Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 8 Mar 1960

Vol. 180 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Motion by Minister for Finance.

Minister for Finance (Dr. Ryan)

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £40,988,440 be granted on account for or towards defraying the Charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for certain public services namely:—

		£
1	President's Establishment	3,300
2	Houses of the Oireachtas	83,000
3	Department of the Taoiseach	11,000
4	Central Statistics Office	89,000
5	Comptroller and Auditor General	13,200
6	Office of the Minister for Finance	136,700
7	Office of the Revenue Commissioners	811,600
8	Office of Public Works	211,000
9	Public Works and Buildings	1,408,000
10	Employment and Emergency Schemes	275,000
11	State Laboratory	9,500
12	Civil Service Commission	21,000
13	An Chomhairle Ealaíon	6,600
14	Superannuation and Retired Allowances	413,370
15	Secret Service	2,500
16	Expenses under the Electoral Act and the Juries Act	—
17	Supplementary Agricultural Grants	1,300,000
18	Law Charges	44,500
19	Miscellaneous Expenses	10,000
20	Stationery Office	198,800
21	Valuation and Ordnance Survey	67,250
22	Rates on Government Property	25,000
23	Office of the Minister for Justice	36,830
24	Garda Síochána	1,758,540
25	Prisons	72,990
26	District Court	36,360
27	Circuit Court	47,680
28	Supreme Court and High Court of Justice	37,940
29	Land Registry and Registry of Deeds	41,220
30	Public Record Office	3,690
31	Charitable Donations and Bequests	2,230
32	Local Government	1,965,000
33	Office of the Minister for Education	139,600
34	Primary Education	3,650,000
35	Secondary Education	500,000
36	Technical Instruction	650,000
37	Science and Art	80,000
38	Reformatory and Industrial Schools	130,000
39	Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies	40,000
40	Universities and Colleges	500,000
41	National Gallery	4,460
42	Lands	944,200
43	Forestry	818,000
44	Fisheries	107,600
45	Roinn na Gaeltachta	155,000
46	Agriculture	4,038,000
47	Industry and Commerce	824,000
48	Transport and Power	1,215,000
49	Posts and Telegraphs	3,690,000
50	Wireless Broadcasting	145,000
51	Defence	2,490,900
52	Army Pensions	572,540
53	External Affairs	153,040
54	International Co-operation	37,000
55	Office of the Minister for Social Welfare	167,800
56	Social Insurance	1,418,000
57	Social Assistance	7,118,000
58	Health	2,240,000
59	Dundrum Asylum	17,500
	TOTAL	£40,988,440

This Vote on Account begins the financial business of 1960/61. It represents, with a few exceptions, roughly a four months' provision for each Supply Service. Normally, by the end of July the individual Estimates are approved by the Dáil and the Appropriation Bill passed. So that Government services may be financed in the meantime, however, it is necessary for the Vote on Account and the Central Fund Bill which gives it statutory confirmation to be passed before 1 April.

The Vote on Account now asked for is £40,988,440, that is, roughly one-third of the total Estimates for the Supply Services, 1960/61. The individual items covered by it are set out on the Order Paper.

Deputies will have observed that the total of the Estimates for next year is £123.46 million as against the original £115.55 million this year. When account is taken of Supplementary Estimates the total provision for the current year comes to £120.22 million but next year's figure is £3.24 million above this total.

The Volume of Estimates itself shows Vote by Vote and item by item where variations occur as between 1960/61 and the current year. I shall refer only to the more important changes and for convenience I shall try to group similar services together.

Turning first of all to non-capital services, the 1960/61 total of £105.88 million shows an increase of £4.75 million over the corresponding 1959/60 figure. Allowing for Supplementary Estimates the increase is still £3.93 million.

The largest single item of increase is pay. The Civil Service accounts for £1,074,000, National Teachers for £415,000, and the Defence Forces for £262,000. A sum of £250,000 has been included in the Estimate for Health to provide for recoupment to health authorities of 50 per cent. of the cost of any pay increase they may grant to health employees. The provisions for other Estimates, e.g., Public Works and Buildings, Forestry and Defence, also bear the effect of the "seventh round", and bring the increased provision for pay to a little over £2 million in all.

Next in order of magnitude comes the increase in Social Assistance. Because of the higher payments authorised by the Social Welfare Act, 1959, Old Age Pensions require an additional £900,000 for 1960/61 and Widows' and Orphans' Non-Contributory Pensions an additional £121,000. Despite a decrease under the heading of Unemployment Assistance, the net extra commitment for Social Assistance is £873,000.

Higher rates of pension and bigger numbers retiring necessitate an extra provision of £462,000 for pensions and allowances for the Garda Síochána, Civil Servants, Post Office employees, Teachers and Army personnel.

Altogether, pay and pensions increases between them account for nearly £3½ million or by far the greater part of the increase in current expenditure.

The balance of the increase in the current estimates is the net result of a number of variations. In the Vote for Agriculture the major increase is an extra £350,000 for An Foras Talúntais, which has expanded the scope of its activities considerably during the past year; on the other hand, separate provision is no longer made for the Peatland Experimental Station at Glenamoy which has been transferred to An Foras Talúntais, as have also been Johnstown Castle and Grange Farm, resulting in a reduction of £155,000 in the provision for Agricultural Schools and Farms. There is also an extra £170,000 for the subsidy to manufacturers of home-produced super-phosphate, although this is partly offset by a reduction of £105,000 in the amount required to meet the delivery cost of lime.

An extra £34,110 in all is being granted to the General Agricultural and Dairy Science Faculties of U.C.D. and U.C.C. There are two new provisions of £59,900 and £25,800, being grants to the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine of University College, Dublin, and the School of Veterinary Medicine, Trinity College, Dublin, respectively, arising out of the transfer to the Universities of the tutorial functions of the Veterinary College. There is a consequential reduction in the provision for the last-mentioned College which continues to be the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture.

