite fair.
If the Deputy offered himself and I saw him, I should certainly have called him.
I rose before Deputy MacEoin.
The Chair endeavours to see everybody who offers. I did not see Deputy Loughman and I cannot change it now.
That is four to one.
This debate has covered many aspects of the life of the country and there have been considerable recriminations, assertions, and what not, as to the cause and effect of the position in which we and the country find ourselves.
The Minister for Health asserted that the inter-Party Governments of 1948-51 and 1954-57 were the main cause of all the difficulties which now arise or which now beset them. He quoted the warning of the Tánaiste to the incoming Government in 1948 that everything was then ship-shape, and they expected that the new Govern-Government, when going out of office, would hand back the country in as good a financial condition as that in which they found it. I should like to get the facts established once and for all, so that from this forward, if untrue assertions are made, they will be known to be untrue.
I want to remind the House that, in 1947, the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach both spoke in the Dáil on the same day and the Taoiseach, as reported in Volume 108, column 392 stated:—
"The Minister for Finance will give you, in much greater detail, the picture of our economic conditions in relation to general world conditions. At this stage, I shall merely sum up by saying that our position is serious and calls for grave thought and well considered action, not by the Government only, but by all sections of the community."
In other words, in 1947, the Taoiseach pointed out the very serious situation with which the country and the Government were then faced.
The Minister for Finance, as reported in column 402 of the same volume, said:—
"While the economic situation is serious there is no reason to doubt our ability to survive the next few critical years if we all make a strong and disciplined effort to increase production."
Then he waved the flag a little bit and said:—
"This nation has survived more difficult periods."
These statements were either true or false, and I accept them as being true.
The Government at that stage felt it was essential to impose the Supplementary Budget, which they then introduced on the people, and they imposed very heavy taxation at that time. It is true to say that Fianna Fáil promised to increase production and to increase exports, but, having been in office from 1932 to 1947, we were told that the country was facing a very serious situation. Government spokesmen said that the price for cattle would not be continued at its then level, and that very grave ills were likely to befall us.
To show exactly what the picture was, I shall quote from the Trade and Shipping Statistics published in 1955 by the Central Statistics Office. The Government told us that they had a plan in 1932, and I remember we were challenged to criticise that plan and say what was wrong with it. The truth of the matter is that there was nothing wrong with the plan of 1932, if they had put it into effect, but we found that they had no intention of putting it into effect. The net result was as follows: in 1931, our export trade was £35,540,000; in 1932, when Fianna Fáil came into office, it immediately fell to £25,173,000; in 1933, it fell to £18,439,000; in 1934, it dropped to £17,574,000; and in 1935, it was £19,615,000. In other words, the plan they had did not work. I should like to know the value of a plan that does not work. The truth is that it is of no value. A plan is good only if it succeeds.
The good condition in which they handed over the country to us in 1947 is shown by the figures. Quoting from Central Statistics Office information, the volume of external trade was £39,511,000 and, in 1948, when we came into office it immediately increased to £49,327,000. That was in a year in which we were only nine months in office. It jumped £10,000,000. Our imports fell in the same period. In 1949, exports jumped to £60,552,000. After the cattle pact negotiated by the Minister for Agriculture, everything began to improve. In addition, we reduced taxation by over £4,000,000 during these years for the first time since Fianna Fáil had come into office. During their period of office, Fianna Fáil never once reduced taxation, but rather increased it.
Our external trade in 1949 was worth £60,552,000 and imports were £130,332,000. In 1950, the external trade jumped to £72,391,000 and in 1951, when we handed over to Fianna Fáil, our external trade was worth £81,520,000. If that is not handing back the country much better than we found it, I should like to know what it is. What exactly would an incoming Fianna Fáil Government expect from us? These are incontrovertible facts and if the Minister for Finance or the Government deny them, what is the point in spending money producing this document under Government authority? All I am asking is that the facts be accepted once and for all and that the Government and Fianna Fáil will admit that there is a record of progress. Not only that, but the progress that was then made is the foundation on which rests our present external trade. That was due in no small measure to saving the lives of the calves and the improvement of our agricultural activities, land rehabilitation and so on.
To-day when Fianna Fáil blandly tell us that they have reduced emigration, or at least that it is on the downward trend, they fail to say how they arrive at their figures, because it is a strange thing that when they are in opposition, they can have accurate information but they cannot be accurate when in Government. The least we could expect is that they would be able to give an estimate. Everybody knows the facts. The Fianna Fáil executive in Longford told the Minister for Lands and the Minister for Health how serious the position was in Longford and, believe it or not, the Minister for Lands told the Fianna Fáil official that it was not as bad as he was saying. In other words, the Minister was nearly saying to him: "You are as bad as the Opposition when you are exposing the truth." That young official went to the trouble later of publishing the figures and the emigration was as high, in the past 12 months, as three out of one family and in some cases the whole family packed up and left.
It is clear that there is a great reduction, or at least a considerable reduction, in the number employed as is shown by the number of stamps sold. I am not crowing over that; I think it is a very sad state of affairs; but when the Government took office in 1957 and got the offer of cooperation, understanding and assistance from the Opposition, the least one would expect is that they would accept and make use of it. Instead the offer is spurned and Fianna Fáil go blandly on, because of their majority in the House and they do not want help from anybody or any Party.
We are told that our external assets are increasing and I presume that is something the Minister for Lands and the Minister for Finance are very proud about and that they are very happy to have them, but when the Minister for Lands described those assets as our standing army of occupation in Britain, I was not too happy about that statement, because if you have a standing army anywhere, you must send it reinforcements and the reinforcements we are sending are our boys and girls to work there to bolster up these external assets.
These assets may be essential; it may be good to have them; but when Fianna Fáil boast that they are something to be proud of and use them as an index to show how they have improved the situation and even go further and tell us that the bank rate, as Deputy Haughey said, had been reduced five times within the last two years, one must question their wisdom. Who reduced the bank rate first in each instance? Did the banks here move of their own volition or did they wait until the banks in England had first moved? Everybody knows that the Bank of England moved first and the banks here followed suit.
Fianna Fáil boast that the Exchequer Bills were oversubscribed, but who initiated the idea of Exchequer Bills——
I did.
Who initiated the prize bond scheme? I have no hesitation in saying that the plans for the Exchequer Bills were in being and if the Minister put them into effect, more power to his elbow. They were very successful and I hope they will be more successful.
I have no hesitation in saying that they are of very great benefit to our people and to the Government for capital development.
I do not feel that the Government serve any useful purpose when the Minister for Health attacks the previous Government for saying that, for goodwill and to get a satisfactory settlement of the problems confronting the Government, when civil servants and others sought an increase, the matter would be left to arbitration. The Minister for Health tells us that that means the power of the Dáil and of the Government is being left outside the House. How can that assertion be made? The first thing an arbitration board does is ascertain the facts and come to a decision as to what increase is reasonable. The Government have responsibility then to decide for or against. I assert that Governments have so operated. Governments have rejected the arbitration award and I presume they were exercising the power; Governments have granted the award and again they were exercising the power to grant or refuse.
I do not know what to say about the Government's plan for the purchase of jet aeroplanes. I hope it will be a success, if they undertake it. However, it is a gamble with the people's money. Is it reasonable that a Government should gamble with the goods or money of the people in such a way? There ought to be some business people who would recommend it, after investigation, if it was desirable and likely to be profitable. Here we have the Government deciding on this—without very great consideration, I suggest.
The £10,000,000 to be spent on a scheme like this is not likely to be productive, but there are schemes which could be put into operation for agriculture, in drainage, under the Local Authorities (Works) Act and so on, which would be productive. There are over 2,000,000 acres, if not 3,000,000, of our land to-day still requiring attention under the Land Project. Is it not more reasonable that that problem be tackled first and any money available spent on that line of capacity, since it would increase production?
The whole success of any Government lies in the increase in production, the marketing of our goods and the getting of a good price for them, plus, of course, an ample consumption at home. We can have a situation where the people at home restrict themselves for the purpose of selling or exporting their goods. We have, I am afraid, an example of that to-day, when a milling company like Messrs Rank declare that the people are not eating bread. They are certainly not eating the potatoes. This year, the potatoes are not so good. If it had been a really good year, with an excellent crop of good potatoes, it could be argued that the people had changed over a bit; but everyone knows that the potato crop this year, except for three counties, never was as poor and the crop itself never was as bad for eating.
Again, of all the items the Government propose in their plan for capital development, not 50 per cent., not half of them has any chance of increasing production. It is true that more money is to be made available to the Agricultural Credit Corporation, but is there any belief or expectation that the agricultural community will make use of it? I have been hearing what the A.C.C. can do and would do for the agriculturist. The truth of the matter is that, in a great number of cases, the same facilities could be obtained by the farmer from any bank, if he was trustworthy at all. The farmers did not utilise the facilities.
Now, of course, we have the very pleasing spectacle—I am glad that it has happened—that the banks to-day are forcing money on the farmers and advertising that all the farmer has to do now to get money is come in and say he wants to buy T.B. free heifers or tested heifers, tractors and what not, and the whole place is open to him. Fianna Fáil speakers say this is due to their being in office. I should like to hear the banks' comment on that. If it is true that the banks can loosen up because Fianna Fáil are in office, it is a very interesting sidelight. Let us hope some of them will address themselves to that problem at a very early stage.
I feel that the whole solution to-day lies with our people on the land. When I say "on the land", I mean, as Deputy Dillon said yesterday, the people on the small farms. They are not remaining on them, as they are not getting for their labour the compensation to which they are entitled. The trend is towards mechanisation and towards larger farms where tractors can be utilised more efficiently. That is doing away with the Irish home, the Irish family and reducing our countryside to a depopulated area. I do not know that the Government can have any readymade scheme to remedy that, but what I complain about is that they said they had.
In the 1957 election, Fianna Fáil blandly asserted that they had a scheme to end unemployment, or reduce it, and a scheme to lower emigration. The fact is that to-day we have more unemployment and more emigration. Our proposed expenditure in the coming financial year will be up by £5,000,000. A sum of £9,500,000 was taken from the people by the removal of the food subsidies. That means that roughly £14,500,000 more is being taken from the people this year than in previous years, and that will be taken from a smaller population and a comparatively poorer country. The Government are up against a very serious situation. The position can only be remedied, as has been said, by reducing taxation and by taking steps to make it worth while increasing production, both in industry and in agriculture. The greatest incentive to increased production is increased profit-making or wage-earning capacity, in the knowledge that those increases can be spent by the people themselves in the way in which they want to spend them.
Governments must govern. They must maintain public services, but, as well as having the duty of maintaining public services, it is also their duty to ensure that such maintenance is done in the most economic way possible. I have nothing against the five-year plan outlined by the Government. Deputy Dillon showed quite clearly that the greater part of it is ours. No matter what the plan is, if it is not put into effect, it is of no value. When the Government say they will increase the national income by 2 per cent. and double production in 35 years, it is no harm to remind them of what the inter-Party Government did from 1948 to 1951.
We did more in those three years than the Fianna Fáil Government did from 1932 to 1947. In 1932, cattle production amounted to £14,960,000. In 1934, it had fallen to £5,663,000. There was a difference of £9,500,000 as between 1932 and 1934. Butter fell from £11,326,000 in 1932 to £7,363,000, a drop of £4,000,000. There, we are £13,000,000 down. Pigs fell from £8,999,000 to £5,273,000. Eggs fell from £7,113,000 to £4,273,000. Sheep and lambs fell from £3,207,000 to £1,600,000. All that happened as a result of the great plan Fianna Fáil had then. The Irish farmer survived it. Or did he? Of course he did not survive it. He has never recovered. That was the cause; now we have the effect.
At no time from the day Fianna Fáil came into office until they left in 1948 was there a reduction in taxation. At no time was there a reduction in emigration. At no time was there a reduction in unemployment. During the war, 60,000 were taken into the Army. Another few thousand were appointed as tillage inspectors, and whatnot.
Warble fly inspectors.
We did not bother about the warble fly during the war. We sent over 50,000 of our boys into the British Army, Navy and Air Force. On top of that, we sent over 30,000 to work in Britain. Simultaneously we had over 100,000 unemployed. That was the situation when we took office in 1948. In 1949 and 1950, we reduced unemployment to around 45,000 for the first time. I know Fianna Fáil says we were on a spending spree and, not only that, but we left debts behind us. The truth of the matter is that, instead of debts, there was £24,000,000 Marshall Aid left in the kitty to the Minister for Finance. Of course, that was vehemently denied. There was no truth in that until 1952 when the Taoiseach, speaking in Fermoy, said there was a "remnant" of £24,000,000. When I, across the floor of this House, said that that was only "tailor's clippings", he was highly indignant. There was a remnant of £24,000,000. Is it not a pity we could not establish the facts and, having established the facts—never mind who was to blame or who was at fault—is it not a pity that we could not make an effort to put an end to all this sort of thing which is destroying the country that we all have to live and work in?
As long as you can blame Fianna Fáil, it is all right.
I am trying to cite the facts. What the Fianna Fáil Government did then was to come in here with a plan. It did not work. They come in to-day with another plan and it has as much chance of working as the first one had. If it does work, all they are seeking is a 2 per cent. increase in production. I say that that does not meet our requirements. If that is the best Fianna Fáil can do, it is no use. The people want much more than that. They want what the inter-Party Government were able to give them from 1948 to 1951 and what the inter-Party Government were doing in their second period of office, but for the Suez crisis and other conditions outside our control.
Fianna Fáil would like to blame us for that. When we were advising the Irish people to have another cow, another sow and another acre under the plough, the Minister for Lands came down to Longford and said that the bottom had fallen out of the cattle market and that the people should get rid of their stock. Was that helpful? Those who took our advice made money and I may say here that many Fianna Fáil people took our advice. However, the truth of the matter is that they were able to break the confidence of some of our supporters. They lowered the morale and strength of our people by their continued propaganda.
The Government tell us to-day that the White Paper is the greatest document that has ever been produced. I do not think it is as good as their 1932 document which offered immediate employment for 82,000 people in the growing of peas and beans. They went from that to Egyptian honey. Now the Minister for Lands has swung around the fish pond in the backyard. I hope that Deputy Loughman has built a very efficient fish pond in his backyard and I shall be glad to go down and see him with his hook and worm trying to get his breakfast for the morning. Money has been put into this Vote for the fish pond. Whatever merit was in the Egyptian honey scheme, it was better than the fish pond idea.
It was better than the white turkeys.
Would the Minister say that down the country?
I shall say it anywhere I like.
The Department of Agriculture is spending money in advertising them.
Between the Egyptian bee and the fish pond, our people are getting stung.
And Suez.
Is it not time that the Government grew up and had some sense of responsibility? I submit that the Minister for Health and the Minister for Lands have not grown up and that the Minister for Health is just as irresponsible to-day as ever he was. The Minister for Lands appealed to everybody yesterday. I am quoting from to-day's Independent. The reporter may have been wrong, but I do not think he was because I was here and I heard what he said. The following is the quotation:—
"Referring to the programme for economic expansion, he said it marked a change in their whole outlook towards economic development. Some of the difficulties they now faced were due to the inactivity and lack of intelligence displayed by the inter-Party Government."
Is that not a top notcher? I think the Minister for Lands should become the Minister for Finance. He said that it marked a change. What were Fianna Fáil doing from 1932 to 1948? What were they doing they did not think of this all that time?
Fighting the Blueshirts.
I think the Blueshirts should be allowed to remain in the honoured place which they occupy, but if the Minister wants a debate on the merits or demerits of the Blueshirts I shall give it to him.
It would not be relevant to this debate.
When a responsible Minister makes a remark like that, it shows how bad a case he has. The Government had 16 years from 1932 to 1948 to produce this programme and they did not produce it. They had from 1951 to 1954 and why did they not think of this? What was the matter? The truth is that is was the activity and initiative displayed by the inter-Party Government that gave them the thought to do it. They are too conscious of their shortcomings to admit that. Is it not a pity that we cannot give each other credit for what we do?
Is it not a pity right enough?
I am trying to show that the accusation of the Minister for Lands and his colleagues charging the inter-Party Government with inefficiency, inactivity and lack of intelligence is unfounded, but when I try to show that, then I am not telling the truth. The Minister admits that it is a pity that where credit is due, it cannot be given.
On both sides.
I shall try to make my own speech without interruption from the Minister. I am prepared to take him on in relation to any issue at any time, the Blueshirts, the civil war or anything else, but it is not a matter at issue to-day, nor do I think it would serve any useful purpose, or improve the condition of our people, end emigration, lower unemployment or increase employment to go into any of these matters.
Every time any one attempts to address himself to these problems we get the same interjection. For what purpose? That is exactly what the Government are doing. They seem to have some object in mind, to wave the flag and to hoodwink the electorate again, if it is possible, and I do not think it is. The Government shouted loud and long. I saw a very respectable Deputy of the Fianna Fáil Party with the milk producers when the march was going strong, and while I do not charge him with inciting them, at least he did not say he did not like it.
The Government forget all about that and in this Book of Estimates the butter subsidy is to be reduced by a very substantial sum. Why? Because we are to have less butter. The subsidy on wheat is being reduced. Why? Because we are to have less wheat. Is that true? Is it true that the Government believe the farmers are going out of wheat growing, because, mind you, after all the hardships of wheat growing, it would be a pity if anything were to happen to it? Many small farmers have built up an expectation of an income from wheat growing, and if that is now suddenly taken away from them, their position will be worsened. If Fine Gael or the inter-Party Government had done that, we would never have heard the end of it. How is it that a thing becomes a sin for Fine Gael or the inter-Party Government which is a virtue for the Fianna Fáil Government? There is one reason only— we change sides. When the Government are a Fianna Fáil Government, everything they do is right, no matter how they change or twist or turn. They are an infallible Party.
Thanks be to God.
This is a very serious matter. Every person in the world who has considered himself to be infallible, whether it was Caesar, Hitler, Napoleon, Mussolini or whoever he was, got what was coming to him. I do not say the Fianna Fáil should suffer what they suffered—far be it from me to say that—but I do say when they make a claim to be infallible they are treading on very dangerous ground.
I should like to appeal once more to the Government, who have the responsibility of bringing in their Budget proposals in the near future to pay for this Book of Estimates and Vote on Account. They can do more for the economy of the country by reducing taxation than in any White Paper or in any plan they produce. They should do something effective which will be an incentive to the people to produce more, whether for home consumption, or for the export market. The more our exports increase and the more our production increases, the better chance there is of maintaining more homes in rural Ireland than we have at the present time.
This country cannot make headway, unless and until the population increases, and until we have more homes with happy families and all the things which each and every one of us would like to see in Irish life—a really happy contented Irish family around the fireside. That can be done if the Government take steps to relieve their burdens and if they do not adopt the policy of our old friend, the land agent, when he said to the landlord: "Load them, load them. The heavier you load them the kinder they will draw." That philosophy is wrong. It was condemned then and is still to be condemned. I appeal once more to the Government to reduce taxation and give the people of Ireland a chance.
In referring to Deputy MacEoin's speech, I suppose we can say it was relevant to the Bill and in that regard, I have no fault to find with it. I do, of course, feel that he is speaking from the wrong point of view. I dispute the figures he gave and I deny that the conclusions he arrived at are the correct ones. In the course of what I have to say, I hope to deal with some of the questions he raised.
I listened last night, perhaps for an hour, to Deputy Donnellan, and his speech reminded me of a story I read in the life of Daniel O'Connell. It concerned a rather notorious lady called Biddy Moriarty and an argument she had with Daniel O'Connell. As I say, Deputy Donnellan's argument reminded me very much of the type of argument which that famous or notorious lady used. The oddest thing about his speech was that when he concluded, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle read a short notice which had been received from the Seanad. Five items which had been passed by the Seanad were included in it. They were the Turf Development Bill, the Irish Shipping Amendment Bill and the Air Navigation and Transport Bill.
What were the other two?
The others concerned matters which I do not intend to deal with now. However, what I intended to say was that this announcement was rather an anti-climax to the speech delivered by Deputy Donnellan. I well remember when turf development was first mooted by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I was a member of the Dáil at that time when he tried to put over turf development in this country, and I am well aware of the terrific opposition he received from the opposite side of the House. We were told the turf was rotten, that it would not burn, that the men were badly treated on the bogs; everything connected with it was condemned right, left and centre by the people on the opposite benches. A table in the restaurant was actually laid by the late Hugo Flinn with the ration which was given to the men employed in the Clonsast bog to disprove the statements which were made about the treatment our Government were giving to the men we employed at that time. It is rather surprising to me that now there was unanimity, here in this House, towards the granting of an enormous increase in the amount of money being made available for turf development, in view of the attitude adopted by the Opposition previously.
I remember reading a report of a speech made by ex-Deputy Morrissey, former Minister for Industry and Commerce, when he was opening the Allenwood turf station. He said he had to pay tribute to the foresight, wisdom and energy of his predecessor, Deputy Seán Lemass. It is a great pity that when he was putting these schemes through, he did not receive the co-operation which he should have received.
What about the E.S.B.?
I am making my own speech, and I want now to refer to the Irish Shipping (Amendment) Bill. I was a member of this House when the Minister for Industry and Commerce purchased the first four ships for Irish Shipping and, as Deputy Giles will remember, the purchase of those ships was condemned, right, left and centre by Deputy Dillon and the Party to which he belongs. It was said that we were robbing the people, but we are all very happy now to provide more money to improve that great marine service which we have, thanks to Fianna Fáil and the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
The Minister for External Affairs wanted them all at the bottom of the sea.
The third measure recently passed was the Air Navigation and Transport Bill. Unanimously, the House passed that measure, entitling the Minister to borrow more money to purchase jet planes. Deputy MacEoin wishes that project well, but thinks it will not be a success. We believe it will be a success. He called it a gamble.
So it is.
At a time when every other country in the world was embarking on expansion of air services the inter-Party Government sold the Constellations in 1948. Is anything done in business, even after a proper examination is made beforehand, that is not a gamble? I could give dozens of instances of things that were regarded by the Opposition as gambles when they were introduced for the first time by Fianna Fáil, but we are satisfied now that we are taking our place in world affairs when we are making more money available for the purpose of developing our air transport services. I am satisfied that the unanimity with which that money was made available will be justified, as time passes, and I am certain that Deputy MacEoin will be happy about it.
It will be a sad day if it is not successful.
That is only the old cry in the wilderness. In fact, all the speeches we heard here during the past four or five days were crying and lamenting over the poor people and the unemployed.
And why not?
What is the purpose of it? The remedy is to do something for the poor.
Hear, hear!
I told Deputy Corish yesterday that he was shedding crocodile tears over the poor—"the poor who are always with us".
The longer Fianna Fáil are in office, the more there will be of them.
Deputy Loughman is entitled to make his speech.
I believe we will always have the poor people. They were there, 2,000 years ago, when that statement I quoted was first uttered. Deputy MacEoin said that we did practically nothing from 1932 to 1947, and that it was a pity that we did not then have this five-year programme which we have now. I should like Deputy MacEoin to cast his mind back to 1932 and I shall help to give him an idea of what conditions were at that time and of what has happened since. It is all relevant.
What was the price of a loaf then?
If Deputies do not wish to listen to Deputy Loughman, they have a remedy. Otherwise, the Chair will have to take the necessary action.
I listened to Deputy MacEoin very attentively. The Opposition have been talking about wheat, oats and so on, but in those days oats were sold, if they could be sold at all, for about 7/- a barrel, wheat for 18/- a barrel, milk for 3d. or 4d. a gallon, and farmers had to drive their cattle from fair to fair in order to try to sell them. The farmers were more impoverished at that time than they ever were and there was more unemployment in the country than ever before.
Our policy was to promote industrial development, and that was in the programme to which Deputy MacEoin referred. Young Deputies will not remember what was said about industrial development at that time. It was said that the factories which we were establishing were back-lane factories, places in which child labour was employed, and that they were a burden on the people because of the protective tariffs we imposed. I saw a Deputy on the Fine Gael Bench breaking a spade handle across his knees to show that Irish workmanship was bad.
It must have been a very bad handle, if he could do that.
I saw another Fine Gael Deputy tearing Donegal tweed to show it was of poor quality. In my own town of Clonmel, a shoe factory was established in 1934, the first and only one in the town. Every year since, 350 people have been employed in it, but a man who was a Fine Gael candidate in two elections stated at a meeting of Clonmel Corporation that it was a factory in which child labour was employed, and slave wages paid. We had to produce facts showing the wages were not only as good as in England but, in actual fact, were better than many in England at that time. I listened also to the chairman of that company, an Englishman, stating a year after it was established that he was glad to be able to say that the operatives working in it, were turning out as good work as the operatives in the factories in which he was interested in Britain. Every time the late Senator Quirke came into Tipperary, the jeer went up from Fine Gael that he was coming along with factories in his pocket. Thank goodness, the idea of industrial production, as well as many other ideas, have been got across to the Opposition.
Deputy Corish spoke about housing as if it were something in which Fianna Fáil never had an interest, notwithstanding the fact that the housing drive really started in this country after the introduction of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1932. Up to that time, about an average of a dozen houses had been built in the average sized towns of this country, from 1922 to 1932, and not one solitary house have I come across throughout Ireland which has not been built through local authorities, or by local authorities with the aid of the Government.
None—that is right.
And then Deputy Corish blathers about building houses. We were building houses, post offices and Garda barracks long before the Coalition Government.
And you burned down a lot of post offices and barracks, too.
They are getting annoyed now.
As fast as we could, we continued to build houses until 1939, but, after 1939, there had to be a slow down. We could not be blamed for the war which prevented us from getting many of the articles which were necessary, if the housing programme were to be completed. It is an undisputed fact that if the war had not intervened, there would be no housing problem here in 1945. Everybody needing a house would have one at a price which the ordinary wage would meet.
When we hear people like Deputy Corish talking of housing, it is apt to make us smile, and it is really amusing to hear Deputy MacEoin talking about wheat and worrying because there was some change, he thought, in the situation. I do not want to repeat the statement that Deputy Dillon made that if you could grow wheat in this country and if you could save it and mill it and bake it, and squeeze it until all the water was out of it, you then examined it and wondered whether it was boot polish or bread. If you thought it was boot polish, you polished your boots with it and so on.
That was the attitude of Fine Gael all during the time when we struggled from 1932 to 1939 to increase the wheat acreage from 20,000 to 280,000 acres in 1939. That increase was not obtained without what might be called blood and tears. I often heard from the benches opposite, from the lips of Deputies who have now gone from this House, groans and protests that we were destroying the land, robbing the people and scourging the farmers. I remember well the measures we had to take to feed our people during the emergency and the terrible trouble we had with the members of the Fine Gael Party then. Actually, we had to take over the land from them and compel them to have it ploughed in order that our people would be the only people in Europe to have an unrationed supply of bread——
Will the question of blackmarketing be allowed for discussion by us?
Deputy MacEoin raised all these questions. We sponsored the wheat programme and we shall continue to sponsor it.
Deputy Corish spoke about social services, and he was very anxious about the widows and orphans, the unemployed men and the old age pensioners. I asked him did he regard the old age pension as a means of livelihood, after he had quoted Dr. Lucey. He answered: "Yes." I said I did not. I shall explain what I meant when I said that. I remember the introduction of the old age pension by the British in 1909. It was 5/- a week then and neither then nor at any time since was the old age pension regarded as a means of livelihood. It was something extra which the State was giving to old people to help them in their old age. The State does not, and I hope it never will, come to the conclusion that the old people or the young people are to be wards of the State, that they should be in the same category as we are led to believe they occupy in Communist countries. I believe old people are the responsibility of their children, just as the children are the responsibility of the old people.
And if they have no children?
That is how I look on the old age pensions we give. I think I heard somebody ask what happens when they have no children. If they have no children they are entitled to look after themselves during their lifetime to provide for their old age. I wanted to make that point clear, and it brings me to another point.
What social services had this country in 1932? We had old age pensions, unemployment insurance and national health benefits. These three services were handed over by the British in 1922 and we had no other service, so far as I can remember. We had no unemployment assistance. Deputy Corish, quoting from the Independent, I think, and Deputy Donnellan quoting from another very famous paper, the Sunday Review, talked about the misery and poverty of some individuals. Some of them mentioned a person with two children who had £3 1s. per week, and the other mentioned a family of—I think—ten, who had allowances of £4 1s. Neither of them mentioned family allowances, but that is beside the question. The man with the £4 1s. also had a daughter bringing in £6 a week, and both Deputies wept over the miseries of these people. In 1922, what had they? They had the local official or the relieving officer, but they definitely had no unemployment assistance.
As regards the old age pension, since Deputy Corish regarded it as a means of livelihood, I should like to have asked him why, when he was Minister for Social Welfare, if he believed then that the old age pension was a means of livelihood, did he not bring it up to a rate which he would regard as sufficient to maintain life for old persons. He thought nothing about that.
As well as not having unemployment assistance, we did not have family allowances. We had not widows' and orphans' pensions and there were no holidays with pay for the working people. There was no Conditions of Employment Act. I could mention 100 different things, all of which we were engaged in providing from 1932 to 1947. One point that no Deputy on the opposite side mentioned is that while we were providing all these great benefits and further while providing the country with absolute and complete independence, so far as the Twenty-Six Counties are concerned——
Can we also go into this?
——we were also engaged in a big economic struggle with Britain. I am not going to refer to it at any length, but we were certainly embroiled in it and when Deputy MacEoin wishes to make out that our exports to Britain and other places fell during the years he mentioned, 1933, 1934 and 1935, surely he is aware of the fact that Britain put penal tariffs on our exports at that time and very little support did we get from the Deputy and his Party.
Can we cover this ground also?
Deputy MacEoin was permitted to mention the years of the economic war and I take it Deputy Loughman is in order in referring to them.
They do not like to hear this.
The Minister is the last man who should want to hear anything about it.
I shall talk about it also.
Deputy MacEoin was something of a financial expert this evening. I do not pose as anything of that kind. He mentioned the one boast, so far as I know, that they have, that they introduced Exchequer Bills and Prize Bonds. Previous to that, he mentioned that we followed the British system when we reduced our bank rate. If my memory serves me well, both of these schemes were introduced in England first.
No, they were not.
Perhaps I am wrong and if they did introduce them, I shall allow them full credit.
They had nothing at all to do with Exchequer Bills. They never even thought of them.
I noticed that Deputy Donnellan and Deputy Corish produced extracts from leading articles, in one case from the Irish Independent and in the other, from the Sunday Review. I do not regard those two papers as worth bothering about. Deputy Booth, when dealing with a serious matter, quoted from the Statist and from the reports of two of our banks. There was far more to be said for those quotations than for any of those given by the two Deputies opposite. I should like some Deputies opposite to deal with the quotations which Deputy Booth gave. We do not mind them rambling on, giving statements out of the Independent and the Sunday Review until the cows come home. If they would deal with matters in a serious way, we should be happy to listen to them.
In regard to finance, it is quite clear to every thinking Irish person that the last inter-Party Government could not get a penny from the banks or the people. When they looked to the people at the highest rate of interest ever offered, the people ignored them completely. They did not get one-quarter of what they wanted. When they looked for money from the banks, they could not get it; with the result that when Fianna Fáil came in again, I had people coming to me from all over the place trying to get payment from our Government of money the previous Government had promised them for building houses, providing water schemes for farms and so on.
That is a fairy tale.
I do not want to join issue with the Deputy, but I listened to him myself giving a positive undertaking in my home town that he would never join a Fine Gael Government. He said that Fine Gael had been defeated by the people in six successive elections.
That does not arise.
We take those statements from across the water— from across the House, I mean—with a grain of salt.
Macmillan?
When it comes to dealing with Macmillan, we can do it. We do not have to go down the country insinuating that Macmillan was coming over to fight a battle for de Valera. We shall fight our battles in our own country in our own way and we shall fight Fine Gael as we fought them time and again since 1922.
The Deputy is paying no attention to the Chair. He is continuing to talk out of order. He must relate his remarks to the Vote on Account.
I have said what I wanted to say, so I will not detain the House. I join with Deputy MacEoin and I ask the people behind him to remember something he said —never try to blame the other side; try to find what is good in them. We would have taken any chance to do that; we would have accepted help from the other side if we were given it; but the type of speeches we have had for the last two or three days would not induce any member of a responsible Party to have any belief at all in what is said by the Deputies opposite in the course of this debate.
I should like to make a few comments on the Estimates concerned in this Vote on Account, for a change. I have been in the House for the last hour or so and up to now I have heard nothing at all about the Vote on Account. If I break with the tradition of the last hour and a half, I hope the House will bear with me.
The point which disturbs me about the figures presented by the Minister is that they continue to show the trend which he and his predecessors have shown over a period of years, that is, a continuing increase in the cost of running a country, the population of which is becoming smaller and, from what we can see, poorer every year.
Two years ago, in the 1956-57 Accounts, £97,000,000 was required for non-capital supply services. In the following year, that jumped to £101,000,000, although in the interim the food subsidies had been taken off, with a very substantial saving to the national Exchequer. In 1958-59, the Minister estimated that these non-capital services would require £98,000,000, but over the past ten months, further Supplementary Estimates have been introduced to increase that total by a further £3,000,000, so that by the end of the present financial year, it will have cost over £100,000,000 to pay for the non-capital part of the Supply Services. In addition, of course, we have to vote capital services each year which vary between £10,000,000 and £11,000,000. That makes a total of over £11,000,000, to run a tiny State, almost a Statelet, of a little over 2,750,000 people.
In addition to that, every single local authority has been increasing its demands on the ratepayers. It is estimated now that the local authorities between them require something like £50,000,000 a year, or £1,000,000 a week, to cater for their share of the country's administration. In other words, we are spending over £150,000,000 a year, or £3,000,000 a week, for a population of substantially less than 3,000,000 people. I do not honestly see how we can continue this financial rake's progress and at the same time hope to finance the development programme set out in the recent White Paper. That programme in itself is based on the very fine book produced by the Secretary of the Department of Finance, which is possibly the best and most comprehensive statement of the country's overall economic position we have had.
I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by Deputy MacEoin, when he made an appeal for reduced taxation. If we want to encourage personal initiative, personal savings, the personal will to work and to advance, to thrive and prosper, we must reduce the heavy burden of taxation at present bearing on the most active section of the community, which is largely the commercial, business and industrial section. It is almost certain that, in this election year in Great Britain, there will be a favourable election Budget from the British Chancellor of the Exchequer. If taxations is reduced in England—especially income-tax by, say, 6d. or 1/- in the £, bringing it down to the Irish level —we shall be in an even more disadvantageous position vis-á-vis Great Britain than we are in now.
It is quite illusory to think that by offering grants or exemptions from taxation for ten years and longer, we will encourage outside industrialists to come and invest their capital here. I do not want to enter into the controversy on the desirability or otherwise of offering encouragement of that sort to outsiders to come in and exploit the resources which we should be able to exploit ourselves. In general, it is good to encourage every person with capital and technical know-how to assist us in our industrial development. In our present circumstances, unless we are taking a very wrong and very dim view of our economic progress, we must have outside assistance. I might express the hope, however, that this outside assistance will be of a type that will be good for the country and not merely a type which might exploit the country in the interests of the investors themselves.
It is only fair to point out that in 1956-57 our country, in common with a number of other European countries, was passing through a very severe economic and financial crisis and the Government of the day cannot be blamed for the position of affairs which obtained here because it was due to influences over which they had largely no control at all. It is realised now that the previous Government left office at the worst possible moment, so far as economic and financial considerations apply. Since early 1957, there has been an inevitable swing back of the pendulum and the present Government —certainly the Minister for Finance, and possibly other members of the Government—will admit that they have had the advantage of better terms of trade generally over the past two years.
They have had the advantage of a very considerable expansion in the cattle trade in both 1957 and 1958. That, in turn, has enabled the country to purchase a greater volume of imports. Both these developments have helped to engender a greater expansion in our economy and that has led to an expansion of credit and of trade generally.
These benefits, however, can be transitory, if the necessary steps are not taken to ensure that our economic policy is kept under control. It would be very unwise to build our economy on the spurious and illusory—that is the way in which I describe it—cattle-motor-car economy. If we devote our energies to concentrating on the rearing and export of cattle and the importing of motor-cars and other machinery, which must be run off imported petrol and oils, grave consequences may ensue. I appreciate the value of the cattle industry. It is a very fine industry and I hope we shall continue exporting increased numbers of cattle to the British and other markets. We should not, however, blind ourselves to the fact that if we lean too heavily on this one arm of our exports, we may find ourselves in a very serious situation again, should there be any falling off in exports or should there be unduly severe competition from other cattle-breeding countries. That has happened in the past.
There is a sum of £23,000,000 in the Supply Services to provide employment and employment opportunities. Despite that substantial figure and despite the funds provided through other agencies, the reduction in the number of unemployed is very discouraging. Having regard to the heavy capital investment over the past two years a reduction of a few thousand is very disappointing. Has any assessment ever been made of what it would cost to carry out some of the optimistic election promises that were so glibly made? Unemployment would be cured; emigration would be substantially reduced. Has anyone ever calculated what it costs to put even one man into employment? Various estimates have been made and I think it costs somewhere between £500 and £1,500. Are we in a position to invest the sort of capital required to provide 30,000 to 40,000 jobs every year? Do we think we could do that in the type of economy we have? I do not think we can. I think we should face up to the fact that in our lifetime, and probably in the lifetime of those who come after us, we shall have a comparatively heavy rate of emigration. We must be realistic about this and we must take steps to ensure that the young men and women who leave our shores will at least leave them equipped to take worthwhile positions in the world outside.
The time has come when we should reassess the whole pattern of our national expenditure. It has been stated, and there is some substance for the viewpoint, that we are aspiring to what might be described as imperial standards. We have a Presidential office; we have embassies abroad. In general, we appear to be aspiring to the sort of standards one associates with rich, highly-developed countries. That has undesirable consequences, especially on our young people. It gives them a false notion of what the country can offer them. A good dose of national humility, if I may use the expression, would not be a bad thing at all for every one of us. We are, after all, entitled only to the level of prosperity that we can produce from our own resources. To try to reach higher than that is looking for trouble and inevitably the crash will come.
I should like to see a larger proportion of our national income spent on education, particularly technological education. I should like to see the young people being taught physics and science and given some grounding in the new developments all around us. I should like a greater emphasis on catering for the real wealth of the country, namely, our people.
I am glad to see that the Government are making available the funds necessary for the eradication of bovine T.B. We are doing that of necessity, because we have been told that, unless our cattle are T.B. free by 1960, the greater part of England—if not the whole of it—will be closed to our cattle. The eradication of this scourge involves the slaughter of cows. That entails considerable loss to individual farmers, but we must do it or we shall lose our main market.
More important than the cattle trade are our people. We have an obligation in our national housekeeping to give social justice to those who require it. Equally, we have an obligation to arm our young people with up-to-date technical knowledge so that they may live full and active lives in reasonably rewarded occupations, either at home or abroad.
We have between 40,000 and 50,000 to-day drawing unemployment assistance. The rate of allowance for a man, his wife and two or more children is 41/- per week. Apparently that is the best we can do for these unfortunate people. It should be the first task of any Government to increase these miserable allowances. Everybody who has experience of public life knows what the position is like, particularly in the cities and larger towns where there are literally hundreds of families living at or near starvation level on these allowances at the moment.
When we talk about finding employment for 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 men, we do not realise that many of these will be unemployable. Even if we were to find work for them in the morning, many of them would be unable, through no fault of their own, through malnutrition and through being out of work for long periods, to take advantage of that work.
I should also like to say that in our industrial planning, greater consideration should be given to the provision of help for industries in rural areas. I appreciate that under the Undeveloped Areas Act a number of new industries have been located in the West of Ireland. Again, I do not want to speak on the merits or demerits of paying out very substantial sums of money to locate industries away from their main markets. It is at least arguable if the same substantial sums would not be better invested in land, or afforestation or fisheries so as to give these people employment more normal to the areas.
There are, all over the Midlands, and in the South and West of Ireland, areas, such as the one I represent, which are largely between the devil and the deep blue sea, as between the attractions of Dublin and the attractions held out by the facilities available under the Undeveloped Areas Acts. If unemployment and emigration in these areas are to be tackled properly, they will have to be approached on the same lines as those on which Great Britain and Northern Ireland have approached the problem and designated as development areas.
We have in Limerick the peculiar position of being 15 miles from Shannon Airport where you can get the benefits of the Undeveloped Areas Acts while in Limerick you cannot get these concessions at all.
That would seem to be a matter for discussion on the Estimate.
Some of my predecessors went much further away from the matter.