Progress towards completing the scheme has enabled a reduction of £100,000 to be made in the provision for grants to creameries towards the purchase of plant for pasteurisation of separated milk. Losses on disposal of the 1958 wheat crop necessitated a provision of £470,000 in the current year. Fortunately only a token provision is required for such losses in 1960/61. In view of the uncertain scale of exports the provision for subsidies on dairy produce has been reduced from £1,000,000 to £250,000. Very little of this year's provision will, in fact, be needed. I should mention that, in respect of dairy produce exports, it is the intention to match every £ of the balance in the Dairy Produce Price Stabilisation Fund with £2 from the Exchequer.

The provision for Supplementary Agricultural Grants is £268,000 above the current year's provision. Compared, however, with the more up-todate figure indicated by the recent Supplementary Estimate, the increase is only £128,000. It is due to the higher local rates expected next year.

In the Lands Estimate an extra £35,000 is included for Purchase of Interests for Cash and an extra £65,500 for Improvement of Estates. The intensification of Forestry activity reveals itself in the provision of an extra £213,500 for the non-capital, i.e., the general forest management and timber conversion, side of Forest Development and Management.

In the Estimate for Industry and Commerce, the exports promotion drive is being assisted by an extra £41,000 for Coras Tráchtála while the Technical Assistance provision is enlarged by an additional £86,500. No provision is necessary for Repayment of Advances under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Acts. The receipts under the Industrial and Commercial Property (Protection) Acts, formerly treated as Exchequer Extra Receipts under the Vote for the Industrial and Commercial Property Registration Office, are to be appropriated in aid of the Vote for Industry and Commerce, the total being estimated at £42,000 for 1960/61.

The new provision of £143,900 included in the Estimate for Transport and Power for the repayment to the Central Fund of advances made to the Electricity Supply Board arises from the Government's decision to restore the rural electrification subsidy to enable this important work to be completed at an early date. Provision for fuel losses, for which there was £200,000 in the current year's Vote, is no longer necessary. Receipts from landing fees and from catering and sales services at Shannon Airport are expected to show decreases of £90,000 and £110,000, respectively.

Continued progress with local authority housing and sanitary works necessitates the provision of an additional £256,000 for contributions towards loan charges.

In the sphere of Health a further £280,000 is required for grants to Health Authorities, mostly for increased expenditure on hospital services.

Most of the extra £137,900 for Secondary Education is for Capitation Grant and Incremental Salary Grant, due in the first case to the greater number of pupils and, in the second, to the increased number of teachers. A further £110,400 is required next year for Technical Instruction.

The items mainly responsible for the increases in the Defence Estimate, apart from the higher charge for pay and allowances, are General Stores— particularly the purchase of aircraft— and Defensive Equipment.

In the Estimate for the Office of the Revenue Commissioners there is a considerable increase under the heading of staff because of the extra personnel required for the P.A.Y.E. scheme. The large increase in the Estimate for the Central Statistics Office is due mainly to the inclusion of provision for a Census of Population and a 100% Census of Agriculture.

Apart from pay increases, the only major increase in the Estimate for Posts and Telegraphs is under the heading of Telephone Capital Repayments and arises from the expanding telephone programme. A considerable reduction is made in the provision for equipment for the Civil Aviation and Meteorological Wireless Services. A new item in this Estimate is the anticipated recoupment by the new Broadcasting Authority of the cost of collecting broadcasting licence fees. The Estimate for Wireless Broadcasting, showing a decrease of £291,000, is on a provisional basis since, as the Note to the Estimate indicates, it is for four months' supply only and it is intended that it should be superseded by a new Estimate following the enactment of the Broadcasting Authority Bill.

On capital services, the net increase over this year's original figure is £3.16 million. When account is taken, however, of Supplementary Estimates totalling £3.85 million, of which £3.15 million relates to bovine tuberculosis eradication, the provision for next year shows a decrease of £0.69 million.

I need not on this occasion survey the steps taken so far to implement the Programme of Economic Expansion. Deputies have already been furnished with a report on progress to 30th September last and I hope to circulate in due course a further report covering progress up to the end of the current month. I shall, however, indicate briefly the items in the 1960/61 Estimates which relate to the Programme for Economic Expansion.

The provision in the Estimate for Agriculture for the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme is a gross £5,372,000. When account is taken of receipts from the sale of cattle slaughtered under the scheme, the net provision is £3,454,000, an increase of £1,634,000 on last year's original provision. A Supplementary Estimate was passed last week for an additional net amount of £3,154,000 and the possibility that a Supplementary Estimate will be needed next year should not be ruled out. This large increase in expenditure indicates the intensification of operations in the Clearance Area and the extension of the scheme to the dairying areas in the south late last year. I need attempt no justification of this heavy outlay, which relates to one of the most urgent and important objects of public policy.

The provision for subsidy on phosphatic fertilisers is being maintained at the same level as are the provisions for Farm Buildings and the Land Project. Arising out of an assurance given in the Programme, a new provision of £50,000 has been inserted in the Estimate for Agriculture for grants for works of modernisation in layout and plant at bacon factories.

Intensified activity on forest development, associated with increased productivity generated by the incentive bonus scheme for forestry workers, results in an increased capital requirement for 1960/61 of £291,000. On the sea fisheries side, £39,100 is included in the Grant-in-Aid of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara towards the cost of new boats and of plant and premises for the promotion of this industry. Continued for 1960/61 are the provisions for inland fisheries projects, pond fish culture and improvement of salmon fisheries.

For capital items under the heading of Tourism, a total of £145,000 is being made available, an increase of £25,000 on the current year's provision as adjusted by the recent Supplementary Estimate. These are schemes for the development of major resorts and the provision of additional accommodation for tourists.

The total provision for grants for the establishment of industries continues at the 1959/60 level of £975,000 that is, including the Supplementary Estimate passed in the last session.

Related to these items is the grant, appearing for the first time in the 1960/61 Summary of Capital Services, towards expenditure on the promotion of commercial, industrial and trading enterprises at Shannon Airport. The balance of the increase in the capital provisions of the Transport and Power Estimate is attributable to constructional works at Dublin and Cork Airports.

Other capital items showing increases are housing grants, due to improved grant facilities made available by the 1958 Housing Act and the 1959 Gaeltacht Housing Act. In the Estimate for Public Works and Buildings the increase is attributable mainly to the expanded arterial drainage programme and work on fisheries harbours.