The Deputy does not wish to follow their bad example.
I shall try not to, Sir. However, I think it is part of the argument used.
The Deputy is referring to legislation passed by this House and that does not arise on the Vote on Account.
My remarks are intended to be associated with the problem of unemployment outside the undeveloped areas. Deputy MacEoin mentioned the question of the small farmer and again I feel that the assistance given to farmers generally is either not applicable to small farmers or they are not able to avail of it. The fact that the greatest and most widespread emigration is from the areas where the small farmer is most numerous is indicative of the fact that the policies of the present and previous Governments are not sufficient to encourage him to remain on his farm and raise his family there in reasonable comfort.
I agree with the recent opinion expressed by Dr. Lucey that, in dealing with a problem of this nature, we must deal with people and not so much with productivity, which is more associated with industrial undertakings. Reading some of the speeches made in this House, it seems to me that there is a conflict of opinion as to whether we should pursue our economic and industrial development through private enterprise or through State enterprise. I do not think any conflict should exist on this matter. Primarily, we must rely on private enterprise, but there are certain spheres in which the State must take direct jurisdiction.
I do not think there should be any conflict of interests between the two spheres. Where the State has stepped in, it has been very successful—we do not know how successful because in most instances, the State has had a monopoly. If private enterprise had been given the same opportunities, capital and monopoly conditions, then it might have done every bit as well. Bord na Móna, Aer Lingus and the E.S.B. have been very successful, but that does not imply that State enterprise would be as successful in other spheres. I do not think it would.
I should like to conclude by again emphasising that of all the inducements that could possibly be held out to the industrialists, that of reduced taxation is the greatest. I hope that the Minister in his forthcoming Budget, will be able to give reasonable reductions in the very heavy load of taxation which lies on the industrial and commercial communities.
I want to congratulate Deputy Russell on the very constructive advice he has given to the Minister and to the House. I wish there were much more of that type of speech here, instead of the rather ridiculous outpouring we heard from Deputy Loughman a short time ago.
The Vote on Account gives the House an opportunity of discussing the main problems before the country. I suggest that these are three: emigration, unemployment and the cost of living—and I should like to give the Minister and the Government the benefit of my views in respect of these three problems. Emigration last year amounted to well over 50,000 people despite assurances from the Minister for Health last night and last week that the outflow was on the decline. Such is not the case. It was well over 50,000 last year, according to figures given in the British House of Commons.
I want to put this question in all seriousness to the Government: How long will this country stand the drain of our people to Britain? Britain, I believe, has deliberately organised her employment, her social services and her health services for the purpose of attracting, not alone the youth of this country, but the youth of many other countries as well. Apparently the example of the inflow of the cream of many countries into the United States has given a certain inducement to British statesmen to follow suit and provide a hearty welcome for the vigorous and virile youths who are going to Britain. Unfortunately, they are at the winning and saving end and we are at the losing end. This is a most serious problem to which the Government should bend their attention to stop the draining away of our boys and girls from this country. I know it will not be an easy matter and I do not suggest that the Government have only to wave a wand to solve it.
Deputy Russell mentioned the same thing—the problem of tackling the job and trying to find employment for 40,000 or 50,000 youngsters annually. If that could be done, a slice could be taken off the unemployment figure but when we come to examine it, it does not solve our problem. It occurs to me that forestry has provided useful and productive work. It has been going ahead for the past few years, and at the moment it employs 3,300 people. Nobody will say that forestry is not good productive work, and should it be expanded, work might be found there at least for our young men.
The same is true of arterial drainage schemes under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, and various other development schemes, for which the country is crying out. While I agree it would be a pretty stiff job to find sufficient money to employ the 40,000 who leave our shores annually, we could try savings in other directions, make money available for the expansion of these works, for the purpose of keeping our youth at home and developing our country which is so sadly in need of development. Everywhere we go, particularly in the rainy seasons, we see land under water, good, productive land that should be kept in production. There are areas, particularly in the West of Ireland, in the mountainous regions, denuded of soil by erosion and areas which are clamouring for afforestation. Everyone who has travelled through these mountainous regions has seen that the peaks of hills are bare where the rain has washed away what soil was there. These are the places where timber would grow.
These are the things the Government should bend their attention to. It would not be so hard for them if they were as determined about it as they are determined on other gigantic tasks. They are prepared to find £10,000,000 to buy jet planes. If they do buy them, I hope they will be eminently successful, but the £10,000,000 could be better spent in other directions. If £10,000,000 can be spared, would it not be better to spend it in obviating the need to make a present of our youth to a foreign country—England, Canada, America or Australia? This money would be better employed in keeping our youth at home and developing our own country.
Perhaps the Minister for Industry and Commerce has good reasons for investing such a huge sum of money in these jets, but one thing that always puzzled me is that every Minister always deplores emigration but when money is wanted for some project which is not half as important as keeping our youth at home and giving them employment at home it can always be found with the greatest of ease. That is a constant puzzle to me. Apparently the answer is that those who are in charge have their heads in the clouds and their feet miles off the ground. I cannot understand how any other explanation will account for it.
The Government have a lamentable record since they took office the last time. Things were bad enough when they were in office up to 1954. They went back on some promises that time but they have been broken in a more shocking way since. They started by telling the people the food subsidies would not be withdrawn. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste said that just before the general election two years ago. As a matter of fact, I think it is two years to the very day or perhaps to the week, that the Taoiseach was in Belmullet making the famous promise. He said that the Government of the day, the inter-Party Government, were accusing Fianna Fáil of removing the subsidies——
The Deputy made his famous promise in Belmullet, too. He promised to reduce taxation by £10,000,000.
Who made that promise?
You did, in Belmullet. You had the magic wand in your hand.
Deputy Doherty should not interrupt.
We reduced taxation by £7,000,000 and that is something Fianna Fáil cannot boast of. Fianna Fáil is spending £10,000,000 now on jet planes. I recall the promises quite well, but we redeemed our promises and all the promises we made were beneficial to the people. We did not make promises that we would leave things as they were and then slice the people in half, as Deputy Doherty's leader did when he came back into power. That is exactly what happened in Belmullet. The Taoiseach promised the food subsidies would not be removed. In Waterford, on the same night, the Minister for Industry and Commerce made the same statement to the people of the South of Ireland. It is quite clear those statements were not made on the spur of the moment or as a result of an interjection from the crowd which brought out a hasty promise, for which any speaker may be excused. When the leader and the deputy-leader of a Party who had been in power for 16 years before, made those statements, it is obvious they were concerted and arranged and their effect on the electorate well calculated, the calculation being to catch votes to put them back into power.
I have no other description for that kind of conduct but the word "fraudulent". It was a fraud on the electors. I should prefer to stay out of office or even to stay out of the Dáil altogether, than to get in, and hold on by the skin of my teeth, on false promises.
What about the promise Deputy Blowick made in Belmullet?
I did not hear Deputy Doherty's interruption, but his constituency is very unfortunate from the point of view of false promises.
That is what Deputy Blowick thinks. We have the £2,000,000 power station.
They can boast of the biscuit factory in Ballina which is roaming around there yet.
We got the £2,000,000 power station, in spite of the Deputy, anyway.
It was the inter-Party Government which planned the power station.
They hit it on the head.
They did not.
Deputy Doherty should restrain himself. Deputy Blowick is entitled to speak without interruption and he must be allowed to do so.
On the question of emigration since Deputy Doherty is so very touchy, what has he to say about the parish in his constituency where 82 houses are shuttered up since Fianna Fáil got into power in 1932 —82 houses in the one parish in the eastern end of his constituency? Is he aware of that? Is he further aware that of the 82 houses closed up, the families having gone to England, 69 were built by Government grant since Fianna Fáil got into power in 1932? Fianna Fáil gave them a grant of £80 to build a house and then brought about such economic conditions that they banished them to England, leaving the houses with the windows shuttered and in some cases with the cattle breaking in the glass and breaking down the doors. Will Deputy Doherty go over to Foxford and give an explanation of this state of affairs?
Is this a county council election?
It is not anything to be proud of—82 houses in the one parish shuttered up. These are not thatched houses that might have fallen derelict when their owners moved off, or built new houses on the same holdings. These are houses built since 1932, most of them with Government aid, and now they are some of the white elephants spoken of by the Minister for Health. Fianna Fáil have banished the people who lived in those houses and who brought up their families in a fair measure of comfort in the years gone by. They are now in Birmingham driving buses, in London, cutting sewers, working for Englishmen, or they have gone to the United States, Canada or Australia. If that is a record to be proud of, I make a present of it to Deputy Doherty.
Of course, it is now emerging that there was a method in Fianna Fáil's decision to increase the price of bread, butter, tea and sugar. They have increased rates, taken off the subsidy on ground limestone and cut out Section B of the land project. The reason they have done so, why they have been bleeding the people white, is so that the Minister for Industry and Commerce may buy his famous jets. He is still a bit sore that the inter-Party Government did not retain the Constellations. There is a saying that it is hard to put an old dog off his trot, and now we know why the price of the loaf was raised from 7d. to 1/2, why the price of flour was increased, why we no longer have the 4/- subsidy on ground limestone, and why Section B of the land project was abolished.
All this saving amounted to a little over £10,000,000 and the Minister for Industry and Commerce now has that money with which to buy his jets. Good luck to him, but there are large numbers of people who are finding it difficult to raise families. In many a household, the wife does not know where the next meal is coming from, or when her husband or sons will come in and say the factory in which they work has closed, or that the land reclamation work or forestry work has finished. That shadow is hanging over her head, night, noon and morning, and in addition to that, she has to pay for electric light, rates, and all the other outgoings of a household.
That is the situation which Fianna Fáil has brought on the country, but the Minister for Health tells us that emigration is on the decline, and he wants us to believe that unemployment, though it still stands at 70,000, is practically non-existent. One thing is clear and that is if Fianna Fáil Deputies from rural areas are in touch with the people, they are not conveying the people's reactions to the Ministers. I heard the Minister for Finance, a few moments ago, cheering on Deputy Loughman when Deputy Loughman was talking through his hat, talking about a time when Fianna Fáil were fighting a battle with England. The only battle they ever fought was against their own. When we established a Republic in 1949, they fought us bitterly in order to retain the King and the British Commonwealth of Nations.
That does not arise on the Vote on Account.
Deputy Loughman dealt with it fairly extensively.
The Deputy should not follow a bad example.
The Chair is getting into a difficult position. We can discuss only what Fianna Fáil discuss.
The Chair did not say that.
With respect, Sir, you were not here all evening.
We shall hear Deputy Blowick.
From time to time, the Government coaxes in the savings of the people by floating a loan, but, shortly afterwards, the value of their savings decreases. With the exception of one loan, none of the loans are standing above par at the present time and many people, Fianna Fáil supporters and others, decided, no matter what Government were in, if they had a little money left, they would be doing wisely by the Government and the country in supporting these loans. That is a sentiment with which I wholly agree, but, after a time, they find that their £100 has dwindled to £90 or £80 odd. Land Bonds are another example of investments which decrease in value by £20, £22, or £24 per £100.
All that is tied up with the fact that the Government are not devoting their attention to the people remaining in the country. They are not trying to keep our youth at home, to develop their own country. The first way in which the Government can restore the confidence of the people, and bring about a little solidarity, is by an effort to reduce taxation. It is the heavy load of taxation on our dwindling population which is driving so many people to emigrate.
Taxation does not arise on this Vote. Taxation arises on the Budget. This Vote is to spend money; the Budget is to collect money.
That is the trouble.
The Deputy may not discuss taxation on this. This deals purely with the policy of the Government.
Very well, Sir; I will accept your ruling, but it seems very strange.
It is the ruling that has always been made. If we were to discuss income-tax and surtax, where would we find ourselves?
I was just making one remark from the point of view of unemployment, emigration and the cost of living—that too high taxation by the Government, the sum that is being sought here, is too big, and that the Government should ask for less, and thereby give some relief. That is the point I intended to make.
The Deputy has made it now, anyway.
I submit it is a point which other speakers have made. It was not for the purpose of thwarting the rules of this House.
I am not suggesting it was. I am just guiding the Deputy that taxation, as taxation, may not be discussed on the Vote on Account.
I agree, and I have no intention of discussing taxation as taxation. I was discussing the effect of heavy taxation on the people and I hold that the heavy taxation, under which they have been suffering, has been largely responsible for unemployment, emigration and the high cost of living, and for the disgust and despair that appals me amongst the youth of the country. We find youngsters, just a few years out of school, asking us what inducement is there for them to stay in this country. These are people who have not yet reached 20 years of age and it gives one cause for concern.
I should like to impress on the Government the absolute necessity for saving in other directions, in order to provide money which will give more employment in rural areas to keep our youth at home. That is absolutely essential. The policy the Government have followed up to this of cutting down on grants by instructing housing inspectors to save money by finding fault where there was no fault at all will not avail. Instructing agricultural inspectors to find fault with minor drainage and land reclamation jobs that farmers are carrying out themselves is no way to run the country. A host of inspectors was let loose to pry into the affairs of those drawing stamp money or other benefits. That is no way to run the country. There is ample machinery in Government Departments to deal with such matters. If the Government gives a £300 grant for a house, it is a very shabby thing to instruct the housing inspector to find fault with the building and to tell the contractor and the owner that there is a fault, put them to trouble by alleging faulty material or construction for the sake of saving £5 or £10.
That is completely untrue.
It is not. The Deputy can find the truth of that from other lips than mine. That kind of pinching and saving is not a proper way to run the country. It is an admission of failure by the Government. If they can save money only in such ways, it will get them nowhere. The next thing we will have established here—it would not surprise me a bit if some member of the Government proposed it—is a secret police force on the same basis as the Gestapo in Germany.
Finally, on the question of employment, I want to impress on the Government, as has been done on many occasions, that we cannot continue much longer watching the stream of emigration which started with the famine 100 years ago and has continued ever since. Unless something drastic is done, it is possible that the Irish race will vanish from this country. The only way to prevent that happening is to give employment at home. I have never met a boy or girl who wanted to emigrate except when he or she could not get a living in the homeland. Money must be found or saved in some direction to give employment to our young people, thus keeping them at home. They are willing to stay here if they get a modest wage. Many who get £10 or £12 a week in England say they are just as well off getting the £5 or £5 10s. a week the county councils give here—or whatever the standard rate is— because of the ease and cheaper cost of living.
The Government cannot cure the present situation by sitting down calmly or by giving evasive answers as happens every week in this House when Deputies put down questions asking for figures of emigration and unemployment. They say they have no means of finding out these figures. While the Government carry on like that people are still going out. I want to warn the Government that the situation is much more serious than the members of the Government think, especially for the past year. The stream might well become a flood which would get out of control in three or four years' time, if something is not done about it now.
This annual review is generally one on which there is plenty of hard hitting, and rightly so. When Deputy Loughman said that the different combinations need not go as far against each other as they do, I felt he was the last man who should talk about that because his speech was a mass of recriminations against Parties on this side. We are all Irishmen, supposed to be here for the betterment of the country, and there should be more unity among us.
Is the national picture a good one? I say it is not. I have been here for 23 years and each year I have seen the country go down and down and I do not care which side hears me say that. The country is sinking because we are not making a united effort to put it on its feet. When we think of the £115,000,000 required this year, we must realise it is beyond the people's capacity. Those of us who live in rural areas and attend county council meetings see a big battle being waged at present. In my own county, it is a question of trying to avoid an increase of 3d. or 6d. over what we paid last year in the rate. We have had five or six meetings in an effort to cut it down and it has been cut down, but it is almost impossible to reduce it to last year's figure. We are not getting value for all that money. If we were, we would not have so much unemployment and emigration.
The country will not be able to bear this rate of expenditure. The people are sick and tired of it and want to know when a stop will be put to the squandermania, because that is what it is. Millions of pounds are voted every year, giving no return to the nation, although they may give a return to certain slick individuals who are doing well as a result. We would be as well off without them.
Why have we such a fall in population? Why are so many emigrating and why is there so much unemployment? Why does Partition continue? Is not Partition the cause of all our problems? Yet, we are as silent as mice about it. The country is rent asunder. We have two Governments, North and South, each in financial difficulties and nobody from the Taoiseach down is making the slightest effort to solve that problem. We must attempt to solve that very soon. No matter what we do with our economy, we cannot carry on with the nation split in two. I call on the Taoiseach now that he is in contact with Mr. Macmillan across the water to do something about it before he goes to sojourn in the Park. It is up to him to do so before he retires from public life.
We have been wrangling and fighting over a number of years. I say: "To hell with economy; it is the people who count, the people in the little homesteads around the bogs and in the hills and in the valleys of the country. The people are sick of talk of economies, while at the same time there is a flood-tide of emigration."
I ask the House to concern itself seriously with Partition because it is our major problem and one that must be solved before we can get on the right road. It can be solved by the united effort of a militant and manly people. Unity can be achieved, if we go about it properly, but, as far as I can see, neither the Taoiseach nor Fianna Fáil want unity. They want just to struggle along and claim all honour for themselves, while the country is in a condition of which I am ashamed, as an Old I.R.A. man. So is every man who fought from 1916 on. The condition of the country after 30 or 40 years of native government is a public shame. We cannot give our young boys and girls a living at home. They must leave and the emigrant ship must be available night and day. We are a nation of old and sick and infirm people with our youth gone as a result of political tomfoolery, high taxation and recriminations.
I ask the Government to do something to remedy the situation. The Government called for and got a clear mandate at the last election. That mandate was given to reduce taxation and give employment. What was done? Nothing. Instead we find the Taoiseach evacuating the front seat and getting out of public life as fast as he can, because he knows he has been a failure, that Fianna Fáil have been a failure and that this House has failed. He is slipping out now and seeking the security of the Park. He should stand his ground. I shall not go any further into that.
Could we have something about the Vote on Account?
The national economy is topsy-turvy. We have no proper marketing facilities. We form committee after committee, year after year, and we never get a report from them, whether it is on milk costings or marketing. These committees are still sitting, but the results are nil, and our people are in a quandary wondering what the future holds for them and their children.
A few years ago, we gave a good deal of employment in county councils on road work. That day has gone and machinery of all types has displaced the people. That is something we must consider. Are we allowing too high a degree of mechanisation, putting the people on the road and the big machine in their place? It may be economy in one way, but it is not national economy and in the interests of the country, I think we should give employment to our people. We would be better off if we were not so highly mechanised. The country is living beyond its means and this applies to the House also. There is squandermania all over the country. Everyone wants everything and as quickly and as cheaply as he can. They do not care a damn about anyone else. It is a case of "get what you can for yourself and to hell with the other fellow". That is a poor spirit. There should be a better spirit in the coming year. Otherwise the country is doomed.
In my own county there is a vast amount of unemployment. Navan was a prosperous and thriving town over a long period, a town we could be proud of. At present, hundreds are being thrown out of employment. There is no work, and industries are closing down. Recently, that was dealt with in a parliamentary question, I think. The people have nowhere to go now to obtain employment. Will they have to go across the water, five or six in a family to find a living? Hundreds of families are going to England in that way. Instead of being a thriving town, it has been turned in a few short years, to a ghost town and is turning into a village.
These are things for the Government to tackle. That is the place to spend money, instead of on jet aeroplanes, one of the greatest pieces of tomfoolery and humbug, to build up a fake prestige. They feel their prestige is at stake and must be kept up. The aeroplanes may be obsolete in a few years, but the Government still throw away £10,000,000 on them. If that money were put into forestry, drainage, bog development or horticulture for small farmers, it would be welcome. But no, the Government want big business and big men. I want to have the small man, to help him, but he is getting no help.
Agriculture is out of balance. It has been carrying the country on its back over a long number of years. Had it not been for the cattle trade over the last two years, the country would have gone burst. I want to sound a note of warning that, if we do not get a proper balance on agriculture soon, we will find ourselves in the same position as Cromwell put us in some years ago, a cattle ranch for England.
The small farmers are getting very little out of high prices. A sucking calf, a dropped calf costs £25 to £30. You cannot expect a farmer on ten or 15 acres to buy a sucking calf. Who is getting the benefit? It is the big man with the broad acres who is having a royal time. These are the only men surviving on the land. The smaller man has to look for work on the roads or in England and set his land on the 11-months system. His land is in a poor state of fertility because he has nothing to fertilise it with, as he has no cash.
These are things which we need to watch in the years ahead. The whole backbone of the Irish economy is the small farmer, the man on five to 15 acres. That man is in a dire position now. The man above him is in a favourable position, if he has cash and if he has not, he can get it in the bank. No matter what we hear about finance, the little man with five to 15 acres who looks for credit will not get it. There is no use in talking nonsense about it. He will not get it. Even if he got it, what could he do with it? He would need a lot of credit to buy some cattle. We must be careful not to embark on a scheme which will make only for the cattle ranch.
As far as I can see, any small holding in my county that goes up for auction is bought up by the stronger man. Anything done by the Land Commission over the past 30 years has been nullified in recent times. They have been dividing at one end and the bigger man has been buying at the other end. Now there are just as many large farms and ranches as there were 30 years ago. There has been a complete waste of all that money on the Land Commission. That is something absolutely deplorable. Something should be done to see that these big people are not allowed to buy up the small holdings. I do not care whether it is done by legislation or otherwise. Something should be done about it, to hold the people in our own country.
If we do not hold the population, nothing else counts. We want people before cattle or machinery or anything else. If we have the people, we will have the market here. The best market in the world for our produce is the Irish market, and we cannot have any Irish market without an increase in the population. That is what is wrong. Our population has gone down year after year. This means more taxation on the few who are left and fewer people to eat our food. That means we must export. We have to send it abroad in a manner in which the British want it, on the foot. We as a national unit want our cattle sent out in packets, if at all possible. We want to have our tanneries and factories working here, but we are forced into the position that we must do as the man across the water tells us.
I agree that the live-stock trade is carrying the country on its back fairly well, jogging along; but I warn everyone that in a few years' time, if it goes on like this, without making an effort to give the small man a chance to stand on his own feet, we will be back to the ranching system again, bringing with it desolation and trouble and the fights of years ago will have to be fought all over again.
Rural Ireland is being depopulated year after year. The people are becoming demoralised, sick and tired of promises without performance. The Government got a clear mandate, the best mandate in 40 years, and I would ask them to do their job for the Irish people. Let them not spend their time looking up in the skies for jet aeroplanes or big financiers from across the water. Let them look at the country areas, at the small little men who gave us the right to have this Parliament here. They are the forgotten men of to-day—the country worker and the small farmer. No one cares two hoots about him, whether he takes up his roots and goes to England, bringing his family with him to beg a living there. No one sheds a tear over that.
The Bishop of Cork, Dr. Lucey, has given a sound warning and I hope the Taoiseach and the Government take it to heart. The millions of pounds we are to spend should be spent in the proper places, so as to give a proper return. If that were done, the result would rejuvenate our people and they would be proud to respond to any call. At present, they have very little confidence or hope, as they are getting nothing from the Government or from this House. We know what happened a few short years ago. It cost a vast amount of money to get a wheat drive under way. That wheat scheme was everything—every crossroads held a poster saying "Grow More Wheat", but no effort was made to co-ordinate the wheat drive and see it did not get out of hand. Was there not a duty on the experts in the Department and on the Government to see how much we needed and how much we could grow? What was the result? Speculators of all types, who never owned an acre and who did not give two hoots, took hundreds of acres in conacre and destroyed the wheat production campaign.
I myself am a wheat grower; I am proud to be a wheat grower. I saw it grown on my farm at home years before we were ever called upon to grow it. I grow it still and even if the price went down, I would do so, as it is a sound and economic thing to do and it keeps up a balanced farm economy, where we have wheat, barley and oats and root crops. I hope everybody else will do likewise. If they do, we will have a sound economy. Single-line farming is disastrous. We know what happened with wheat. Everybody rushed in helter-skelter into the growing of wheat. We saw the wheat harvest we had in the past two years and, to-day, the Government are afraid to open their mouths about wheat. I sincerely hope we shall always grow enough wheat to meet our own requirements.
I appeal to the Government to pay particular attention to a properly integrated and balanced agricultural economy. I appeal to them to ensure that the farmers get economic prices for their products whether it be wheat, barley, oats, cattle, sheep or pigs. There is all the difference in the world between a proper economic price and an inflated price. We know what happened in connection with pigs. Everybody rushed into pig production because prices were attractive and in a few months the bubble burst.
I believe industry generally is facing lean times. If a market is not found for our industrial products, many of our industries will have to close down. The competition from the Japanese, the Germans and the British will force our people out, unless the Government give them the protection they require, the technical know-how and expert advice. Unless that is done, we shall not even succeed in holding the home market for ourselves.
Before bringing in the foreign speculator, I appeal to the Government to consider the Irishman. He is making an honest effort to put Irish industry on its feet. Protection and help given to the Irish industrialist and agriculturist will bring a better return than will the foreign speculator, be he German, American, British, or any other nationality. First things first, and let the foreigner take second place. That should be his natural sphere. The idea now seems to be that whether he is a Jew, a Mason, or anything else, so long as he is a foreigner, he is welcome. I do not welcome a whole lot of them.
Our little country should be able to stand on its own feet. It is a sad commentary that after all the sacrifices of the past, it is not yet able to hold its own. Of course, it is at the mercy of the politician and his friends outside. Unless there is a reduction in the present burden of taxation, there is no hope for the future. Our people are taxed up to the hilt. Every year, another £10,000,000 is clapped on to them. The ordinary man is being bled white. It is the politicians who have the country in the mess it is in to-day. And in the middle of it all we have the whispering campaign, but in a few short months "Dev" will not be there and Fianna Fáil will have to stand on their own feet. We will see what Fianna Fáil will do then. There will be no "Up Dev" then.
One thing that is very important is co-operation between small farmers to enable them to equip themselves with modern machinery for the running of their farms. That co-operation must be encouraged by the Government. They must be helped to mechanise, so that they can work as a team. That will bring about increased production more quickly than anything else. The small man will work from dawn to dark. He did it in the past and his children are doing it to-day.
Down in County Meath, there are 5,500 cottages each with one acre of land. Out of that number, 4,000 do not put a spade into the land. I think horticulture should be encouraged. These people should be shown how to grow raspberries, strawberries, black-currants and so on. They should have expert technical advice. If they had the encouragement, they would do great work.
The spirit of the country is dead. Something will have to be done to resurrect it. The Government have a big task ahead of them. I ask them to make an honest effort, even at this late hour, to remedy the situation. If things were properly ordered and directed, there would be no cry of "Sinn Féin" to-day. One cannot blame the young people for being disillusioned. Their fathers and mothers have been taxed almost out of existence. Some of them are up to their necks in debt to the banks. Is the Irish farmer free, for instance? Of course, he is not. Sixty to 70 per cent. of them are up to their necks in debt to the banks.
The banks are talking about giving credit to everybody. I remember a time when they could have done that and saved the country, but they held their credit very tight because they did not like the people in power in this House—the people who were giving work throughout the country and spending the money. The moment they got them out and got in the Chief the restrictions on credit were removed. All the recriminations that could be poured on the inter-Party Government were poured on them, but no Government did more in three years to bring self-confidence and self-respect back to the country and to the people than the inter-Party Government.
We do not want a Fine Gael Government or a Fianna Fáil Government, but we want a co-operative Government, one in which all Parties will work for the good of the country. When we had such a Government, we spent the money in the country areas, in the bogs and on the drains where the people had been waiting for years to get something done for them. We kept the people at home and we brought the builders back from England to build up the towns and villages of this country. These were the only three years in which any progressive effort was made here.
We called on the Chief to come in with us but he said: "No, I am the Chief and I must be the leader." They can have their leader now, but I think that many of the Deputies opposite are sick and tired of him. What has he brought to the country but bankruptcy and unemployment and emigration? There has not been a word about Partition recently, except for a very gentlemanly reminder to Mr. Macmillan to mind his own business. We want more from the Taoiseach than that. We want him to say that this thing must cease. This country is divided and if some effort is not made to remedy that situation, the country is doomed. If the Taoiseach and Fianna Fáil will not do it, the Irish people will do it.
I suppose I should begin where Deputy Blowick left off. In his final statement, he accused the Government of sending inspectors down through the country to find fault with reconstruction work so that the grant could be withheld or reduced. I am afraid that Deputy Blowick is thinking of the time when he himself was in power. When we came into office, we found it necessary to pass £1,500,000 to clear up the debts for these reconstruction jobs which were not paid during the Coalition period of office.
Having listened to Deputy J.A. Costello, Deputy Norton and the leaders of the Opposition Parties speak in glowing terms of the conditions which the country enjoyed during their term of office, I feel I would be justified in asking why they found it necessary to leave office so quickly in March, 1957. It is now abundantly clear that the conditions were not as they pretended they were and nobody knows that better than the people who, when they got the opportunity, removed that Government from office.
I listened to the speeches of the various Opposition Deputies with regard to emigration and unemployment and more particularly to the efforts being made by them to place the responsibility for the Budget of 1957 on the shoulders of this Party rather than accept it themselves as the result of the financial policy pursued by them. I do not know whom they are trying to convince but I have a shrewd idea that it is themselves.
When we come to assess the success or failure of the Government in regard to unemployment and emigration, we must consider the circumstances in which this Government found the country when they took office. Unemployment in the early part of 1957 was at its highest for many years. While we have not got accurate figures in regard to emigration, we all agree that unemployment and emigration are related and when unemployment figures are exceptionally high, it is fair to assume that emigration figures will also be particularly high.
When we came into office, we found a large gap between income and proposed expenditure as outlined in the Book of Estimates for that year. We had the farming community dreading the next move of the Coalition Government. Industry was in a chaotic state. Business was stagnant. It was impossible to get credit for any purpose and the national loans were failures. Arising from these conditions, we had a feeling of despair and despondency among our people.
Unemployment and emigration create further unemployment and emigration. It is very difficult to slow down the trend, to stop it and reverse it. When Fianna Fáil came to power, their most difficult task was to slow down the upward trend of unemployment. Nobody said that it would be an easy task and during the election of 1957, we specifically pointed out that we were faced with a most difficult problem. We said that we felt that we could tackle it, but we never pretended that all we had to do was to come into office and clear up such an enormous problem.
Presently the number of the unemployed is something like 12,000 less than during the same period of 1957 under the Coalition Government. These figures have been belittled by Opposition speakers, but when we are considering these figures, we must consider not only the reduction in the figures themselves but also the fact that the most difficult problem was the gradual slowing down of the upward trend in unemployment and then the stopping and reversal of it. Great credit is due and must be given to the Government for the fact that they did slow down and reverse these figures, even in a small way.
With regard to emigration, from the figures given some time ago by the Taoiseach with regard to the people leaving the country to take positions in permanent employment in other countries, we see there a reduction, too, and this is more or less a sign of the present trend. Figures from the British Ministry have been quoted here— 48,000 insurance cards were issued in 1958 to Irish people taking employment for the first time.
In ten months.
In the first place, this figure is a considerable reduction on the 1957 figure of 60,000, a figure which, it must be admitted, stems from the Coalition's term in office, because even if we were in office for some time during that year, the trend was bound to continue for a time. We must remember also that this figure is stated to include Irish people taking up employment for the first time. We know ourselves that many people who work in England come home, stay at home for a while and then go back again to a different part of England from the part where they were previously employed and they re-register in England in the new place.
For the past two years, listening to Opposition Deputies, I was interested to hear them attempting to prove that when there were 93,000 unemployed persons under their régime, there was less emigration than when we were in office with approximately 80,000 persons unemployed. Of course, that does not stand to reason. I do not know what merit the Coalition may have had which would keep the people at home when there was a higher number of people unemployed than in later years when we were in power and the figure was lower.
Another point with regard to the emigration problem which I should like to mention is the peculiar use that figures are being put to by the Opposition for the past two years and even now when the emigration figure is at a particular level. Whenever anybody on this side of the House mentions figures to show that there was a certain reduction in emigration, they immediately shouted across the House: "Where did you get the figures? They are not accurate", but so long as it suited them, of course, they were accurate.
In this debate, Deputy Norton mentioned some figures in connection with the people in insurable employment and suggested we must accept those figures because they were given by the Statistics Office. Immediately afterwards he said — I am not quoting his words — referring to emigration that, notwithstanding the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach in answer to a question concerning the number of people who left this country to take up permanent employment, the figure for emigration has gone up.
He did not say that at all. He did not say "notwithstanding the figures." He said "notwithstanding the remarks of the Taoiseach", who said people were coming and going.
We were asked by members of the Opposition and, in particular, by Deputy M.J. O'Higgins, if we were satisfied with the present position with regard to unemployment and emigration. Of course, we are not satisfied, nor will we be satisfied, until such time as we have the unemployment and emigration figures down to the lowest possible level. We do not regard these as figures, but as human beings and we are interested in them as human beings. What we do say is that we are satisfied that the Government are proceeding along the proper lines. The very fact that groups of people are coming together in various parts of the country in an effort to grapple with the problems of unemployment and emigration in their own areas is a good sign and shows that they feel it is worth while coming together because they are getting a lead from the Government.
I listened to Deputy McGilligan speaking on the problem of unemployment last week. I shall quote from his speech as reported in the Official Report, Volume 173, No. 4, column 527. In reply to Deputy Haughey, Deputy McGilligan said:—
"Things were fifty times better off. I have a few clippings here from people who apparently do not know how well off Deputy Haughey thinks they are—
There is a cutting here saying:—
‘Dundalk Urban Council... deplored the dismissal of 300 men from the engineering works earlier in the day.'
—and a priest appealed to the people of Dundalk to rally around and help what he called ‘This stricken town'."
I think it was Deputy Brennan who spoke some time after Deputy McGilligan and mentioned that Deputy McGilligan came into this House with a number of cuttings from which he quoted in each debate and that he used the same cuttings for a number of years. The cutting with reference to Dundalk, which he quoted in connection with the Dundalk Engineering Works, may not be many years, but it is certainly ancient history.
I should be very pleased to bring Deputy McGilligan to Dundalk and show him around the Dundalk Engineering Works and show him that so far as we can see they are very successful and employing well over 800 men. Not only that, but I could explain to him the potentialities of the engineering works. I was particularly interested in the remark because Deputy McGilligan was Attorney General in a Government which placed the employment of 1,000 men in the Dundalk locomotive works in jeopardy by not acting, by doing nothing, although knowing for one and a half years before they left office the intentions of the Six County Government towards the G.N.R. system in that area which was serviced by the Dundalk works. When we came into office, we found not one single solitary plan to deal with a problem which would leave more than half the men working there unemployed.
The remark was made by a Deputy who, when the Bill to provide money for the setting up of the Dundalk Engineering Works was passing through this House, spoke in such manner, knowing the anxiety of the people in Dundalk, as to create panic there, to create panic so that the skilled men who were there would leave the town in despair, a thing which would ultimately prevent the project from being a success — and that for petty political purposes. Despite those efforts, the Dundalk Engineering Works are a success.
Earlier I mentioned the Budget of 1957 and the efforts made by Opposition speakers to place the responsibility for that Budget on our shoulders, when they referred to what they called the deliberate action of the Government in cutting the food subsidies. Of course, we did not want to cut the food subsidies. What democratic Party, depending on the votes of the people would, if it were not absolutely essential, cut food subsidies? It was simply because of the debt which was left to us by the previous Government that the cutting of the food subsidies became necessary, but, as I have said before, it was nonsense to suggest that any democratic Government would do this, unless it were absolutely essential.
Not necessarily; there were a few people in this House who believed subsidies were bad economics.
I do not blame the Opposition for trying to make as much capital as they possibly can out of this. It served them well in 1954, as I well remember, but after the by-election in Louth, I recall saying I believed that the blue prices pamphlet of the Fine Gael Party would be the rock on which they would perish. It was not a bad prophecy.
This year, in the Book of Estimates, we find an increase, but, when we examine the various headings under which this increase has been made necessary, we cannot quibble with it. I did not find any Deputy objecting to it except in general terms. When the Government got the financial situation in order, they published their programme for economic expansion, and this programme is designed to increase production, and thereby create more employment. Deputy J.A. Costello, the other night, said he believed that we could produce very much more from the land without increasing employment. To a certain extent, that may be true when we talk about direct employment, but we all appreciate that increased production from the land will create employment in other directions.
The fact that the Government have made money available for the principal items referred to in the programme for economic expansion, money for helping agriculture, industry, forestry and fisheries, proves that they are in earnest about what they have stated, and that they intend to carry out the proposals contained in the programme and that, as I have said before, the main object is to make more jobs available so that we can provide employment for our people.
Finally, I should like to say that I agree with my colleague, Deputy Coburn, when he said that a Government of itself cannot overcome the great problems which face us. Again, I agree with him that it necessitates hard work from everybody, but I also believe that a very important essential in the improving of the country's economy is to get the right direction from the Government, and I believe that this Government are giving that direction.
Before entering into a general discussion on the Vote on Account, I should like to clear up just one minor remark that was made here this afternoon by the Minister for Finance. When Deputy MacEoin was speaking he referred to many of the schemes that the Party now in office initiated or, at least, advanced to the point of speaking about but never implemented, and he referred to one of the Taoiseach's pet schemes, that of introducing Egyptian bees. The Minister for Finance interjected that they would be more profitable than the white turkey, and he was absolutely ridiculing the previous Minister for Agriculture for having initiated the introduction into this country of the white turkey from America.
It is an extraordinary thing that the Minister for Finance, who waxes eloquent on the programme for economic expansion, which everybody throughout the country is reading and taking a considerable interest in, the one man in the country who should know it well off by heart — the Minister who claims to be responsible for its publication — is unaware of its contents. He ridicules the white turkey and says that the Egyptian bee would be more profitable. Let me advert to page 22 of the Minister's programme for economic expansion, paragraph 47, which states:—
"Production of turkeys has not suffered the same setback as that of ordinary fowl despite occasional market gluts. Production is appreciably above the pre-war level and efforts are being made, as in the case of broilers, to expand the market demand by developing improved strains of smaller birds. The Department of Agriculture has imported foundation stock of such strains from the U.S.A. and these are now available to producers generally."
That, Sir, is what the Minister for Finance found so amusing here this afternoon.
Is the white turkey the only breed that was introduced?
Yes. It was popularly known as that, and it considerably assisted our exports during the past 12 months when we secured such a profitable market with the American Forces in Europe. That scheme was not worthy of the ridicule which the Minister for Finance would like to heap upon it.
The Minister has a poor record in relation to estimates generally. In recent weeks, he hit the jackpot with his claim that emigration had been reduced by 50 per cent. Various newspapers and individuals were very interested in that claim, coming as it did from one of the most responsible Ministers in the Government. That claim must be hearkened to, despite what the Taoiseach said earlier, that there were no reliable sources of information to prove just what the figures were. The Taoiseach evaded all figures in this House relating to an estimate of emigration and it was surprising to find, according to the Minister for Finance, that there had been a reduction of one-half in those figures. Of course, there are very few people who will believe that claim for a moment.
Only a fortnight ago, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare had to eat humble pie and come to this House seeking an additional £170,000, because the revenue from insurance stamps had not come up to what was expected during the past 12 months. If there were that 50 per cent. reduction in emigration, why was it not reflected in increased revenue from stamps during that period?
I was referring to the poor record of the Minister for Finance when it comes to making estimates. We can recall clearly when that Minister, in another office, was introducing the Health Act in this House, he was pressed to give an estimate of what the impact would be on the rates throughout the country and he said not more than 2/- in the £ would be the extra cost on the rates. Is there any member of the House who is a member of a local authority, who will say that was any approach to a reasonable estimate of what the expense would be? Let us hope, now that he has the advice of extremely competent officials in the Ministry of Finance, his estimates will be somewhat closer to the realised figure than they have been in the past. He is doing himself and the Government and the present position no good by claiming that emigration has been reduced by 50 per cent. No Deputy sitting behind him believes that. We all know from the evidence available that because there are fewer registered as employed, both in industry and in agriculture, that it was not possible. Where did they go? We have fewer unemployed, but if they did not emigrate, why were they not recorded at home?
Last night, Deputy Donnellan cited the instance of people at Cobh who approached five companies before they were facilitated in sea transport to America. It is true that an incentive was given by cheap air fares to attract emigrants from shipping and, despite that attraction, the circumstances were such that these people were told they would have to wait three months and take their chance to get on a ship for America. That is no indication of the considerable falling off in emigration the Minister would like us to believe has occurred.