I think that the details I have given are sufficient outline of the changes appearing in the Volume of Estimates for the Supply Services for 1960/61. As I have already indicated, the bulk of the increase in current expenditure arises from an effort to maintain so far as possible the value of pay, pensions and other benefits and the standards of the public services generally at a time when national production as a whole shows some increase. On the capital side, to implement the Programme for Economic Expansion we are providing increased sums for agriculture, forestry, industry, tourism and transport and power, while not overlooking at the same time the country's social needs.

I ask for the agreement of the Dáil to this Vote on Account.

Mr. Sweetman

I think it no exaggeration to say that when the Volume of Estimates was published last week every Deputy, including Deputies in the Minister's Party, and the country as a whole got a profound shock. The increase in the total of the Estimates which the Minister is demanding for the current year is one that must cause concern on every side. This year the Minister has made two records. First, he has introduced the Vote on Account in what must be the shortest speech on record and secondly he is seeking to extract from the pockets of the taxpayers the largest sum ever asked by any Minister for Finance.

The increase in the total requested for the next financial year is, as every Deputy is aware, £7,900,000. I do not suppose the Minister will quarrel with me if, for the sake of brevity, I refer to it as £8,000,000. It is an increase of £8,000,000 over the amount requested last year and the Minister, even at this early stage, has had to give notice in his speech a few moments ago that already he visualises, notwithstanding that figure, a Supplementary Estimate in respect of Vote 50.

It must surely be a record that not merely does he come in demanding the largest figure ever demanded but, in his speech recommending that figure to the House, he indicates already that in one aspect we are to have a Supplementary Estimate. Of course, we all know that we will have other supplementaries as time goes on. The total gross figure as I said is up by £8,000,000 on last year and £13,500,000 up on that for the year ending 31st March, 1959. That is without taking into account anything that might have happened in the meantime, such as the £6,500,000 net which the Minister saved by the elimination of the food subsidies.

It would be very easy for me to criticise this Vote on Account and this Volume of Estimates by referring merely to the gross total figures on the face of the book. I do not, however, propose to do that. I feel, and I have always said, that two entirely different criteria should govern the examination of capital expenditure and current expenditure. I remember —I think it was on the Vote on Account in 1955—my predecessor in office, Deputy MacEntee, now Tánaiste, not taking that view, and saying, at that time, that it was the total gross expenditure figure that should be considered, and at which he was appalled, having regard to the means of the community. I do not take that view.

I have said in office, and I repeat in opposition, that so far as our capital expenditure is concerned, we should keep our productive capital programme at the highest level which the people will support. I need not emphasise "productive"; I need not emphasise "programme". It is in relation to current expenditure, therefore, that I feel so strongly that the Minister, in bringing this Vote on Account to the House, has absolutely failed in his duty, and has completely failed to realise the needs of the community at the present time.

However, before I turn to current expenditure, I want to dwell just for a moment on the pattern and the picture of this Vote on Account. I said last year, and I repeat now, that it is a pity the Minister has not carried out my declared intention, in the autumn of 1956, of having a separate capital Budget discussion in this House from the current Budget discussion. I said then and felt—and it is just as true now—that the ordinary Budget discussion on current affairs is bound to overshadow consideration of our capital programme, and that it would be far better, therefore, if the Minister for Finance, whoever he might be, took a different opportunity of considering our whole capital programme, and considering it in an atmosphere in which we were not, at the same time, endeavouring to consider current matters.

We must, too, consider what we have in mind in this Vote on Account in the general capital picture. We had some discussions the other day on housing, in particular in relation to capital. I do not propose to go into any detail again on that matter, nor do I propose, in saying this, to offer any criticism of the Chair. On that occasion, I was dealing with, and I understood the Supplementary Estimate dealt with, grants for private housing. That is part of the capital programme which we must consider. After I had my opportunity, others spoke of the position in relation to local authority housing. Be that as it may, whether that was the right occasion or not, this is clearly an occasion when we are entitled to review the capital programme set out by the Government, in relation to housing, as one of the most important constituent parts.

The Minister for Local Government, the other day, tried to give to the House the picture that we were setting out, in this year, and in next year, on an era of far better housing facilities than ever before. What he said was also befogged, perhaps deliberately, by certain comments made by other Deputies on the provisions that obtained in the last year for which I was responsible. I want, therefore, to-day, in the picture of the capital programme we are being asked to vote tonight, to put on record certain facts.

It was suggested last week, in relation to payments of private housing grants, that more payments were being made in this current year by Fianna Fáil than had been made in 1956/57. Deputies will find, when they look back over last week's debates, that the suggestion was made that we had neglected to make the payments that should have been made, and that because of that neglect, we were under the figures of payments in that regard which the Government made this year for housing. It was suggested—in fact, it was more than suggested; it was stated categorically—that February of this year showed the greatest ever amount of activity.

I know the Minister for Local Government may know the position about allocations, but, in the light of the completely untrue picture which was painted here on many occasions by the Minister for Agriculture when he was Minister for Local Government, and which were parrot-wise repeated by Deputy O'Malley and the present Minister for Local Government, let me state the facts which can be obtained by anybody who cares to take those facts from the official publications.

In the first three months of 1957, our last year, £340,000 was paid out for private housing grants. In the first three months of 1960—I speak of the financial year in each case—the amount paid out was £221,000. In the second three months of 1957, the amount paid out by us was £343,000. In the same three months of this year, the amount was £211,000. In the third three months of 1956-57, the amount was £397,000, and in the third three months of this year, the amount was £245,000. In January of this year, the amount was only £74,000 and in January, 1957, when according to Fianna Fáil we were not paying the moneys due, the amount was £127,000. In February of 1957, when according to Fianna Fáil we were not paying the amounts that were due, the amount paid out was £91,000. In this year, in February—which is supposed to be a record—the amount was £42,000. Those figures appear in reply to a question today.

That is one aspect of capital payments for housing—another aspect of the issues from the Local Loans Fund, which I admit frankly indicate not merely housing but certain other activities of local authorities, such as sanitary services. The House will remember that again the charge was that they were paying now, and we did not pay what was due at that time.

Let me turn now to local authority housing. In the eleven months from 1st April, 1956, to 2nd March, 1957—the last date which I can compare this year with our period of office—the amount we paid from the Local Loans Fund was £8,550,000. That amount can be found in Iris Oifigiúil of 5th March, 1957. In the current year, in the same period, the amount being paid by this Government is only £3,450,000.

If one goes on to other aspects of the capital programme of the two periods, one can get some simple comparisons. Electricity expenditure and generation were matters which I remember the Taoiseach mentioned some three or six months ago as being factors involved in judging the national economy. In the period before we went out of office, the same period I have mentioned, the amount provided for electricity development was £4,660,000. Again taken from Iris Oifigiúil in the current year, the amount the present Minister has expended on electricity capital development is £1,051,426. The total issue up to 2nd March for capital development in that year—1956-57 when, according to Fianna Fáil, nothing was being paid—was £18,064,828. In this year, the total figure is £12,354,243 and, of that, £1,621,091 is a special payment in respect of the Bretton Woods Agreement which does not anyway come into capital improvement at home.

It means, therefore, that, in the period when every Deputy of that Party opposite travelled up and down the country saying we were not paying the moneys that were expended, we accepted and paid for a Local Loans Fund capital programme of £18,064,828 and that the current comparison is £10,733,152. If the fact were that these payments had been made afterwards, I could understand Deputies opposite. Even now, I could understand Deputies opposite who do not know the facts because they have been deliberately misled for political propaganda purposes by certain Ministers of the present Government. But the figures refute that suggestion.

It is suggested, too, that there was an undue carry-over in respect of the end of the financial year, 1956-57. The Capital Budget for 1957-58, as Deputy Dr. Ryan, the present Minister for Finance, knows, was on his desk as planned and announced by me in almost every particular before I left office. In that Capital Budget, the amount included for local authorities for 1957-58 was £14.88 millions, compared to the actual out-turn of £13.75 millions, and again compared to an out-turn for the preceding year of £12.67 millions and showing conclusively, therefore, that there was no carry-over, other than a normal carry-over from year to year, and that what did occur was that we had peak capital socially productive expenditure in that year on housing as well as on other things from which there has since been a progressive decline by Fianna Fáil, a deliberately progressive stoppage by them.

One can pass, for example, to the Capital Estimate for 1957-58 which was left by me and was adopted by the present Minister for Finance. One can see that capital estimate was £14.88 millions but that the present Minister reduced it in the following year to £9.76 millions for the same items.

These figures can be followed by taking the amounts made available for the capital expenditure of Dublin Corporation and Cork Corporation. I made it clear in 1956 and in 1957 that, so far as Dublin Corporation was concerned, I would be prepared to make available the sum of £4,000,000 for capital expenditure.

If any Deputy cares to look at the Dáil Debates of the 11th February, Column 337, he will find that in each of these three financial years there was paid by the Government, of which I had the honour to be a member, to Dublin Corporation the sum of £4,000,000 that we promised would be made available. However, in respect of 1958 and 1959, Deputies will find that the figures under Fianna Fáil dropped from that £4,000,000 to £2,200,000 in 1958 and £1,850,000 in 1959. Do we hear a squawk now from Deputy Briscoe or the other people who, when sitting on this side of the House, tried to suggest that the Government of that day were not honouring their commitments? There is the proof of it for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.

Lest there be any person in the House who would be interested in the figure for Cork Corporation I would ask any such person to look at today's debates. In a reply to Question No. 9, he will find that each year I honoured the commitments I entered into by making available each year £750,000 for Cork capital expenditure. After we went out of office, that figure dropped in 1958 to £639,000 and in 1959 to £512,000. Curiously enough, I do not hear anything coming from Cork to compare with the clamour from Cork Corporation in those days that the amount made available to meet the housing necessities of that local authority was insufficient. Now, apparently very much less is quite sufficient.

I mention these figures to put the whole pattern in relation to housing in its correct perspective so that one may understand the hollowness and the hypocrisy of the criticism made in 1956-57 of the allocations then being given and paid—the hollowness and the hypocrisy of those who, as last week, tried to suggest that the payments this year for housing are in excess of those that were made available by us.

The Vote on Account must be considered not merely in relation to one particular facet such as housing but in relation to the general picture of the economy as a whole as we see it. In that pattern, let me consider for a moment the position disclosed in the returns to the 27th February of the current year in Iris Oifigiúil issued on the 1st March of this year. There was a considerable expansion in excise revenue, an expansion which arises almost entirely if not more than entirely, as far as I can ascertain from the reply to a Parliamentary Question, from the fact that petrol and similar oil revenue now arises under excise because of the opening of the Whitegate Refinery whereas formerly it arose under Customs duties.

Excise revenue shows an increase of £4½ million. I think the petrol revenue that is included in that excise this year, which was not included last year, would be of the nature of £5½ million. Customs revenue appears to be down by some £3.8 million. However, because of the transference of the petrol—and, by the word "petrol" I cover all sorts of oils—duty from customs to excise there is an increase in customs revenue.

Every Minister for Finance who is considering revenue in the general pattern must always bear in mind that if he has been met with an increase in customs revenue and a decrease in excise revenue, as this pattern shows here, it means that we are having less activity at home and more activity in relation to imports. That, I suggest, is the pattern disclosed by this consideration of the current year's financial returns on the customs and on the excise revenue side.

There is an increase in Post Office revenue which arises in some degree— how much I cannot tell—from a new system of bringing moneys to credit earlier from the Post Office accounts than used to be the case, but it is significant that not merely is there a decrease, after making the allowance for petrol in the excise revenue as a whole, but there is also a decrease in income tax, even allowing for the reduction in the rate. I suggest that decrease, when one takes into account, on the other side, the well-known fact that efforts such as were never heard of before, are being made now to collect arrears at the present time, shows a further stagnation in our economy that we can ill afford.