If these mighty difficulties are to be resolved, surely they cannot be resolved by any responsible person coming here or going to any part of the country and speaking as the Minister spoke. Because of his office, note must be taken of his utterances and if these difficulties are to be resolved, it can only be done by the Government being honest and fair and getting everybody to co-operate with them to resolve the difficulties. It would be very hard to expect co-operation if the Government attempt to cover up the existing difficulties or minimise them, or try to claim something they cannot clearly point out as having happened in the past two years in consequence of their accession to office, and pretend that all is now set fair and that everybody can relax.
Any Government will try to engender optimism because it is a good thing and it is in the Government's interest, but if we reach a point where they have their heads in the air all the time, it is not good for a Government and Fianna Fáil, particularly, should realise that because there were occasions in the past when they were brought back to earth when their eyes were on new Government buildings and fantastic schemes, at a time when hundreds of T.B. patients could not get a bed, at a time when housing, drainage, farm buildings and all the other schemes tackled since in the last ten years by both Governments were urgently required. Fianna Fáil continued the schemes introduced from 1948 to 1951, in some instances, in an abbreviated way, but at least they did not jettison them completely. It is true that it took the change of Government in 1948 to bring them away from that level back to reality and to find that the people required something more than the type of prestige expenditure on which it was the custom of the Fianna Fáil Government to embark.
Unfortunately, we see a return to that type of expenditure. Many people are in a very difficult position at present and expect the Government at least to abstain from worsening their position. There are people whose families cannot provide for them and who are at an age or state of disability which prevents them looking after themselves and such people expect to be cushioned from the difficulties of their situation by the Government.
If the Government are to cope sensibly with these problems, they are not assisted by being eulogised. In fact, one word from a city backbencher to the Government that it is imperative that old age pensions, pensions for the blind, and the widows and the orphans should be increased to meet the increased cost of living, would have far more effect than anything said on this side of the House or by anybody outside completely divorced from politics.
One thing in the past two years which, more than anything else, has retarded the progress that could have been made was the Government's false belief that we could completely cut away the food subsidies and save £7,000,000 and reduce taxation. Would it not be grand if it could be done? Many theorists in the country thought it could be done and were at one with Fianna Fáil's contention. When they cut the food subsidies in 1952, for the reason — according to the then Minister for Finance, who is now Minister for Health — that the people were living too well, the consequence was that resulting increases in wages and salaries completely obviated the saving expected to accrue to the Exchequer. Ultimately, much more was spent, and when the inter-Party Government returned to office in 1954, they met some of the charges that had still to be met in consequence of the 1952 Budget.
That disrupted the economy of the country right down the years because every Department of State had to meet the impact of the additional cost of running that Department which is reflected in the Book of Estimates this year. We are now asked to vote moneys to carry the various Departments on to the end of the financial year, until such time as the incoming Budget is passed. There is reflected in the Estimates far more heavily than in the past a proportion of the country's expenditure which arises directly from the action of the Government in completely abolishing food subsidies. If it was a good thing to have done, if, as Deputy Faulkner claimed, it was necessary for the Government to get the money for this or that purpose, surely we are at liberty to point out that even if they got the money, they were taking it from sections of the people who were least able to bear the impact of that sudden increase in the cost of living. Even if they did secure the money, probably there was some worthy purpose to which it could be put, but we now see, having completely cut out of our Exchequer requirements every penny that was provided towards the reduction of the cost of living, towards keeping it from rising in any inordinate way, at the end of it all, there is no reduction in expenditure and in fact we have a figure £5,000,000 in excess of last year's figure.
There are people in the country who thought a Government with a strong majority could effectively cut out what was a pretty substantial figure in the Estimates. We had argued with those people, but they still believed that if Fianna Fáil had a strong majority when they went back in 1952-53, they could effect this economy in expenditure. What did we find? We found that the Minister for Finance was quite strong in his assertion that he would trot the Deputies into the Lobby to prevent any section getting an increase in their salaries or wages which would offset any benefit that would be expected to accrue from the termination of the food subsidies. That statement was made and what was the immediate result? The profit sector of the community, the industrialists and employers, in justice to their workers, agreed, within a matter of months, to give an increase in wages, to assist them in meeting that sudden impact of the increase in the cost of living. They were the first to do it. Perhaps some of them were prompted by charitable and altruistic motives. I wonder — because we know that in very many instances, they recouped themselves by increased charges on the goods they were producing or handling and they in their firms did not actually suffer in consequence of the increased wages they paid to their workers. We know that many of them laid off another man or three or four men, where they were in such competition in the sale of their goods that it would be inimical to the interests of the company if they were to increase the price. Where prices have been increased, we have been squeezed out of the export market.
This is one of the factors which has added to the higher level of production costs and consequently put us in a more difficult situation with regard to exports. At any rate, the workers in those industries were successful. They were justifiably entitled to the increases which they got. The trade union organisations were more than cooperative because they did not press on the Government as they could have. They could have said: "All of this arises from a Government decision." They could have pressed for their full pound of flesh. They could have demanded from the Government an increase in wages which would be equal to the impact on themselves and their families of the increased price of bread, flour, sugar and so on. They did not do so. They accepted what was a moderate increase. It was substantial when it comes to finding the money for it, but it was moderate compared with the individual impact on the worker concerned. That wage agreement saved them in some way from the violent increase in the cost of living consequential on the withdrawal of the food subsidies.
The Government sought to assist the poor people by an allowance of 1/- per week. This additional 1/- is the joke of the century, that an old person who was getting 24/- and who is now receiving 25/- has been amply compensated for the impact of the increased cost of living. That cannot possibly be maintained by any member of the House. Some back benchers from the Government side have spoken, mostly city Deputies — and have made worthy contributions. I speak particularly of Deputy Cummins and of Deputy Healy, who spoke last week; but neither of them——
A Deputy
Deputy Healy is a queer Dublin man.
I said "city Deputies." He did not say they were 50 times better off in Cork than they were two or three years ago. He made a constructive speech. I was very interested in listening to the speech by Deputy Cummins and thought he was quite fair in the remarks he made. However, when he was eulogising the advances made in industry and so on, as a city man, he would not have been able to realise that that would not have been possible at any time, but for the agricultural industry providing the level of exports to make it possible.
We know that the constituents of our industries have to be imported almost entirely, that we must import nearly all the things we assemble, whether we require them for home consumption or for export. We found it difficult to find a market where we could compete effectively. We could not import the requirements of Irish industry, if we did not have the level of exports which we have had in recent years. We have industrial exports, of course, but they are very limited in comparison with our agricultural exports. I asked the Taoiseach on 3rd March to give us a picture of the level of exports from 1931 down to 1957, from the time when he first attained office. At that time, the level of exports was £36,341,000. At the time he left office in 1947, the figure had risen to £39,511,000. This was a negligible increase of £3,170,000 in 16 years. That was all that was achieved. One may claim that there was this war and that war, but in the whole 16 years, on an average, in no one of those years did the level reach the figure of £40,000,000.
What happened in consequence of the change of Government in 1948? When it comes to exports, one could not expect to see a reflection, following a change of Government and a change of policy, in two or three years, as the major part of our exports are animals — cattle on the hoof, and so on. We find that since 1949 not alone have we passed the £40,000,000 mark, but it has gone to £60,502,000. In each year since then, that figure has been stepped up, except for the year in which we had particular difficulties, until, in 1957, we reached the figure of £131,234,000. This is a healthy growth in the volume of our exports.
When Deputy Loughman was talking with such glowing pride on the question of the contribution of Irish Shipping, I had to take my mind back to the day on which the Minister for External Affairs said that he wished that every ship was at the bottom of the sea. He knows now, belatedly, that were it not for the fact that we now have that level of exports, we could not possibly enjoy the standard of living we have and, above all, we could not import the raw materials for our native industries and which have to be imported so that employment can be given in Irish industry.
One may ask what occurred to bring about this dramatic increase in our exports. Surely, the first thing that brought it about was the successful conclusion of the 1948 Trade Agreement with Britain? Within a matter of months, that was reflected in our fairs and markets by increased prices which immediately made it attractive to people to invest in the land and to maintain higher cattle and sheep numbers.
We recall that the lowest figures on record for cattle, sheep and pigs were in the years immediately preceding the coming into office of the first inter-Party Government. We may ask what contributed to that record low figure. We find that in the cradle of the cattle industry, in Munster, where the whole of the Republic has to look for the raw material for our cattle, back in the 1930s, the Fianna Fáil Government decided that the British market in cattle was gone and gone forever, that it was vital that they should destroy the cattle industry. The best way they could go about it was to place a bounty on the hides of calves. In the year 1934-35, we slaughtered 137,686 calves. In 1935-36, the Minister for Finance was then Minister for Agriculture. He acted the part of Herod in the slaughter of the innocents, and we reached the record figure of 221,000 calves slaughtered.
The years passed — I shall not bore the House by repeating all these figures: they are available in the Official Report — and we reached the year 1947. In that year, we find 68,700 calves slaughtered. Mark you, that was the one industry brought to my town by Fianna Fáil. If one could not get employment in agriculture or in the shops, one would find it in the calf-slaughtering abattoir. No questions were asked as to where the nice little whiteheads came from. Nobody asked whether they came from Deputy O'Malley's constituency. Nobody asked whether they were Friesians or anything else. They all went the same road; they all had their throats cut. This was deliberate destruction. Simultaneously, there was wholesale neglect of cattle generaly, neglect which led to the loss of thousands of cattle. As a result of improved veterinary services in recent years thousands of cattle have been saved. But, in view of all the neglect and destruction, is it any wonder cattle stocks were as low as they were in 1947? Despite increasing exports every year since then, we are in the happy position to-day of having both record exports and record stocks.
The Government's proposal for economic expansion has been dealt with effectively by speakers on this side of the House. It is something we are pleased to commend since it contains within it all that we believe is essential from the point of view of benefiting the country as a whole. I regret, however, that there is such pessimism in regard to the dairying industry. It has been made apparent by Government policy over the past two years that nothing can be done to maintain milk prices at their present level. The result will be a diminution in milch cows, with a consequent diminution in cattle stocks generally. What about our export situation then? The only fault I have to find with this plan is that there is not sufficient encouragement in it for the dairying industry. For the past two years, the Government have been deliberately depressing milk prices, despite all their ullagoning when they were on this side of the House because the Government then in office would not give a dramatic increase in the price of milk.
Farmers will have to bear the burden of record high rates this year. They will have to engage in the eradication of T.B. Yet, they are suffering a drastic reduction in their incomes. Far from getting any increase, the small farmer is asked to suffer a reduction. In addition, there is now a levy on every creamery society, a levy described as a production levy. That levy is on an average 1¼d. to 1½d. Sometimes it is more and sometimes it is less. That levy is imposed on every creamery supplier in the South of Ireland. Simultaneously, he must pay more for his butter, more for his flour, more for his tea and for all the other necessaries of life.
This appeal might come more appropriately from a Deputy representing an urban area, but, in justice, I must appeal to the Government and to the Minister to give immediate consideration to the aged. When we were in office and there was an increase in the price of tea, we cushioned these people from the impact of that increase by giving them a double payment at Christmas time. Over the last two years, the Government have shown a complete disregard for these people. I believe they should be the first charge on any community.
Conversion is welcome at any time, even when it is belated. The conversion of this Government to the importance of the cattle trade and the value of grassland has been a slow one. Like most converts, they are now somewhat over-enthusiastic. They are calling for a too dramatic change in agriculture. Who would have thought a few years ago that, in the middle of March, not one penny piece would have been expended on encouraging wheat-growing? By the time we reassemble here, the wheat will have been sown. There has been no indication from the Government as to what their intention is. It almost looks as if they wish to discourage the growing of wheat.
Our Government were realistic in their approach to grain production. We could not see why the country should produce a commodity in such abundance that it could not be sold at an economic price, while, at the same time importing the grains necessary to maintain our live stock. We decided on a balanced economy and Deputy Dillon as Minister for Agriculture introduced the growing of feeding barley. He met, of course, with nothing but ridicule from this Government. Again, there has been another conversion and feeding barley have given us an exportable surplus in cattle, sheep and pigs. Up to 1954, not one hundredweight of feeding barley was produced here. Various varieties suitable to our soil and climate were introduced. Production in the first year was 80,000 tons. In 1957, we find that 259,300 tons were being sown.
That was secured in consideration of a guaranteed price being given, but there is now much distrust amongst grain growers in relation to the handling of this commodity. There were co-operative societies which paid a reasonable price for barley and took it in a rather indifferent condition. However, they found that the millers were able to go to the Minister and make such a case to him that they were allowed to import considerable quantities of better grain at a lower price. I hope that before the Minister makes any recommendation for the present season, he will ensure that before anyone is allowed to introduce the dryer and cheaper varieties of coarse grains, he will guarantee that the amount allowed in will at least be equal to what is accepted from the home grower.
I was referring to the fact that the Government has now proceeded with great enthusiasm to change the system of farming to grass land farming. I can remember, when I was a young lad going to school, seeing the dead walls of the countryside faced with the Fianna Fáil slogan: "The land for the bullock and the road for the people." They seemed to have changed considerably. Now they seem to realise the value of the bullock, but they must also realise that so many people have invested so much money in agricultural machinery that many of them will be beggared if the Government proceed with their present line of policy.
I know of farmers who employed three or four men in mixed tillage in the years gone by who are now gradually going to reduce their acreage of grain consequent on the way in which they were misled and on the Government's withdrawal of the guaranteed price. They will not even resort to such alternatives as would give more employment than grain growing, such as the delivery of milk to creameries. They intend to have the single suckle calf. That would be an economic solution if we had surplus milk production, but it will mean less employment.
If our farmers got into that in any big way, it will not inure to the benefit of the country. I appeal to the Government that, while it is a good thing that they should realise the potentialities of our grass land and while we welcome their conversion to the faith we have always held in the importance of our cattle exports, they should still keep in mind the people who were prepared to engage in the handling of grain and other types of tillage.
Deputy Dillon made an appeal to the Government, and I should like to endorse that appeal, that they should ensure that the young men who took out agricultural degrees should be provided with employment in this country. Some of them who have come out of the universities are left twiddling their thumbs, or they have had to travel the lanes of the countryside canvassing members of committees of agriculture in order to secure a temporary job. The time has now come when the committees of agriculture realise the value of these young men. Politics have gone out of it.
We all remember the effort that was made to cry down the parish plan when it was first introduced, but now there is unanimity amongst the committees of agriculture and they will be quick to come in behind the Government in the implementation of this scheme. We have had excellent results from the good technical advice given by the instructors already employed. They are excellent men, a credit to the university, and they are contributing in no small way to the level of production which we have now reached.
When Deputy Loughman was speaking, he made an assertion which I wish to correct. He said that we had followed Britain in the introduction of the Prize Bond Scheme. When that scheme was introduced here it was introduced after careful consideration of the effect it might have on the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes. That scheme was first advocated by Deputy John A. Costello, as Taoiseach, in Killarney during the local elections of 1948 before Britain even thought of introducing it. The Deputy was fair enough to admit that he was not sure about it; he was mistaken. The scheme was first advocated by Deputy Costello long before the British introduced it.
There are other aspects of the Vote on Account which I should like to deal with, but, in justice to others, I should not delay the House. In concluding, I would say to Deputies on the Government Benches that they would not be so confident as they claim to be about the future of the country and the present position, if they examined previous speeches with regard to the system of election in this country. Those speeches are not indicative of the confidence of their leaders in the success of their policy.
The Tánaiste, who is usually the most assertive and self-confident of the Fianna Fáil Leaders, was the first to put it on record that this was the last time that the Fianna Fáil Party would have such strength in office. If the Government were meeting with such success in their policy and there was such a good augury for the future, surely that is not indicated in the claim of the Tánaiste that this was the last time Fianna Fáil would have such strength in Government.
I have listened to this debate for the past three days. This Vote on Account is one of the annual matters which we meet with in local authorities as well as in Government. It gives us an opportunity of expressing our opinion on many matters of administration. I do not intend to go back on past history, or to indulge in repetition, and I do not intend to take any unfair advantage in my remarks. The Vote on Account is for aproximately one third of the entire Estimates for the coming year. Those Estimates are £5,500,000 in excess of last year. Naturally, when Estimates are increased one must examine them to see is there some particular reason for the increase. Whether or not it is to the advantage of the Government, one must be fair.
As I have said, I have heard Government speakers here for the past three days go back to 1956, so I shall not go back any further to examine the economics as they have been presented to this House. We all know the difficulties the Government had to face in 1956. It was one of those black years, one of those years of depression when any Government had to face problems of a very serious nature. Fianna Fáil have called 1956, when they made reference to it, a black year, a year of depression, a year of gloom. They called 1957 a year of progress because they were in power. They called 1958 a year of recovery because that was their second year in office and they had not been getting on very well. Evidently, they had to have something to talk about.
Statements have been made at various functions up and down the country. Certain economists have expressed opinions. Deputy Booth has quoted The Statist, an English journal, which, I understand, deals with economics. All these quotations referred to the rosy position of this country. We can quote what we like, and economists can say what they like, but I come from the City of Limerick and that is my concern. I naturally wish to talk of the all-over position. Last Wednesday, I asked a question as to the position of unemployment in three areas in the county of Limerick, Limerick City, Kilmallock and Newcastle West. My constituency comprises the City and East Limerick. In the reply given by the Minister, I find that 2,800 persons are signing on at the labour exchange in Limerick, 700 at Kilmallock, which is close to part of my constituency, and 1,244 in Newcastle West. They are the people with whom I come in contact more than people anywhere else.
I cannot quote to them The Statist as Deputy Booth did, or any of those other people who paint from time to time very optimistic pictures about the position of the country, because what concerns these people is employment, what concerns them is either the getting of employment or getting out. It is a very sad reflection that unemployment is at the high level it is to-day when we have 80,000 people signing on at the labour exchanges all over the country and something in the neighbourhood of 40,000 or 50,000 people emigrating annually. That is something I do not like to talk about because I feel that perhaps it is doing some harm, but I feel I am entitled to talk about it because of the capital that was made by the Government Party when in Opposition. There was no sad story then; there was no doleful story, which could be told about unemployment. They told the people at the last general election: “Wives, send your husbands out to work.” They told the people of the things that were in store for them, that emigration would greatly decrease, factories would be established and all the rest of it. I am glad to say some factories have been established. I wish them luck, because, no matter which Government is in or out of office, our livelihoods are in this country. Whether we live in city or town, it is no satisfaction to us who may be well off, to know that alongside us people are living in starvation conditions.
For that reason, I should like to talk, as I have said, about the many problems met by the Government in 1956. I do not think there is anybody here who will deny that cattle prices collapsed, not by any action of the Government of the day, but because of the fact that the British market— practically our only market for cattle— was flooded that year by Argentinian meat which the Argentine Government were forced, because of financial reasons, to sell in the British market at any price obtainable. That is no fairy tale.
We know that in that year the Egyptian Government stopped petrol supplies coming through the Suez Canal. I shall not go into it any further, but it is a fact. We know that the stopping of petrol supplies caused dislocation of employment in the motor industry and caused untold hardships up and down the country to people dependent on motor vehicles of various kinds, and to the farmers who had mechanised their farms.
Another matter the Government had to deal with that year was credit restriction in England which was soon followed here by our banking system. Perhaps that was caused by world conditions — I shall not go into it — but it happened in England and our bankers decided that they would follow. I cannot understand the action of the banking institutions, in lending money on securities, even Government securities, and then coming along and giving three months' notice to clear your account. That has been the cause of cases of severe hardship, many people being forced to sell securities on a depressed market, when the value of their stocks had decreased.
A big problem which every country in the world has had to face was that hire purchase had to be practically stopped. People who went into new homes and people in the countryside who got electricity for the first time, bought on a large scale the equipment which goes with electricity — cookers, kettles and so on. They tried to bring to their homes the amenities enjoyed by cities and towns and to get rid of some of the drudgery conditions in which they had to live. Those matters had to be faced at that time because, as we all know, in 1955, 1956 and 1957, rural electrification was carried on on a very large scale. Much of the equipment that had to be bought might be called non-recurring capital expenditure but it was capital expenditure incurred in those years. Larger motor-cars were bought. The farmers got tractors and all the machines necessary for the working of land, and factory owners were told that, due to an impending world market, it was necessary for them to put in new machinery. All the money for these things went out of the country and what did we find as a result? We found that our balance of payments had gone wrong and I hold that no Government, no matter who they were, could have righted that position, unless they resorted to measures to prevent the people from importing these goods.