I have referred before—on this I do not think the Minister for Finance will disagree with me—to the fact that it is a most unhealthy situation that the national finances should depend, as they do depend in relation to revenue, so much on the tobacco duty. The tobacco duty accounts, I think, for about 27 per cent. of our total tax revenue and to have all our eggs to the extent of 27 per cent. in one basket is a very unhealthy sign indeed. It is significant also that in relation to the detailed items of custom revenue which are up, we find brandy and rum, for example, up for imports. Unfortunately, there is more expenditure on imported spirits, while our home-produced spirits at the same time remain stationary, according to the duty trend.

One of the signs of difficulties in relation to inflation with which we have dealt in the past has been the figure of motor car imports and motor car registrations. The figures of imports of motor car parts duty in our customs revenue are up very substantially—indeed, by, I think, about £300,000. It seems, therefore, when we consider this pattern, that it shows an increase in activity outside the country being brought in by way of imports, but at best the position is stationary in relation to our own country.

That is hardly the time in which a Minister for Finance should come to this House and bring to it Estimates of the magnitude and size which the Minister has brought on this occasion. I said earlier I did not take the view that the Minister could fairly be criticised in relation merely to the total figure appearing on the face of the Book of Estimates, that the important figure was the figure that was related to current services and I mean the figure that is truly related to current services and not current services after hiving off into capital account moneys that should properly be met on current account.

I do not propose to weary the House again by repeating the analysis I made on this occasion last year when I showed that in last year's Book of Estimates—and it is repeated this year —only to an increased degree— the Minister had taken services to the value of £1,534,000 which we had carried on current account and had put those services to capital account and had carried them, so to speak, on the "never-never" system rather than on the pay-as-you-go correct method.

When one speaks of current services, one should speak of true current services and not of current services reduced by transference to capital account of sums which should be met year by year and sums that were, in fact, met by us year by year. In 1956-57—the last Vote on Account I introduced here—the amount of current services was £92,761,000. The amount which the Minister for Finance now asks is £105,883,000. Simple arithmetic shows that to be an increase of £13,000,000, but if the Minister wants to make a point that part of the Estimates for the following year had been determined before I left office, I can take the comparison of the following year.

We see there an increase on the face of the Book of Estimates alone of £3,700,000, but it is £3,700,000 after the Minister had knocked out £9,000,000 by reason of the withdrawal of the food subsidies, counteracted, I admit, of course, by £2,500,000 in respect of the additional social welfare benefits given in that Budget. I do not think the Minister quarrels with me when I say that the saving in the elimination of the food subsidies, offset by the increases in social welfare benefits, in that year represents approximately £6,500,000.

I suggest, therefore, that when we are dealing with the figure of £3,700,000 to which I have referred, we should add to that the sum of £6,500,000 net which he saved by that operation and which should show itself in this Book of Estimates by way of a reduction. That would, therefore, mean a figure of approximately £10,000,000—£10,000,000 more being extracted from the pockets of the people in respect of the current year-by-year Budget for the privilege of having Fianna Fáil in office during the past three years.

If one takes the individual items in the Book of Estimates and goes through them one can very easily find more reasons why the true comparison is an even greater figure than that. This year the Minister has not to make provision—thank God—for the £470,000 which arose out of the bad harvest of 1958. The Minister is also dropping this year £750,000 in respect of dairy produce subsidies and he is claiming credit for a decrease in the wireless broadcasting Estimate of £291,000 although, in fact, as he admits himself, and as appears in a note on the bottom of page 284 of the Book of Estimates, the amount provided is only for four months and that Estimate will be superseded by a new Estimate following the enactment of the Broadcasting Authority Bill, 1959. Let me just add that the print used for that note is very small, almost as small and as difficult to read as the type in the new telephone directory introduced by Fianna Fáil.

That is the picture in relation to this Volume of Estimates. Is it any wonder, therefore, that in the face of this the people are appalled by the manner in which the Minister for Finance, who must be the guardian of the people's purse, has failed in his duty to restrict current expenditure, to find economies in other directions if it is necessary that there should be increases on some Votes? I remember being told from this side of the House by one of the Minister's colleagues that if there had to be increases, if it was right that there should be increases in social welfare benefits, or in the pay of civil servants and allied services, any Minister for Finance who was doing his duty should, contemporaneously with providing those increases, find economies by means of which the amount to be extracted or wrung from the pockets of the taxpayers would be met through equivalent reductions in other directions.

Instead of equivalent reductions in this year's Estimates what do we see? The very first Vote in which there is a substantial increase is that for the Revenue Commissioners. They require £279,000 more this year to take money from the pockets of taxpayers already harassed and in considerable difficulty although the employers are also to be asked to collect tax this year on the P.A.Y.E. system.

The next big increase to which I would refer is that in respect of Vote 17, an increase of £268,000 on the original provisions for last year. That increase means that the Minister is estimating that rates throughout the country will be increased over all local authorities this year by some £750,000 more than he thought would be the figure for rates for this time last year. We all know that when there has been increased provision in Vote 17 it arises because local authorities are having to raise their rates because the Minister understands, believes or estimates that rates on land during the coming year will go up because the grant is given approximately in the proportion of, I think, £2 to £5. The increase we see in the Book of Estimates means that the Government are satisfied that rates throughout the country must rise substantially this year and, if they must rise, must they not rise fundamentally because of the policy the Government itself has put into operation?

As I have mentioned local authorities, may I also draw the attention of the House to the provision made in Vote 58 for Health Services? For these Services, £528,000 more is being provided. That means—because it goes £ for £—that there is to be raised this year in rates another £528,000 in the opinion of the Government more than was raised last year. I think it was the present Minister who, when he piloted the Health Act through the House, said that it would not cost more at any time than 2/- in the £. If I have misquoted the Minister, I should be happy to withdraw it if he can produce a more accurate quotation but I think that is what he said. It is now obvious he was entirely wrong. For Health Services, on page 354 of the Volume of Estimates in the current year, we are being asked to provide £8,160,000 under the main heading and £250,000 as a subsidiary, making a total of £8,410,000.

I want the House to realise and understand that when we are providing that sum it means that our health services are costing £17,180,000. I wonder is any Deputy satisfied that we are getting value for that money? Everywhere I go I am told that experience of the operation of the Health Act, 1953, which was introduced by Fianna Fáil, has meant that, notwithstanding that we are spending more and more money on these services, in fact the people who need the services are not getting what they require and feel that in certain respects they were better off before.