Measures had to be taken and, at the end of 1956, levies were imposed on many articles which were considered to be of a luxury nature and, with regard to articles which might not altogether be of a luxury nature, it was intended that their purchase should be deferred. Because of that, hostility was expressed against the Government. Certain people got up in arms against the Government because they imposed levies on commodities they were importing, and, because of that agitation and all the unemployment that was caused as a result of these measures, the Government of the day became most unpopular.
I hold that a Government must have its good year and its bad year and that the Government of that day acted for the good of the country. All the measures necessary for overcoming the obstacles were at hand. The levies which were imposed were estimated to produce something like £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 a year and, at the same time, there was no great hardship, except to those directly employed in the industries concerned.
Deputy Sweetman was responsible for the Prize Bonds Scheme which, I am glad to see, is now such a great asset to the Government. The people have put so much money into these bonds that the Government can use it to help in the capital development of the country. It has been stated in this House that the inter-Party Government broke up because they got the country into such a bad position that they were unwilling to face up to the problems involved. We all know that is not the real reason. As everybody knows, in that year, an organisation in this country took on itself the duties and responsibilities which were those of the Government. The Government declared that this organisation was acting in an unconstitutional way and the Government did what they had to do, what they were elected to do. Because of that action, two or three members supporting the Government notified them that they were no longer giving their support. Everybody knows that is the reason the Government went out of office, and it is very wrong now to spread these stories of depression, gloom, mismanagement, and all the rest.
For years and years, I have been listening to elements in Limerick criticising the corporation, the members of which are elected by the citizens, and who are responsible for the rates of the city. They all talk about incompetent people, but I hold, when a young man goes into public life and tries to do what he thinks best, it is not fair that because of some adverse effect of some kind, his efforts should be minimised in any way.
We had a change of Government in 1957. Fianna Fáil returned to power. They had spent 16 years in office from 1931 to 1947, and a further three years from 1951 to 1954, and that was a reasonable space of time to allow any Party to handle the affairs of the country. Despite all the plans which they were supposed to have, it is very strange that they did not put some of them into effect during those years.
The first thing they did in 1957 was to abolish the food subsidies and their abolition meant a saving to the Government of about £9,000,000. They gave some reliefs, which, I understand, amounted to £2,000,000, but in any event, they had a net gain of approximately £7,000,000. In addition to that, they had the proceeds of the Prize Bonds and of the levies that were imposed as a temporary measure by the inter-Party Government, and were to be abolished immediately the financial position righted itself. However, Fianna Fáil decided to make the levies permanent and, as a result, they have gained about £3,000,000.
One would imagine that with all that saving, the Government would have done something, and I think the test of any policy is the position in regard to unemployment and emigration. We were told that the Budget of 1957 was a realistic budget and that it was unfair to take the food subsidies out of the taxpayers' pocket. Many of those banking people who continually keep crying about the money they have to pay out in taxation spoke out against them. I know that taxation can have serious effects in many directions, but, at the same time, there is no doubt that whatever Government are in power, they have to raise a certain amount in taxes.
Fianna Fáil were very interested in the position of the farmers in 1956. There were numerous questions in the House concerning the production of the Milk Costings Commission Report. Fianna Fáil established that commission in 1951 and I believe it was established for one reason only, to keep the farmers quiet. They were kept quiet, but, when Fianna Fáil came back to office and when that report became available, they now state they will not put it in print. A copy of it can be got in the Library, but they will not publish it, because it is not worth publishing. One would imagine that a document that cost £30,000 of the taxpayers' money would at least be published. Evidently, it is not worth it and perhaps the Government are right, but instead of an increased price which the farmers expected from Fianna Fáil, they have got a reduction of something like 1½d. a gallon.
The Fianna Fáil Party were very perturbed during the inter-Party Government's term of office about what was done for the wheat farmers and the cuts made in wheat prices. These farmers were told that if they put back Fianna Fáil, wheat would be 84/- per barrel and that they had been very much wronged. We know what happened last year. They produced surplus wheat and when it was in the ground, they were told something like 5/9 a barrel would be deducted for the purpose of selling any surplus. There was no surplus millable wheat and yet that 5/9 was deducted by the Government and in all decency it should have been refunded when the overall position became known later on. We find the 5/9 was deducted. Now we have no agitation. It is evident that the Fianna Fáil organisation all over the country had tried in previous years to cause difficulties for the Government of the day among milk producers and wheat growers. Fianna Fáil are now in office and they have to swallow all they said. The milk producers and wheat growers must accept lower prices.
Speaking for Limerick, I feel we suffer very much as regards economic expansion, because, as we know, the Government gives special grants for undeveloped areas. We are not classified as such and we have difficulties in which none of the other cities are placed, such as Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Galway or Belfast. We are not an ocean port, but an inland port, and although we have the most up-to-date docks in the country, we are at a disadvantage because we are 60 miles inland and we have a tidal river. In these days of high freight costs that is undoubtedly a slight disadvantage, but we have the advantage that we are a distributing centre.
In to-day's newspapers, I saw that the Minister for Lands, speaking about incentives to develop industry, said that every conceivable step had been taken to encourage private enterprise since 1957. Fresh capital was being found and industrial credit facilities had been expanded. Research work in industry was being undertaken. I agree with that, and these things are very commendable. He goes on to say that seven new factories are being built and that there are no fewer than 49 projects before the Industrial Development Authority. I am glad that is so and I am not speaking in any spiteful way for one county or city against another, but we are at a loss to know how all these industries should have by-passed Limerick.
If one examines the situation, it is not hard to discover a reason and I think one reason is that, naturally, anybody interested in a grant for establishing an industry will ask what grants are available and will be told. That being the case, the promoters will probably find they will get 100 per cent. more in grants in an undeveloped area compared with another area.
Deputy O'Malley will give very good news about that to-night.
I understood it was coming. Is it the greyhound track? Deputy O'Malley and I made all the representations we could and I understood the decision would be made to-day.
It will be great news for Deputy Loughman and Deputy Davern and Deputy Breen.
And for Senator Burke.
I feel Limerick has a claim to some consideration when money is being allocated to those 49 projects that are before the Department. We have good reasons. I think nobody will deny that shipping facilities are a very heavy cost now on some industries, with freight rates soaring as they are. We Limerick people are concerned about unemployment, as we must be, having lived all our lives in the city. I am not here to boast about what I am doing or going to do, but I am in industry in Limerick and my money is in Limerick, and I am glad of it. We have good workers in Limerick and if the Government would consider Limerick when these projects are being discussed, I should be glad. I shall say no more now, but one has to examine this position, and if we are taking on responsibilities in local authorities and in the national interest in this House, we can only bring these matters before the Government here. I do so in no hostile or critical manner, except such as is expected of anybody charged with the duty of being in opposition to the Government in power.
The housing industry is in a serious position at present. I remember that Deputy O'Malley made good use of the position of the housing industry here when we were in power. I suppose that is to be expected. But what is the position to-day when housing has become almost history? I spoke to two builders in Dublin and they told me the situation was never before so bad. They told me the cost of building in Dublin has increased over the past two years. Wages went up and that increase was passed on to the industry. Not alone that, but it was passed on to practically every other industry supplying goods to the building trade. I understand that the cost of a house increased by about £200 over those two years. Whatever it costs, the subsidy the Government are giving for a working class house is the same. I feel that if the money can be provided at all, the Government should come to the rescue of the local authorities by increasing the subsidy by an amount equivalent to the increased cost.
If it were Government policy to take off the subsidies — which it was — and if, as a result, the cost of those subsidies was put on to everything else, including building, that is a matter the Government should consider seriously. We now find that the economic rent of a house in Limerick at present is 35/- a week, a figure no workman can afford to pay, unless he has very substantial wages. In a large number of cases the cost has to be met by the ratepayers or the tenant. As a result, the ratepayers are now charged with so many things they never had to bear before that they are unable to bear all the costs that are imposed on them. This is a matter to which the Government should give serious consideration.
The work of attracting tourist anglers has been speeded up enormously. As a result of the intensive drive to attract anglers, there has been an increase of 73 per cent. in the number of game fishermen and of 55 per cent. in the number of coarse fishermen. In Limerick, we have a problem, where our anglers are actually boycotting the rivers at present, because they are being asked to pay what we all consider an unfair tax. They are being asked by the E.S.B. to pay £25 for a fishing licence where they enjoyed it for £10 a year. That is a matter to which the Government should give consideration. The man in Limerick who engages in fishing does not do so as a whole-time occupation. Even if we are to cater for tourists, as we naturally should, we should not put too much of the weight on our own people.
Many of the Opposition speakers have not gone to the trouble of reading the Book of Estimates properly. I do not cast any reflection on Deputy Carew's statement, which was more or less quite fair and reasonable, though possibly incorrect in a few points. The Book of Estimates has increased over the previous year by approximately £4,500,000. It is important to appreciate that, of that increase, £2,500,000 is for capital services of a productive nature.
Other speakers have cited various neutral organs, journals and authorities, who are not biassed against any Party here, but who give their opinions on the economic situation as they find it. It is refreshing to see that, in the main, they echo the sentiments expressed by some of our leading speakers here that we have, thank God, again turned the country on the road towards economic recovery.
Most of the Opposition speakers dealt with the subsidies which Fianna Fáil were forced to remove in 1957. When the Minister had concluded, the first speaker who offered himself on the opposite side was Deputy McGilligan. He devoted much of his speech to the subsidies. He asked the question: "Where is this £9,000,000 which Fianna Fáil took; what have they done with it?" The position with regard to subsidies, of course, is that the gross saving was in the region of £9,000,000, but after certain allowances were given to widows' noncontributory pensions, old age and blind pensions, and certain other classes in the most deserving sections of the community, the net saving was not £9,000,000, not £7,000,000 as mentioned by Deputy Carew, but £5.15 million.
A shilling was given to those recipients I mentioned a moment ago. Also, children's allowances were increased not by a very princely sum, but at least they were increased by 4/6 per month. However, Deputy McGilligan dwelt at length on this and suggested that the £9,000,000 had gone into the coffers of Fianna Fáil, to be utilised by them; and he suggested that that £9,000,000 was frittered away. He could not find it and he wanted to know what had become of it. Of course, one does not have to be an economist; one just has to recall the position after the general election in 1957. We had speakers attacking Fianna Fáil for misleading the electorate. They quoted the Taoiseach, the Minister for Health and the Tánaiste as suggesting that Fianna Fáil would never remove the subsidies, but they forgot to state that one speaker, in particular, said that we were not aware of the exact financial picture of the country and until we got back to office, we had no idea that it was so bad.
It should be recalled that the general election took place in 1957 — on March 5th. When the Taoiseach of the inter-Party Government had declared a general election, the Book of Estimates had not come before this House and had not been circulated. The Government knew, the Government speakers and Ministers who traversed the country at the general election of 1957 were well aware, from the Book of Estimates — even though it had not been published, it had been prepared— that the deficit which the incoming Government would have to face, whoever they might be, would be a total deficit in the region of £11,000,000. Is that right or is it wrong? I say it is right.
For instance, there was a deficit on the Book of Estimates itself of a little over £9,000,000. This is what Fianna Fáil inherited and I say this to show Deputy McGilligan and the other speakers where this £9,000,000 of saving on subsidies — which as I pointed out was a net saving of £5.15 million —went.
As the Minister said when introducing his Budget in 1957, the position was so critical and so serious that he was compelled to remove those subsidies. We inherited a deficit on the Book of Estimates of which we were not aware, of £9,000,000; we inherited an obligation to pay the secondary teachers £500,000; there was a sum of £150,000 which we had to earmark as a contribution towards wheat losses; the Minister for Industry and Commerce had earmarked for a certain industry, which we had to honour, a sum of £230,000; then there was a Supplementary Estimate during the course of the year for £.951 million —almost £1,000,000. That gave us a grand total of £11,000,000. That, I trust, has dealt with Deputy McGilligan's line of argument. That refutes once and for all the suggestion that we had and still have a continuing or recurring amount of £9,000,000, £7,000,000 or £5,000,000 per year.
It was amusing in a way to hear Deputy McGilligan, of all persons, bemoan certain facts. He spoke about wages and about the Standstill Order. I remember reading where Deputy Norton, referring to Deputy McGilligan —it is a good while ago—described him as an industrial tank mowing down the industries of this country. I recall Deputy McGilligan — I was not in the House at the time—saying that it is no function of the Government to provide work for the people. It is a fact, he said, that people may have to die, and die of starvation here. That was Deputy McGilligan who is now criticising the Fianna Fáil Government.
I think we should have that reference.
I can get the reference. It is a well-known fact. Everyone knows it here. I do not think Deputy McGilligan will deny it. I do not think he will deny that he said it is not a function of the Government to furnish employment for anyone. We know it off by heart. He did state that the people may have to die, and die of starvation in this country.
Quote!
Sir, has not this been exposed time and time again? Has it not been exposed sufficiently often without having it introduced at this hour in this debate?
Deputy McGilligan introduced a lot of irrelevant data when he spoke. I suggest I am not irrelevant, with all due respect. I am setting out to refute one or two of the more serious allegations, allegations which are without foundation.
We had a suggestion repeated again by many speakers about the Wages Standstill Order. How often have we to clarify the position about the Wages Standstill Order?
Could I intervene at this stage to point out that the Minister will be called at 9.15? Could I ask Deputies to limit their speeches so that whatever two or three are anxious to speak will get an opportunity of doing so?
I would sit down this minute, if the Minister could get in. The Opposition have spoken quite a lot to-day and it is my present intention to speak until 9.15, with your permission; otherwise, I will sit down and let the Minister in.
May I suggest that that is entirely contrary to the spirit of the arrangement made to allow the Minister to get in for an hour to-night to finish? Indeed, I think it is contrary to precedent in this House. We expected we would have about half an hour in which to conclude on our side before the Minister got in.
I think the Deputy must admit that the Opposition got far more time than we did to-day.
But the Opposition did not seek it.
They are seeking it now, though.
The Opposition were speaking, but no speaker on the Government Benches who rose was denied his place in the debate.
I am saying that the Opposition got much more time than we got, and availed of it.
That is not the issue. There were times when speaker after speaker on the Opposition Benches had to rise because no one offered from any part of the Government Benches.
That does not take from the fact that the Opposition got much more time than we did.
I am speaking of the general order and decorum of debate. If an arrangement is come to by which the Minister is allowed an hour to reply and if the Government Party operate in such a manner as to put in a speaker who will take up three-quarters of an hour just before the Minister replies, that is contrary to decorum in debate.
The last speaker on the Deputy's side spoke for over half an hour — practically three-quarters of an hour. What is wrong with a Deputy on this side speaking for the same length of time?
When Whips make an arrangement with regard to permitting the Minister to conclude a debate, I understand it is usual for the Opposition to be given an opportunity of winding-up on their side for a reasonable period immediately before the Minister concludes. I do not know whether or not the Government Party wish to deviate from that practice now.
I have no authority to interfere at all. I merely made a suggestion. I cannot intervene.
I wonder would it be in order for you, Sir, to point out how very difficult it will be to make arrangements of this sort in the future if the procedure is not adhered to?
I dare say that is present to their own minds.
The one advantage in not offering earlier is that one can listen to the Opposition speeches and then, in as concise a way as possible, sum them up and be as constructively critical as possible.
The leader of the Opposition suggested that the Minister's speech was a disappointing speech. He suggested that the years in office of the Government had not been very fruitful. A glance through the Minister's speech will show important developments in connection with Irish Shipping, Bord na Móna, the E.S.B., the Industrial Credit Company, An Bord Fáilte, together with extra concessions to the Shannon Free Airport and the setting up of the Shannon Free Airport as a limited company, increased facilities for An Foras Tionscal, Córas Tráchtála, a subsidy of approximately £1,750,000 for superphosphates, the doubling of the grant for silos and important developments in relation to the fishing industry. There is also the scheme for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis and provision for additional expenditure of £936,000 to that end. There has been an increase in the amount allocated for farm buildings and an additional £400,000 for housing grants.
The Government can feel proud of their achievements after such a short time in office, particularly in view of the legacy they inherited. The White Paper is not under discussion. Neither is Whitaker's Almanac. Nevertheless, they are tied closely to this Vote on Account and they show that the Government are fully appreciative of the heavy task before them.
Deputy Blowick, like some other Deputies, referred to this expenditure of £10,000,000 on jet aircraft, while not having anything to give to the less well-off members of the community. It might have been as well if Deputy Blowick and others had waited until the Government announced the actual proposals with regard to the purchase of these jets. He might, indeed, try to understand the difference between capital expenditure and current expenditure. He might have paused to consider the sources from which a substantial portion of these moneys is obtained. It would be as well if no subsequent speakers follow him in his arguments, because to argue that the money spent on the purchase of these jet aircraft could be devoted to alleviating the position of the less well-off members of the community is entirely fallacious. It has not been denied that the transatlantic air service, through the jets, will be a strong force and will be welcomed by very many sections of the community.
It is a scandal for the Government to be spending £10,000,000 on jet planes and I think the people will rise up in arms against it.
Deputy Declan Costello ought to have read the very interesting and unbiassed article which appeared in the Irish Times on Tuesday; if he had done so he would not be so quick with his remarks about its being a scandal. I repeat to him — would he not wait until the Government makes an official announcement as to the amount of the money and the source from which it will come? It was very gratifying to read that article in the Irish Times and see that the experiment of Aerlinte had succeeded in a very difficult time.
I remember when the first Coalition Government scrapped the first transatlantic airline service which was to open on St. Patrick's Day, 1947. Now we are at St. Patrick's Day, 1959, and I think there would not be any necessity for Deputy Costello, junior, to protest so vehemently against the expenditure on the aircraft, if the first Coalition had left well enough alone. The folly of their action then is quite clear to be seen, because they sold the aircraft at a profit which showed there were many airline companies throughout the world who appreciated the bargain they were getting and the great opportunity there was before them.
That is all in the past, but Deputy Declan Costello should also remember that there are some thousands of people engaged directly in civil aviation in this country. The future of one of those great industries is well tied up with the decision which the Government may announce with regard to the jets. I do not need to go into the question of the closing of the Lockheed maintenance shop at Shannon. That also is something that took place in the past.
With regard to the economic position, the revenue for the year 1957-58 was £109,000,000 and this year it is £113,000,000. Post Office savings on 31st December, 1956, amounted to £85,000,000 and for the current year they have risen to £91,000,000. Saving Certificates in 1956 were £23,000,000 and at the same date in 1958, they had risen to £27,000,000. Our external assets, so much maligned, on 31st December, 1956, stood at £180,000,000 and on 31st December, 1958, they stood at £192,000,000. Our exports, for the 11 months up to November, 1956, were £95,000,000 and for the same period in 1958, they were £116,000,000.
Last year, our bank deposits showed an increase of 10 per cent. and the advances made by the banks increased by over 20 per cent. The loan floated by the E.S.B. was a clear success and the National Loan floated by the Government was a success. Those things, if they do not show an enlightened economy, do show a sound economy, but the unfortunate thing is that there is so much more to be done. However, I think that the White Paper itself, which is not now under discussion, contains proposals which are spread over far too long a period. If all those things could be brought forward, things could be so much better. It is not encouraging to say that we would double our production over a period of 35 years, if our national income expanded by 2 per cent. per annum. I trust that when the House is being given an opportunity of discussing this matter, the Government will try to bring forward these projects.
There is now no scarcity of money for any proposal of a productive nature. We are a member of the International Monetary Fund, or the World Bank, and I do not see why the Government should not raise funds from the sources I have mentioned for any project which is productive of itself and which will not require any assistance from the taxpayer who is already burdened to the limit of his capacity. As the Tánaiste has said, the White Paper is just an outline of the economic proposals of the Government. It is subject to review and perhaps to alteration.
Deputy O'Sullivan, who comes from the heart of the agricultural community, devoted much of his speech to the position of farmers to-day. He congratulated Fianna Fáil on their conversion to the bullock and to the grass policy. I do not know that we are either converted or perverted. I do not see any change in the Fianna Fáil policy and Fianna Fáil are, and always have been, the greatest friend the small farmer in this country ever had.
I think it is audacious for Deputy Dillon and Deputy O'Sullivan or any other speaker in the Fine Gael Party to go into the merits and demerits of the wheat cut alleged to have been made by Fianna Fáil. Their record with regard to wheat is an unhappy one. Their record with regard to barley is an unhappier one and their record with regard to the beet factories is the unhappiest one of all.
Deputy O'Sullivan spoke about the low number of cattle during the 1930s. I suppose he thought there would be certain individuals on this side of the House who might be a bit young and might listen to Deputy O'Sullivan with their mouths open when he spoke of the low number of cattle in the 1930s. When he spoke about the slaughtering of the calves, he avoided giving the reasons for it and he forgot to discuss the economic war and to say what it was fought for and he forgot to say what benefits accrued to the Irish farmer which he is now reaping as a result of the reduction of portion of the land annuities.
Deputy Carew mentioned credit restrictions in Britain and said they were followed here by the banks during the period of the Coalition Government. When he says the credit restrictions which took place in Britain were followed here by the banks, I should like to say that that statement is an example of the illogical and unfair thinking of Fine Gael. If credit restrictions had to be enforced here, or supposing credit restrictions were imposed during a Fianna Fáil régime, that action would not be attributed to the bankers. It would be attributed to the Government. It would be said Fianna Fáil instructed the bankers to impose credit restrictions. It was said before, that Fianna Fáil instructed the bankers to impose a credit restriction. Then when a credit restriction occurs in a Coalition régime, it is carried out by the bankers without any Government instruction.
We should like very much if, at the first available opportunity, the Minister for Finance would increase the social welfare benefits to the less well-off members of our community. In my opinion, they are far too meagre. In my opinion, the old age pensioner, the man receiving unemployment assistance, the widow and the blind pensioner, are not getting a sufficient sum. I sincerely trust the Minister will find himself in a position to give that unfortunate section of the community a substantial increase, or an increase anyway.
As I said at the outset, he gave an increase of one shilling to this section when the subsidies were removed, but nevertheless any ordinary fair-minded person — and even though they may say otherwise, we have them on both sides of the House — will agree with me that they should have an increase. I should not mind paying an extra 6d. on a packet of cigarettes or some such commodity if the money accruing were given to the less well-off sections.
Put it on the pint.
There are certain commodities which have reached the point of saturation.
The pint?
If the Deputy from Galway wishes to continue acting the "ejit" and does not want to listen to constructive suggestions——
That expression should be withdrawn.
You might ask the Deputy to restrain himself and let me make my speech.
The expression is not parliamentary. The Chair will take no instruction from the Deputy. The Chair is capable of keeping order in the House. The Deputy will withdraw the remark and the reflection he cast on the Chair.
What remark?
The remark that the Chair was not conducting the proceedings——
I did not make any such remark.
The Deputy will withdraw the remark or he will leave the House.
What remark? If I cast a reflection on the Chair——
The Deputy will withdraw the remark or leave the House.
Will the Chair tell me the remark?
The Deputy will leave the House.
What remark did I make? I would withdraw it if I knew.
Does the Deputy withdraw the remark he made to the Chair?
If I cast a reflection on the Chair, I withdraw it. Deputy Costello, junior, asked for a quotation from a speech which was made by Deputy McGilligan. I am quoting from the Official Report of the 22nd October, 1924, Volume 9, column 562:—
"There are certain limited funds at our disposal. People may have to die in this country and may have to die of starvation."
Is Deputy Costello satisfied?
Give the whole quotation.
Read on.
I shall:—
"Mr. Colohan: That would solve the problem.
Mr. McGilligan: It might solve the problem but not in the way that I desire or that the Deputy desires. To say that would solve the problem, is not facing the fact that there are limited resources in the country. It is better to husband these——"
I could read on ad infinitum. At column 551 of the same volume, Deputy McGilligan said:—
"I do not refer to the point referred to by later speakers; that in critical moments, where there is an abnormally large unemployment problem, there should be immediate approach made to it by the Government. That is actually occurring at the moment."
Further down on the same page, he said:—
"To state broadly and definitely that this Dáil ought to be able to provide work for the country is giving this Dáil functions which it has no right to take upon itself."
Those quotations are taken from a speech of Deputy McGilligan who attempted to lambaste the opening statement of the Minister for Finance.
Would the Deputy tell us what Deputy Briscoe was saying about that time?
(Interruptions.)
Deputy O'Malley, on the Vote on Account.
He is finished, but he cannot stop.
There is another item which I should like the Minister to bear in mind, if possible, and that is the scrapping of the death duties. That is one of my annual appeals, but I think it would be a good thing for the country and would undoubtedly be an attraction. We would also attract very substantial outside capital. There are, I know, tremendous difficulties, but it has been done elsewhere with very beneficial results.
I did not hear what Deputy Mulcahy said to Deputy Briscoe. He did not interrupt me or any other speaker when the subsidies were mentioned because I think, at one time, Deputy Mulcahy himself was in favour of reducing the subsidies.
The Deputy does a lot of thinking in his spare time.
I did annoy you, did I?
You do not seem to, on the Vote on Account, in any case.
Speaking on 16th February, 1950, this is what Deputy Mulcahy had to say about subsidies: "There must definitely be a reduction in the burden of subsidies on our people." That was a while ago and these are still the "sham reductions" referred to.
The other point I want to comment upon is a question about the Undeveloped Areas Act, referred to by Deputy Carew. It is quite true that the title of that Act is changed now. The Undeveloped Areas Act has become the Development Areas Act, or some other such title, but Deputy Carew is quite correct in so far as he states Limerick City is not in a position to receive the facilities of loans or grants that other areas do under that Act. However, he did not tell the full story, that any export business in Limerick City or in any other city — Dublin or Cork — if that industry is 100 per cent. for export, then up to £40,000 of free non-repayable grant can be obtained for it. That is an important aspect to bear in mind, even though we are not in an underdeveloped area. There are also the usual facilities from the Industrial Credit Corporation, of which Dr. Beddy is in charge.
There is another point to be brought home. We can no longer speak and, as it were, isolate Limerick City. We must now take the whole Shannon area, the area contiguous to Shannon Airport, as an entity. Limerick is very close to the airport and to the facilities in the free airport zone, where there is remission of taxation, free grants, and loans on favourable terms. All those facilities are to the benefit of Limerick City.
What about Clare, where the airport really is?
The facilities at Shannon Airport are to the benefit of Limerick City and are equally to the benefit of Clare, because there is a labour pool required from them both.
I do not like to interrupt the Deputy, but I should like to point out that under this year's road grants, £50,000 or £60,000 is being made available for the making of a road from Shannon Airport into Limerick, and not into Clare.
Deputy Murphy is confusing the issue. What county is the airport in?
Mr. Murphy
I am not. I am wide awake to everything in connection with the airport, where County Clare is concerned.
There was a free, non-repayable grant of £125,000 for the stretch of road between Limerick and Shannon Airport, but what am I talking about? This Vote on Account has nothing to do with that road.
I wish to speak on this Vote on Account.
The Deputy has only a minute or two.
I intend to speak only for a few minutes. I think one of the most disturbing aspects of this debate and, indeed, of the Government's attitude to our present condition, is the complacency with which the Government spokesmen, both members of the Government and their supporters, have approached the very serious situation which faces us to-day, the very real needs of the people which are of such a crying nature. It has been stated that there is a mood of optimism in the country. I wonder where it is? It is said the Government are to be congratulated on their achievements over the past two years. I wonder by whom, since to-day unemployment is running at the rate of 80,000 persons, when old age pensioners, wage earners with low salaries are badly hit by the rising cost of living and when people, on small pensions from the Government or private undertakings, are also badly hit. The mood of optimism referred to will not be found among those people, and there will be no congratulations from them.
The time has now been reached for the Minister to speak.
There has been no decision by the House.
The House agreed to call the Minister at a quarter past nine. I have no authority to go against a decision of the House.
If the Minister reserves his right?
I have no objection to the Deputy speaking for five minutes.
In the short time available to me, I want to make certain points in regard to the capital investment programme of the Government. I think it must be borne in mind how the capital investment programme of public authorities has declined in the past few years. In 1955-56, the rate of public capital programme expenditure was £43.5 million; in 1956-57, it was £44.5 million; and in 1957-58, it was £40,000,000. For the current year, it is estimated at £41.1 million, but it must be pointed out that the rate of capital investment in the current year is, in fact, less than the rate last year, when there is taken into account £1.4 million included in that sum for refunding the Industrial Credit Corporation, and that a number of supply services were switched to capital services last year.
State capital investment has been declining over the past few years, and the Government's programme of £220,000,000 for the next five years, to my mind, is completely unreal and is completely inadequate to deal with our needs. The Government's programme of £220,000,000 includes a sum of £11,000,000 for agricultural credit and a sum of £20,000,000 for industrial credit. I have not the opportunity here to expand on the position with regard to industrial credit and agricultural credit in this country at the present time, but I think these figures are unrealistic. Based on the experience of the past few years, it is unrealistic to hope there will be an expansion of industrial credit to the amount we have in the capital investment programme, and that there would be a similar increase in the amount of agricultural credit.
I should like it, indeed, if it were so, that industrialists would take up the money that would be available, and that farmers would take up the amount of agricultural credit that is to be made available, but if in fact this amount of money is not taken up — and I feel it will not be taken up — the fact remains that the amount of investment undertaken by public authorities in the next five years will be less than that undertaken in the past few years.
These circumstances can only bring about conditions of a deflationary nature here, and I think it is of considerable significance that no effort is made in the White Paper or in the study, "Economic Develment", to suggest what amount of increased employment is to be given if the programme outlined by the Government is, in fact, fully operated. My fears are that the programme will not be operated. I feel that the expenditure of the Government is likely to decrease. I feel the businessmen will not take up the industrial credit that is to be made available, and similarly with farmers and agricultural credit. If that occurs it is quite clear it will produce here conditions of a more deflationary character than we have had over the past few years, and I see no prospect of increasing the rate of employment, or reducing emigration, in the Government's proposals.
I have one minute left and I want to say this: I think our situation is so serious, our economic problem so grave, the plight of our people and the poverty that exists, particularly in the towns with which I am so familiar, so serious that we need radical departures in our fiscal and banking arrangements. Our present system is antiquated and, I think, is a positive drag on development in the community generally. Until we have a more up-to-date banking system, a more up-to-date system of central banking, we shall have recurrences of what we had in the past few years — expansion and then contraction of credit.
In conclusion, I want to say that the Minister will no doubt be conscious of the fact that the balance of payments, the trade figures for January, were much worse than for the previous year and the year before that, but I do not think that that figure should be used as an excuse for bringing in any deflationary Budget next May. This has to be borne in mind: If we have a trade deficit in January and if it continues, then, what happened before is likely to happen again and the banks may start reducing credit facilities, leading to restriction of industry here again. I believe that can be avoided if proper steps are taken by the Government now with regard to improving the functions of the Central Bank.
The new approaches made in the study undertaken by the Secretary to the Department of Finance are to be commended. Is there any significance in the fact that the references made in that study, "Economic Development," with regard to changes in the role of the Central Bank have been omitted from the White Paper? I hope there is not. I hope the Government are prepared to undertake some of the steps indicated in "Economic Development." I do not think they go far enough because we need radical changes and until we have them, and until we have in operation a fresh approach to these problems, I do not think we shall have the conditions necessary for the increased employment which is so urgently needed and for the conditions of prosperity for which we hope.
We have had four days' debate on this Vote on Account, somewhat more than the average. It was largely a repetition, in the case of Fine Gael, of the catch cries with which we are so familiar and it would be very difficult in 55 minutes or one hour to deal with all the misrepresentations and deviations from truth that have occurred in all the speeches made by Fine Gael.
I was attacked by some speakers because they said my opening statement held out no hope. I was attacked by other Fine Gael speakers because they said I painted a rosy picture of prosperity and recovery. Evidently, it is not what I said but what each Fine Gael speaker thought would be the best way of attack that mattered and, having made up his mind as to how he would attack, he then threw truth to the winds and began to attack, not what was in the speech, but what he sought to persuade the House was in it.
It was largely repetition from the various Fine Gael speakers, and if one could deal fairly extensively with the speech of one of their speakers, I think one would have dealt practically completely with them all. I went through Deputy Costello's speech because it was made during the first day and I had the benefit of the Official Report. I shall take some points made by Deputy Costello. He asked what was the guarantee that anybody would take up the additional agricultural and industrial credit and, if they did, what additional employment would be given as a result. He went on to say that the expenditure envisaged in this White Paper depends to a large extent on whether private individuals or private industry take up the money.
On going through the debates, I came across this paragraph from Deputy Cosgrave which I think answers Deputy Costello without any help from me. Deputy Cosgrave said:—
"Neither Government action nor Government policy, no matter how energetically pursued, can, of itself, create employment. In the main, this is a private enterprise economy and, with the exception of certain State undertakings which cover certain sectors of our economy, any expansion in employment, any increase in the numbers of jobs provided depends ultimately on the creation of successful conditions for an expansion in the private sector of our economy."
That is exactly the reply I should like to have given to Deputy Costello. All a Government can do is provide favourable conditions for private enterprise and let private enterprise take advantage of these conditions. If they do, increased employment should follow.
In regard to the first point made by Deputy Costello, as to whether there is any guarantee that the credit will be taken up by farmers and businessmen, I want to say that already — perhaps I should say even before the White Paper was issued— there are results. For instance, the agricultural sector of bank advances shows an increase from £16,500,000 in October, 1957, to £19,500,000 in October, 1958. That is a very high percentage increase in advances to farmers.
I am sure that if I left the figure at that and if Fine Gael speakers were to follow me, they would probably say the farmers were borrowing to cover their losses, owing to the bad harvest. That is not so, because during the same period, bank deposits from farmers have also increased. It shows that there has been a genuine effort on the part of the farmers to increase production and it is a hopeful sign for the future.
I think I could say the same in regard to industrial credit. The response from private enterprise is encouraging. I had a Bill before the Dáil some time ago asking the Oireachtas to increase the amount of money at the disposal of the Industrial Credit Company. As a result of that legislation, the company was able to announce enhanced facilities by way of loans on favourable terms to industry to encourage the replacement of old machinery by up-to-date plant and the use of additional machinery and, in general, the expansion and modernisation of factories.
At the moment, the Industrial Credit Company is dealing with applications amounting to about £7,000,000 and I should like to assure Deputy Costello and the Fine Gael Party that there is great hope that the credit facilities which are spoken of in the White Paper will be availed of, both by agriculture and by industry.
Another point made by Deputy Costello was that several times the inter-Party Government had reduced taxation and at the same time, had increased social benefits. He said that never at any time during their 20 years had Fianna Fáil once reduced taxation, that their history had always been to increase taxation. I think one could take up Deputy Costello on that, but before doing so, I should like to include another consideration. Before putting this challenge — if you like — to the test, one must also find out whether it was done without involving a Budget deficit, because if a Government give increased social benefits and reduce taxation at the same time, but as a result of that, has a Budget deficit, they have not achieved their objective. In fact, the deficit has to be met by borrowing and that remains as a permanent debt, or at least is added to the permanent debt of the nation. On that test, the 1948 Budget — which provided for increases in social services, old age pensioners' and widows' and orphans' pensions, estimated to cost £600,000 — showed a small surplus of £98,000. It has to be remembered that additional taxation, not a reduction of taxation, was imposed in that Budget, on beer and hydrocarbon oil, which was estimated to bring in £1.36 million. Therefore, we have not got there what Deputy Costello claimed in that year.
In 1949, there was a deficit in the Budget of £2.665 million. In that year, the standard rate of income-tax was reduced by sixpence — which, I think, costs about £1,500,000 — but the deficit was over £2,500,000.
In the year 1951, there was a deficit of £6.68 million, while in that Budget £1.5 million of reliefs was provided for social welfare and for tax reliefs in respect of income-tax and stamp duties, all estimated to cost £664,000. I may mention that in giving that £664,000, there was a deficit running of over £6,000,000. In addition to that, the 1951 Budget imposed additional taxation on petrol, oil and estate duties, calculated to bring in £1,000,000. That is as far as the first round of the Coalition was concerned.
Coming to 1955, there was a deficit of £312,000. In that Budget, provision was made for an increase in old age pensions, blind pensions and widows' and orphans' pensions. In 1956, there was a deficit of £5.946 million in that Budget, which again provided for certain increases in pensions and social insurance benefits; and that Budget also provided various tax reliefs estimated to come to £421,000. Against that, there was an increase in taxation on petrol, tobacco, oils, matches, betting duty, table waters and dancing, all calculated to yield £5.725 million.
Therefore, taking those Budgets which were brought in by the Coalition, I think the claim by Deputy Costello, who was Head of that Government, that it had always increased social benefits — he did not say "always"— and that it had often reduced taxation, is shown by those figures to have nothing whatever in it.
I mentioned that in some of those years there was an increase in social benefits brought in by the Coalition Government. Lest Deputy Kyne may think they had brought in all the social benefits since 1948, I should like to say that between 1948 and 1951 social benefits went up by £2,000,000, under that Coalition Government. I should take social welfare and health together —they went up by £2,000,000. But in the next three years, when Fianna Fáil was in power, from 1951 to 1954, the increase was £14,000,000 — against their £2,000,000.
How much for social welfare?
£5.2 million for health and £9,000,000 for social welfare — nine against their two. In the next two years, when the Coalition were in again, they put it up again by £1.1 million. In the past two years, since we came in, it was £2.7 million. I should like Deputy Kyne to study these figures and try to reconcile them with the statement in his speech, or the impression he gave, that the Fine Gael and Labour Parties combined as a Coalition had done so much for the working classes, and so on, and that Fianna Fáil had never done anything.
The Minister did not mention the subsidies which he removed.
I shall mention them in a few minutes. I should like the Deputy to keep this in mind, that in those five years of Fianna Fáil since 1948, those benefits went up to £16.7 million, while the Coalition in their six years put them up by £3.1 million. You can take the subsidies from that, if you like, and you will find that, even so, you will not get anything to boast about as a Coalition Government.
Deputy Costello, at the outset of his speech on this Vote, stated that two years ago when the Government were elected they took office in conditions far more favourable than those in which any Government took office since this State was established. I heard somebody behind me laughing and I must say I laughed when I heard that, too. If any economist were to study that statement, he would come to the conclusion that it was the most outrageous statement ever made. A year or so before the Government came into office on 20th March, 1957, a marked deterioration took place in the economic situation. I am quoting official figures and I am sure that every member of the Opposition has seen these figures. They may have tried to forget those figures. Anyway, they are there and they could have a look at them again. The real national income fell in 1956 by 1.3 per cent. We heard a lot of talk here in the past four days about the great changes made between 1947 and 1957, which I may refer to again. However, with the exception of 1950 — a Coalition year, remember — there was no year when there was not an increase in national income, except in that year 1956. We were told that we had taken office under favourable conditions. The volume of production in transportable goods industries fell by 11½ per cent. There was nothing like it in Irish history, as a fall. That fall took place between March, 1956 and March 1957, that is, at the time when the Fianna Fáil Government were coming in, so do not blame us for it. There was an 11½ per cent. reduction in transportable goods industries. The employment in transportable goods industries fell by 6,700 people between March, 1956 and March, 1957.
Between June, 1956 — we have not figures for agriculture except for June —and June, 1957, agricultural employment, as represented by the total number of males engaged in farm work, fell by 7,400. At 20th March, 1957, the number registered as unemployed rose by 16,394.
These were the "favourable conditions" which Deputy Costello and his Government handed over to us when we came into office in March, 1957. Since then, the economy has recovered appreciably. The volume of production in manufacturing industries rose by 4 per cent. in 1958. Remember that it went down by 11½ per cent. a year before. Employment in manufacturing industries increased by over 2,000 last year. The latest live register figure, for 28th February, 1959, was 78,479. It was 3,791 less than in February, 1958 and 12,715 less than in February, 1957.
The consumer price index which I shall have to quote again, has remained steady around 146. I do not want to be accused by anybody in the Opposition that we are complacent about any of these figures. We are not. We think they are far too high. I hear people opposite talking about the Suez crisis, a thing which was admitted by economists in England to have had no effect whatever on the economy. They talk about the Suez crisis and they forget — they do not forget, I think, but they do not mention — that during the past 12 months, there has been a very big world recession. As a matter of fact, while our employment figures are improving, England has been experiencing an increase from December last to January of 90,000. We have an increase in the United States of America of 600,000 from December to January. If that had happened when the Coalition were in office, I am sure we would be hearing about it for years and years afterwards. We would have heard about the recession in England and America ad nauseam, just as we heard about the Suez crisis. It was the Korean war during the first Coalition. As if these things have any effect whatever on the economy of this country!