This sum of, say, £17,000,000 is a colossal figure for us in our circumstances to expend on health services between taxpayers and local authorities. It is a sum which, when we are expending it, justifies us in ensuring that we are getting proper value for the money being spent. Everywhere I go in the country I am told by those who are, or who should be, entitled to claim services of that kind that they feel—and many members of the local authorities feel—that the operation and administration of the services are such that we are not getting the value we should for the expenditure of that vast sum of money. Yet the Minister for Finance walks in happily to-day and calmly asks for one moiety of that sum to be made available out of the pockets of the taxpayers.

I do not propose to go through in any very great detail the items in this Book of Estimates. However, there are one or two to which I should like to draw the attention of the House and to ask the Minister to indicate what exactly he has in mind. I referred already to the reduction of £750,000 in relation to the butter subsidy. As I understood the Minister a minute ago, he said that in relation to exports of butter, the Central Exchequer is paying two-thirds and the levy on milk, one-third. If that is correct, then it appears to me—and if I am wrong, the Minister can correct me—from this Book of Estimates, from this sum and from the Minister's speech, that the Government expect there will be no exports of butter during the current year.

Last year, we were told—I am talking about the season 1959—there were no exports of butter, not because of anything for which this Government were responsible but because of the appalling autumnal conditions of 1958. This year, there is no such excuse. As if that excuse were not sufficient, we were also told last year by members of the Government that the drought of last summer affected, as it did, milk supplies and that, therefore, there was a second reason why there was no export of butter last year. This year, the figures show and the speech of the Minister indicates, that, in the opinion of the Government, there will be virtually no butter exported. Surely the Government are not estimating for another drought this year? They cannot estimate for another repetition of the appalling weather conditions of 1958 because that period of the year has already gone. The only thing one is forced to accept is that, under this Government, the situation has arrived in which our exports of butter have dwindled away and that source of foreign purchasing power that existed in earlier years has now gone as a result of the activity of Fianna Fáil.

I should like the Minister in his reply to explain in far greater detail what he has in mind in that respect. I should like him also to explain the fact that there is nothing in this Book of Estimates for the promise made by the Minister for Local Government on a motion dealing with the Local Authorities (Works) Act just before Christmas. At that time, the Minister for Local Government said that the Government were not prepared to set aside any moneys for the Local Authorities (Works) Act, but that instead they were going to make provision this year for new works, works which would be carried out by the Board of Works and works which, as far as I can understand the meaning of what the Minister said at that time, could fairly be classed as minor arterial drainage schemes.

Yet, if Deputies look at page 46 of the Book of Estimates now before us and look at the position in respect of Subhead J.2, they will see the last item of that subhead—I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary has returned because I want him particularly to explain the last subhead there for "Additional Minor Schemes". If there is anywhere in this Book of Estimates in which there should be included the substitute for the Local Authorities (Works) Act promised this House in December, I should have thought it would be the subhead "Additional Minor Schemes", but it is not under that.

Mr. J. Brennan

We told you that any extension would be under the 1945 Act. You will find an increase there.

Mr. Sweetman

Instead, "Additional Minor Schemes" are cut in half this year. When this House was debating the omission of funds for the Local Authorities (Works) Act before Christmas, the discussion did not centre around schemes of major arterial drainage. Those are schemes such as the Corrib, the Maine, the Inny and the Moy—the schemes mentioned in paragraph (a) of Subhead J.2. The case then made to this House, the case put up by the Government, was that they accepted there was a need to do the type of drainage formerly done under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. It was accepted there was a need for that type of minor drainage and that some provision would be made this year in that respect. However, the Minister said the Government felt the method of operating through local authorities was not the right method and that this year that type of scheme—and all of us in rural Ireland know the type of scheme we have in mind—would be done, not by the county councils through the provisions of the Local Authorities (Works) Act, but by the Board of Works, under the supervision of Deputy Brennan, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That surely is a detail which is relevant to the Estimate?

Mr. Sweetman

It might, Sir, except for this: that the provision in other years in relation to the Local Authorities (Works) Act was a provision of £400,000, and I do not think a provision of that size operates as a mere detail.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Might I point out that the various subheads are not open for discussion for the reason that the Estimates are not before us?

Mr. Sweetman

No, Sir, but what is open for discussion is that this Government in that respect, as in many others, with the publication of this Book of Estimates, have again broken their word, as they broke it in many other respects since the general election of 1957. I have no desire to discuss details of these Estimates. We shall have plenty of opportunity to rub the noses of the gentlemen opposite in the Estimates detail by detail.

However, the principle is involved, and it is one of major importance. When a spokesman of the Government comes in here, gives an undertaking and makes a statement that the work formerly carried out under the Local Authorities (Works) Act will now be carried out by the Board of Works, then I suggest, with all respect, I am entitled to comment on the fact that in this Book of Estimates, I find no evidence of the implementation of that promise and, not merely that, but I find, on the contrary, a halving of the provision for "Additional Minor Schemes".

Mr. J. Brennan

I suggest that the Deputy quote his statement.

Mr. Sweetman

Without going into detail on the Estimates I think the Minister for Finance will permit me to refer to the provision made for the Land Project, on page 217 of the Book. If he examines the record, he will find that the provision for the Land Project is £521,000 less than the provision that was made for Land Project work in 1956-57. Members of this House are quite well able to draw their own conclusions from that and to judge the sincerity of the speech that was made last week by the Minister for Agriculture on the Supplementary Estimate for his Department.

Let us go through the whole picture of the economy as it can be seen at present. Last week the Central Statistics Office published figures in relation to agricultural production. Let us see what we find there. In 1959 there was a reduction from the previous year of 137,000 acres of wheat; yet I thought Fianna Fáil were always the apostles of wheat, always boasting that when they got into power they were going to increase and to expand the wheat acreage. There was a reduction in the acreage under sugar beet last year from 84,600 to 69,200 acres. That is a reduction of 18.3 per cent., or 15,500 acres. The wheat reduction to which I referred was from 418,900 acres to 282,200 acres, a reduction of 32.6 per cent. Given that there was bad weather the previous year and that, on that account, some farmers might have shied off wheat, is it not rather strange at the same time that under Fianna Fáil the acreage is cut to two-thirds of what it had been the previous year?

Continuing on through the summary issued by the Central Statistics Office, look at the figure in relation to pigs—a decrease in 1959 in our pig population of approximately ten per cent. from that of the previous year. I see two Deputies over there who know far more about pigs than I could hope to learn and I am sure they will not quarrel when I say that the 1958 figure was a great reduction on the 1957 figure, and on the figure that was there when we were in office. It has suddenly occurred to me that that could be taken as offensive but I do not mean it to be the least bit offensive. As I say, I see two Deputies over there who know more about farming than I could pretend to do, and the thing which surprises me is that with their knowledge of farming they can support a Government in office that deals with agriculture as this Government has dealt with it.

In those statistics there was an increase in cattle, a welcome increase, but the more one analyses it the more one sees that the increase was mostly in the older cattle. I would suggest that the fact that that increase was in the older cattle on the enumeration date, the 1st June, arises from the circumstances of the harvesting weather of the preceding year, and that because of a shortage of hay they were not coming to hand as quickly as they should and, therefore, were not going out as quickly as they should. It was that circumstance which, to some degree, explains the increase in exports in the latter end of last year compared with the earlier part of it.

That is the situation as painted by the bulletin issued by the Central Statistics Office in relation to agricultural production in 1959—corn crops down by nine per cent., root and grain crops down by almost three per cent., a total reduction in grain and root crops of 124,200 acres, pigs down by ten per cent., and cattle and sheep up. It is good to realise that, for example, in relation to the increase in industrial exports of wool, it came from the sheep that were brought back to Ireland as a result of the policy of the previous Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon. That wool could not be there if it were not for the fact that under his régime in the Department of Agriculture there had been an astounding increase in the number of sheep.

As I have mentioned industrial exports in that connection, is it not right that one should bear in mind that the increase that there has been in industrial exports has stemmed virtually from the period when we, as a Government in 1956, for the first time changed the taxation code so as to provide additional incentives towards that necessary part of our economy? As far as I can recollect, and again I will speak subject to correction if the present incumbent of the Ministry for Finance, Deputy Dr. Ryan, tells me I am wrong, no taxation incentive other than the incentive towards savings provided in respect of insurance, had ever been introduced by any Government until we first introduced the taxation incentive in relation to mining, and subsequently introduced the taxation incentives in relation to exports. I admit and welcome the fact that the present Minister for Finance, while not varying the mining taxation incentives to any very material extent, did increase further the incentives towards exports but I do not think he will quarrel with me when I say that all he did was travel a little bit further along the road that we had signposted out for him.

When we look at our industrial exports and see any increase that there may be, we are entitled to say that those increases stemmed to a very large extent from the fact that incentives, for the first time, were provided by us in 1956 for the purpose of making people more export minded and that they succeeded in that intention.

We were told also in relation to industrial production that the welcome increase that had arisen in the second quarter of 1959 would be maintained in the third quarter of that year notwithstanding the fact that there always had been a fallback in the third quarter. That was stated in this House by one of the Minister's colleagues. What are the facts? The Economic Series that have been issued by the Central Statistics Office show that while industrial production in the third quarter of 1959 was up over industrial production in the third quarter of 1958 it was, nevertheless, 3.2 per cent. down when compared with the second quarter of 1959.

We know also the situation in relation to employment. Between 1956 and 1958 there was a reduction of 32,000 in the total number of those who were at work. We have not yet got the 1959 figure in respect of all its constituent parts but we do know, again on the authority of the Central Statistics Office given in this House on the 10th February, that those who were employed in agriculture, forestry and fishing, in 1959, numbered 9,000 fewer than those who were similarly employed in the preceding year.

We are told—if it were true we would welcome the fact—that there has been some increase in manufacturing industry. We had a discussion here before Christmas in relation to the only method I know of judging this before the final figures are made available, that is to say, sales of insurance stamps. The sales of insurance stamps, quarter by quarter, are issued in the Economic Series. We have now got another quarter on which to judge. In relation to that quarter I would say without fear of contradiction that any increase that there has been in the sale of insurance stamps, as a means of judging employment, arises from two things—first from the increase in the income level of those who are bound to have cards stamped and, secondly, in respect of the administrative arrangements that have been made by the Department of Social Welfare to cut down the carry forward, to cut down the arrears that there might be at any given time in relation to the stamping of cards.

I challenge the Minister for Finance to deny, when he is replying to the debate, that an order has gone out from the Minister for Social Welfare that efforts are to be made to speed up the collection of stamps, to speed up the returns in this respect. If that is so, there is inevitably bound to be, in relation to the sales of stamps series in the Economic Series, an increase in the number of stamps sold.

Dr. Ryan

If an order went out, I never heard of it.

Mr. Sweetman

I am not asking the Minister for Finance to accept responsibility. I am asking him to enquire from his colleague and to inform the House, in his reply to this debate, whether such an order has been issued or not.

Those of us who move through rural Ireland know the position as we see it. We know what the situation is. I challenge contradiction from the other side of the House when I say that in any shop in any town in Ireland, in any village in Ireland, you will hear the same story, that money is tighter than they ever knew it before. I have taken the opportunity in travelling around the country to enquire, in relation both to my political activities and my professional activities. I am told the same thing everywhere, that shopkeepers are finding it more difficult than usual to collect accounts. I am told by my colleagues in the solicitors' profession that, in their professional business, they are finding it more difficult than ever before to collect accounts for their clients. Some of them tell me that they are getting more accounts to collect because their shopkeeper clients are not able to get in the money themselves. Anywhere we go, fairs and markets are worse than they were.

No wonder money is tighter than it was before. Many of the people in rural Ireland, unfortunately, have gone. It does not matter to what area one goes—it used to be only the west—one finds the same story, that people have emigrated. In every area the same story is being told, that things are more and more difficult.

It is in that pattern, that picture, that the Minister for Finance has so signally failed in his duty as to come into this House and ask for £4,750,000 more on current account even than last year. He has come to this House to demand from the pockets of the taxpayer a staggering sum more than was ever asked for in the history of the State.