Deputy J.A. Costello referring to the cost of living said it had increased twice as much under Fianna Fáil; he said it went up twice the rate it went up during their time in office. That is not true. During the period in which the previous Government were in office, the cost of living went up by 11 points. It rose from 124 to 135. During the time we have been in office, it has also gone up 11 points. The increase has been no worse. Of those 11 points, five points were due to the withdrawal of the food subsidies. It is a pity Deputies would not keep these facts and figures in mind when discussing these problems. They get up, one after the other, all speaking from the same brief, all repeating what the other fellow said, not checking whether or not it is correct, and attributing all our ills to the withdrawal of the food subsidies. Now, that five points was a big increase in the cost of living, but it was not responsible by any means for the total increase in the cost of living over the past four or five years. As I have pointed out, half that increase took place under the Coalition and half since we returned to office.
Deputy Costello also said that when they took over in 1954, they found the financial position had been distorted and the economy disrupted by reason of the financial proposals in the Budget of 1952. It is a favourite recreation on the part of speakers on the Opposition Benches to allege that a great many of our ills stem from the 1952 Budget. The 1952 Budget was necessary to correct the financial mess in which we found the country in 1951. We had to do harsh things again in 1957 when we found another financial mess. In 1951, as I have said, it was necessary to bring in a severe Budget.
What was the effect? From 1953 to 1954, as a result of that severe Budget, there was a substantial improvement in the economic position. Gross national productivity increased by 1.3 per cent. in real terms. The volume of production in transportable goods industries increased by 3.3 per cent. Employment in transportable goods industries increased on an average by 3,000 and the balance of payments was brought down to £5,000,000 — that is, £5,000,000 against us. Remember that balance of payments was brought down to £5,000,000 from a figure of £61.6 million in 1951. That was a big achievement. The percentage of persons on the live register fell from 9.6 in 1953 to 8.1 in 1954 and, in 1954, for the first time in many years, employment in agriculture remained constant. There was no reduction. When, however, the Coalition returned in 1954, the reduction started all over again.
We have been accused of not giving any estimate of what the increase in employment may be in relation to the White Paper. We have not attempted to do that. What we are attempting to secure is a maximum increase in production, rather than the creation of jobs. That is not because we are not interested in solving unemployment, but because we believe that the only way permanently to enlarge the content of employment is by increasing the output of goods and services and in that way absorbing people into employment in a natural way. Everybody will agree that employment depends on efficient production of more goods and services and on maximum output at competitive prices. If we do not get output at competitive prices, we cannot make any entry into the foreign market. It would be easy for the Government, if they thought well of doing so, to give an estimate of what the increased employment is likely to be, but I do not see what object that would serve.
Deputy McGilligan tried to give the impression that Fianna Fáil had a hostile attitude towards wage increases and that the attitude of the Coalition was quite the opposite. If Deputies will bear with me, I should like to give four quotations from four Budget statements. I should like Deputies to make a note of them and to ascribe the speeches to their authors. Deputy McGilligan made one; Deputy Sweetman made another, Deputy MacEntee made another; and I made another. I defy any Deputy to say who said what. I say that to show that there is really not much between us.
Hear, hear!
There cannot be because in dealing with a Budget one is dealing with the economic position of the country and one must point out the things that have been pointed out here by Deputy McGilligan:—
"I may also stress the need for avoiding increases in incomes not related to increases in output. An expansion in consumption generated by increases in money incomes would deplete the resources available for investment and have inflationary consequences."
That statement appears in the Budget speech of 1950 — a Budget introduced by Deputy McGilligan as Minister for Finance in the inter-Party Government. It will be found at column 1645 of Volume 120 of the Official Reports. Deputy McGilligan made the same observations on a subsequent occasion. I refer Deputies to Volume 125, column 1878 of the Official Report.
Deputy MacEntee said at column 1119 of Volume 130 of the Official Reports:—
"...it is an illusion to think that compensation can be secured by way of an all-round increase in remuneration. If increases in money incomes do occur it must be at the cost of domestic inflation and of an enlargement of the deficit in external payments."
He also stated:—
"... As a necessary corollary to these two conditions of economic recovery there must be the greatest restraint in relation to increases in income, whether in the form of profits, wages or salaries."
The last quotation will be found at column 1127 of Volume 130 of the Official Reports.
I notice Deputy MacEntee was the only one of the four of us who mentioned profits. We dealt only with wages. Evidently, Deputy MacEntee was more concerned about profiteers than any of the rest of us. I do not wish to bore the House with these quotations, but Deputy Sweetman made a similar speech in 1955 and 1956 to that made by Deputy McGilligan in earlier years, and I made a speech last year similar to that made by Deputy MacEntee in earlier years.
The same man must have written them all.
That may be, but I should like to point out that Fianna Fáil do not believe so much in bureaucracy as do the Labour Party, and they would not accept a speech without having a look at it.
I do not know so much about that.
Anyway, whether or not the same man wrote them, the Labour Party are as much tied up in this as the rest of us; I take it the Labour Party were quite in agreement with the observations made by Deputy Sweetman and Deputy McGilligan when they were Ministers for Finance.
Deputy Costello made a plea for the continuance of Section B of the Land Project and of the Local Authorities (Works) Act. Indeed, many speakers referred to that. Now we are continuing Section A of the Land Project. We came to the conclusion that, if any farmer wanted to drain and reclaim his land, Section A of the scheme was the most suitable arrangement under which to do the job.
We came to the conclusion that as far as the Local Authorities (Works) Act was concerned that the only way to get this country drained was by starting with arterial drainage. For that reason, we have made a fairly big increase in the amount provided for arterial drainage. We have increased it from £581,000 to £906,000. We know, and Deputies opposite also know, that there was a lot of money wasted under Section B of the Land Project and under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. The money can better be spent under Section A and on arterial drainage.
Deputy Blowick said that the Government had coaxed money from the people for national loans and he said that the subscribers then saw their money sinking in value from £100 to £80. He said that there was no loan now standing at £100. The condition on which the Government issues loans is that the Government will repay the money subscribed at a certain time in full. In the meantime, they pay the interest to the subscribers. That is the only condition on which the Government issue loans and it is the market conditions that determine what the loans stand at in the meantime. That condition has been fulfilled by every Government so far and it would be too bad if Deputy Blowick had any following and if people came to the conclusion that it was dangerous to put their money in national loans.
There was one loan floated by Deputy McGilligan at 3 per cent. He was quite right to try to get money at that rate if he could do so. That loan now stands at 82¼ and when it comes to maturity, it will be paid at 100. The loan issued by Deputy MacEntee at 5 per cent. now stands at 98.7/8 and that will be paid in full. The last loan floated by Deputy Sweetman and the two floated by me are above par. They now stand at 103.5/8, 106½ and 102¼. When they come to maturity, they would be paid at 100 and they will not get the bonus that now accrues on them.
Deputy Donnellan said that our scheme of subsidies for phosphates would not benefit the small farmer. He said that the small farmer would not avail of it, but that he would have to pay in taxation for the benefit of the larger farmer who would take the phosphates. I think that shows the despairing frame of mind which Deputy Donnellan has. As I know the small farmer, I am quite sure that he will avail of this scheme in proportion to the bigger farmer. The small farmers cannot take as much as the bigger farmers, but they will take the phosphates in proportion to the size of their farms.
An awful lot of time is wasted in this House by Opposition Deputies starting off on a false basis and accusing this Party of holding certain views and policies. Having got that far, they then begin to frame their whole argument as if that were an established basis, regardless of the fact that very often what they accuse us of is not true. I do not see what purpose can be served by that course of conduct, if we are anxious to solve our problems for the common good. It cannot do any good nationally. It may injure Fianna Fáil in the eyes of the people and redound to the credit of Fine Gael, but they have been found out before, and will be found out again, in any lies of that kind they may tell.
Let us take this one. One would imagine to listen to the speeches here that we are against the live-stock industry. I want to go back to the period from 1929 to 1932 when we were in opposition. We made very strong efforts to get wheat growing adopted in this country and also to get the growing of barley and oats to replace the maize that was coming in. We tried to prove to the Dáil that we could grow millable wheat in this country, but Cumann na nGaedheal did not believe it. All I can say is that they were an ill-informed Government because they did not believe that.
We proved that we were right and that they were wrong. We also advocated that we could grow barley and oats to replace the maize that was coming in and we went to considerable difficulty to convince Cumann na nGaedheal that barley could replace maize. They would not accept that. We also knew that there would be no reduction in live stock because we got expert authority to show that if farmers did more tillage, they would have better output and better pastures. All these arguments were based on the assumption that we could have as much live stock, even though we grew wheat, barley and oats. I do not see how it can be taken from that that we were ever against the development of live stock in this country. I was Minister for Agriculture for many years and I tried to work, as best I could, every scheme that was in operation for the development of live stock. I think, therefore, that we would lose less time if Fine Gael would accept that and let us go on and argue on another basis.
There is less provision for wheat in the Estimate this year and every speaker on the opposite benches who referred to it said that the reason for that is that we are hoping the wheat will not be there. We are hoping that we will have a good harvest. If we have a good harvest, there will not be any expenditure on wheat except for the wheat that is already there and that we must get rid of. If God is good to us with this harvest, we shall not have any bad wheat to deal with and we shall not have any expenditure. That is the reason for reducing the Estimate for wheat.
We are told that we are expecting that there will be less butter. There may be less, but in 1958 we not only exported the surplus for 1958, but we also exported the carry over from 1957. Now we have no carry over. We have to deal only with the 1959 production in connection with the export subsidy for the present year and therefore the amount is lower.
There is a reduction in the supply of milk to the creameries at the present time, but that is general. Every farmer supplying milk to a creamery knows that the collectors of milk in Dublin, Cork and other cities have had a big reduction during last winter. It is due, I suppose, to the bad weather and to the inferior feeding available during the winter.
Another argument that has been the subject of speeches by members of the Opposition is that we were in favour of the slaughter of calves.
It is as well to clear that up. We were not in favour of the slaughtering of calves. We did, on one occasion, during an emergency give a bounty on calf skins. When a man slaughtered his calves, we gave a bounty on the skins. That was during the emergency which arose during the economic war. In fact, there had always been a certain amount of slaughtering of calves for veal — it had been going on for centuries. There was a very slight increase. During the economic war, all the farmers got rid of their inferior calves and because prices were low at that time, it was uneconomic to keep calves, so that was a rather unfair accusation. In order to give some compensation for their losses, we gave a bounty on calf skins. That, of course, was true. The economic war ended in 1938 and it was brought to a successful conclusion due indeed to the support of the farmers. We got that support in spite of the intimidatory efforts of some of the people on the other side with the Blueshirts and matters of that kind. So we were driven to it, and I have no hesitation in defending our position at that time. In fact, I am proud that I belonged to a Government which brought that economic war to a conclusion. I should be surprised to hear that members of the Fine Gael Party were proud of the part they took at that time.
Another thing — I was sick listening to him — which Deputy Dillon talked about was that in 1947, we had so many cows, and, in 1957, we had so many cows, and Deputy O'Sullivan and every other junior member of the Fine Gael Party repeated the figures. Are they not very badly off if they must take the year 1947 as a basis, a year following one of the biggest world wars that ever took place, when we had gone five or six years without fertilisers, without feeding stuffs to keep more stock and produce more fertility in the soil, without seeds to increase our production, and with many other privations with which farmers had to put up, and when they found it very difficult indeed to get any decent sort of crop from the soil? The farmers were compelled, we know, to produce wheat to feed our people. Again, as I said, we are proud — at least I am proud— of belonging to the Government which maintained our neutrality at that time. I wonder is Deputy Dillon, who attacks us on this matter, proud of the part he took on the question of neutrality.
As I say, we had to do all that and then they come and take the year 1947, a year, as I say, following the biggest world war in history, and compare it with 1957, and Deputy Dillon seeks to throw the responsibility on us. There is not a country in Europe — I do not care which country we take — that could not show better results between 1947 and 1957 than this country — and they had no Deputy Dillon as Minister for Agriculture and they had no Fine Gael Party, either. Surely it is ridiculous to talk like that.
If you look at O.E.E.C. figures, you will find there that every country practically—I think, every country— did better than Ireland had between 1947 and 1957—and they did not have Deputy Dillon or Deputy O'Sullivan, either, and they were not preceded by Fianna Fáil either. These countries did it, and yet we have these people who think that the Irish people will swallow anything, comparing 1947 with 1957, ignoring the greatest war ever fought in the world and turning for refuge for their own failures to the Suez Canal. The Suez Canal was responsible for all their failures. As I said already, economists in Britain, when the Suez Canal crisis was over, stated it had no effect whatever on the British economy—but it had on the Fine Gael economy.
Then Deputy O'Donnell raised the old catch-cry I have heard from time to time that the Government are favouring foreign capital as against Irish capital. Of course, that is not true. There is no truth whatever in it, but that will not keep Deputy O'Donnell or some of his friends from saying it again. There is no truth whatever in it. Nobody from the Opposition benches has ever been able to quote any instance where that would apply. All these facilities which are given for exports are given to our own investors and to foreign investors, provided they comply with certain conditions. Our own investors need not comply with them, so, if anything, we are more kind to our own investors than we are to foreign investors, but, as I say, that will not keep Deputy O'Donnell and his pupils from repeating that misrepresentation.
The Control of Manufactures Act is there, partially now, not fully, and that gives benefits to our own investors, but what is there all the time is this: dividends of Irish companies are exempt to the extent of 20 per cent. from income-tax, and that does not apply to foreign companies, so that the benefits, therefore, are for the home investor and not for the foreign investor, although we should be very glad indeed to see foreign investors coming in, in certain cases.
Then we come to the promises made by Fianna Fáil. I was trying to calculate—I do not know whether every constituency is the same—the number of meetings we held. We did not have as many as we had the last time—we made up our minds that we would win if we did not go out at all. We had only seven meetings the last time, and certainly no promises were made. We had seven meetings while Fine Gael had 20 or 30 meetings in some constituencies. It is true to say that Fine Gael held about 1,000 meetings altogether in that election, and I suppose there were two or three speeches at each meeting and they were published in the local and the daily papers.
The Fine Gael office took months to go through all the papers and through the election speeches to see whether or not there were promises made and they got only two. After all their search, or research, if you like, into the Fianna Fáil speeches in the last election, they got only two instances in which they claim a promise was made. These two were not promises but a denial of charges—that is all they were—when we were accused of being about to abolish the food subsidies and we said we had no such intention.
I wonder had the other people any such intention? One very strange thing which was mentioned here already is that the Capital Investment Committee had issued a report not long before, but some time before, the election. The Minister for Finance had it, but he did not publish it. That report advocated that the food subsidies be withdrawn. If they were so keen, so united, as they would pretend now they were, in not intending to abolish the food subsidies, there was a grand opportunity for them to publish the report and say: "We are not doing it," but they did not publish it; they held it in reserve. If they got back into office again, it was a very handy thing to have if they had any intention of abolishing the food subsidies. Of course, we did not know that report was there, very naturally. If we had known it was there, we might, if you like, have put our foot in it more than we did; we might have said: "We will not do it; we think we do not need to do it." We did not know the position was so bad then. During the first Budget debate here, Deputy Sweetman and Deputy Costello both made the same statement, that on 2nd November, 1956, at a meeting attended by Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Corish, a Government decision had been taken to the effect that the Estimates must not exceed £94,500,000. Afterwards, that was raised to £96,500,000 to include a sum of £2,000,000 for C.I.E. I did not know anything about that. We usually do not go back over the records of our predecessors and I did not know about that decision until Deputy Sweetman and Deputy Costello spoke about it in this House.
The Book of Estimates was with the printers when I took over the office of Minister for Finance. I examined it and found I had a gap of £11,000,000 to cover, the deficit left by the previous Government. That was the "favourable condition" in which they left us. I asked myself how that difficulty could be surmounted. We could put on increased taxation and there were a few things we could regard as capital expenditure, but there was still a big gap to be covered, even if that was done. I then examined the food subsidies and I found, if they were abolished, it would give me a figure of exactly £96,500,000, the figure which both Deputy Sweetman and Deputy Costello stated the Government had agreed upon on 2nd November, 1956. Is it not a remarkable coincidence that they could agree to a certain figure on 2nd November, 1956, and that by taking off the food subsidies, I got exactly the figure they agreed upon? Yet they say they did not intend to abolish the food subsidies.
I could accept an alibi from them if they had suggested where they were going to raise the £5,000,000 involved instead of by taking off the food subsidies, but they never told me where they could raise £500,000, much less £1,000,000 or £5,000,000. The only thing they could do was to take off the food subsidies, which they intended to do, and which they would have done.
I should like to deal with some of the exaggerations in Opposition Deputies' speeches. Deputy O'Donnell said that when they were going out of office they had left us £4,000,000 in import levies, £10,000,000 per year in prize bonds and £9,000,000 in food subsidies. He said that, in all, that was £23,000,000 per year which they had left us. I do not know if that is the worst possible example of exaggeration, but it is a good example of exaggeration, by an ex-Minister of the previous Government. He mentioned £4,000,000 in import levies, but anybody who gets Iris Oifigiúil will see that so far this year we only got £1.6 million, and there are only three weeks of the financial year to go.
You transferred them into customs duties.
Deputy O'Donnell also mentioned £10,000,000 per annum in prize bonds.
What about motor taxation?
We had a nice, quiet House until the Deputy came in. He cannot conduct himself.
I could hear the roars of you half way down the corridor.
I hope you did hear some of the things I said. In two years, we have got £10,000,000 in prize bonds and I do not believe that these bonds are going to reach anything like, say, £20,000,000. Everybody knows that the pace of increase will go down and down as the years go up. It is only natural that if a person has £10 or £20 in prize bonds, according to his means, he is not going to put more into the scheme. So much for Deputy O'Donnell and his £10,000,000 per annum and, as far as the £9,000,000 on food subsidies were concerned, Deputy O'Malley has dealt very fully with that, and he showed it was £5,000,000 and not £9,000,000.
It was £9.4 million.
Therefore, the £23,000,000 which Deputy O'Donnell said they gave us was really £7,000,000. Coming to another point, it is interesting that when we show some of our many good results, such as the balance of payments in 1958——
God forgive us!
——the increase in employment and so on, it is always claimed by the Opposition that these results flowed from the good condition in which they left the country. I think I have dealt fairly fully with the condition in which they left the country, but, if they want to take credit for that good condition, surely it could also be held to influence such things as unemployment and emigration? They have, of course, improved, but not by as much as the members of the Opposition think they should have improved under Fianna Fáil. They may have expected these good figures from us in regard to these problems but we ourselves are not satisfied though we are doing our best.
Another question that was asked was why were we talking about a reduction in emigration at the same time as the Taoiseach said there were no figures available. When the Taoiseach is asked a question, he cannot give precise figures about emigration. There is no doubt about that, but the figures he talked about were really trends. The Statistics Office can tell the numbers that go out of the country by sea and air, and come back again, and the number of people who ask for cards in Britain. Then, drawing on their experience over the past ten, 12 or 20 years, they are able to make a fairly good shot at a correct figure, following an examination of these trends. As a matter of fact, when a census of population has been taken, it has been found that the figures given by the Statistics Office for emigration have been more or less correct. It is these estimates of trends that are given from time to time, and, as far as these figures go, all I can say is that they point towards a diminution in emigration, in the same way as we have also got a diminution in unemployment.
I should like to repeat what I have already said. We are not complacent. We are glad to see that the trend is there and we hope that trend will be accelerated as time goes on. We are determined to do all we can to improve both these figures for unemployment and emigration.
Read The Kerryman.
Question put.
The Committee divi ded: Tá, 72; Níl, 49.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Blaney, Neal T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carty, Michael.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lynch, Celia.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Mick.
- de Valera, Eamon.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Donegan, Batt.
- Dooley, Patrick.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Padraig.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Galvin, John.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Griffin, James.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Medlar, Martin.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Moher, John W.
- Moloney, Daniel J.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moran, Michael.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Toole, James.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
Níl
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Jack.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Burke, James.
- Byrne, Tom.
- Carew, John.
- Coburn, George.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan D.
- Costello, John A.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C., Bart.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hogan, Bridget.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Lindsay, Patrick.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- McQuillan, John.
- Manley, Timothy.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sherwin, Frank.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tully, John.
- Wycherley, Florence.
Tellers:—Tá Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl: Deputies O'Sullivan and Corish.
Question declared carried.
Vote reported and agreed to.