Mr. Corish

Everybody will agree that the increase in the figure on the Book of Estimates is substantial. Even in itself, the actual figure on the Book of Estimates is a formidable one but I want to confess at the start that I am not so frightened about the figure on the Book of Estimates or about the increase in the figure as compared with last year if I can satisfy myself, first, as to the manner in which the money is spent and, secondly—it does not arise in this debate—how the money is to be raised, in order to meet the most of this £123,000,000.

The increase of £7,000,000 includes an increase on capital services of something like £4,000,000. I do not think anybody could argue against increases provided for under the headings of eradication of bovine tuberculosis, housing grants, arterial drainage, forestry development, while some—not I—might doubt the wisdom in certain respects of expenditure of well over £1½ million on the Dublin, Cork and Shannon Airports. However, I would be with Deputy Sweetman when he asks the House whether we are getting value for money and in particular when he poses the question in regard to what he described as the tremendous sum we are spending on our health services. There is the sum of £3 million odd it is proposed to spend on non-capital services, but over and above all that, over and above what one thinks about the size of the figure in the Book of Estimates, we are forced to admit there are no radical changes made in the pattern of State expenditure nor have there been many changes made in recent years.

In many cases the increases have been necessary by reason of the fact that costs and wages have gone up and none of us—least of all we in the Labour Party—has objected to increases granted to such people as State servants, whether those increases were big or small, so as to provide against the various increases in the cost of living. I should like, however, to pose the question which Deputy Norton raised in this House on the Vote on Account last year. He asked—and I do not think it is out of place to ask the same question this year and to try to get an answer to it—what effect the expenditure of this sum of £123 million will have on the lives of the people of Ireland? That is a question which must be answered by the Government through its spokesman, the Minister for Finance.

With a great fanfare of trumpets and much speechmaking in the autumn of 1958, the Government announced what they termed the Programme for Economic Expansion. Reading over it I took particular notice of the last paragraph which described the Programme in detail. Paragraph 139 reads:

The programme outlined in this White Paper is calculated to release a dynamic of progress in the Irish economy. Making all allowances for imprecision in the available information, it is estimated that the implementation of the programme will result in an increase in real national income of some 2 per cent. per annum; this rate, which is twice that achieved in recent years, would double the national income in real terms in 35 years. The programme will, therefore, make a significant contribution towards the advancement of national prosperity, but, in the last report, progress will depend on the determination of the people to prosper, on their capacity for hard work and on their willingness to cooperate in the fulfilment of a comprehensive national programme.

Those are fine-sounding words, very colourful phrases. There is talk about a dynamic of progress. There is mention of advancement of national prosperity and of the capacity for hard work. The Minister did refer to the Programme for Economic Expansion and mentioned what State aid was being given in the coming financial year, but I do not think anybody can say, after the first year of this Programme for Economic Expansion, that there has been anything like a dynamic of progress; nor have we seen much advancement of national prosperity. There was talk of capacity for hard work but there are many people who cannot get any kind of work and who are not allowed to do work, whether it be hard or easy. Therefore in this debate we should take a look at the general situation. When we look at the general situation, without delving too deeply into statistics, I do not think we can say the first year of this programme of economic recovery has been a marked success. The Government can do a certain amount. The Government can lead and can inject a certain amount of money into the economy. The Government can provide ways and means of injecting money other than State moneys into the economy as well.

It was Deputy Lemass, I think, who, when he was on this side of the House, said that one must judge the general economic well-being of a country through its unemployment figures. At present we have 71,000 unemployed. The Members of the benches opposite may say: "That is 6,000 or 7,000 fewer than last year." That is a fact but I do not think a reduction of 6,000 in the unemployment figures demonstrates that there has been a dynamic of progress over the last financial year and when one considers with this reduction of 6,000 or 7,000 in the employment figures the numbers who have emigrated over the past year it must be admitted that, so far from having advanced in the last financial year, we have gone back, maybe not back so far as we have in some other years—even in recent years I am prepared to admit—but everybody must admit we have not made the progress that this economic programme for national recovery envisaged we would.

I do not want to go into this too deeply but I want to mention this fact because I firmly believe it. The Government may say there is a reduction of 6,000 or 7,000 in the numbers of unemployed as compared with this time last year but I believe the Minister for Social Welfare had a hand in that. The Minister for Social Welfare, with his Parliamentary Secretary, in cases where people were in receipt of, or applied for unemployment assistance, changed the means test to such an extent that he has cut down the number of unemployed by some hundreds and in that way he certainly affected the figures. In regard to the yearly figures of employment, I think the Minister for Social Welfare had a hand in that as well. It is true he did not do it through any Departmental or administrative act. He came into the House and changed what is known as the employment period order which deprived people of unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance and being ineligible for unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance, many of them did not sign on the register of unemployed.

In regard to emigration, I do not think anybody can claim that there has been a vast improvement. I am prepared to admit that there has been some improvement but that has been due to the fact that we have practically reached saturation point as far as emigration is concerned. One wonders whether we have now arrived at the situation where the population we have is the population, or somewhat near the population, this country is able to maintain having regard to the economy of the country as designed by this Government. As a matter of fact the Taoiseach when speaking last Saturday night to a Fianna Fáil Cumann admitted that there was this "continuing emigration", to use-two words of his speech.

I am not saying that I am in any way competent to talk about agriculture, but as a representative of the people of an agricultural county, I must ask certain questions and put forward certain viewpoints. The first question I should like to ask is one that will not get a direct answer either to-night or when the Minister replies. Many people are under the impression that we spend an excessive amount on what are generally known as social welfare and social services. Many people allege that this is non-productive money, that it is pampering people and that it is a colossal sum of money that in some way or other could be saved. For that reason, sometimes these people who receive that money by way of health services, or by way of social welfare benefits, are criticised and criticised unduly, but we should always remind ourselves that into the agricultural industry in the next financial year will be injected a sum of £12,250,000. The Minister for Finance, the Minister for Agriculture and the Government should ask themselves whether or not this £12,250,000 is being given to the right people in the agricultural industry. There are many who allege that the farmers are prosperous and there are many who hold the contrary viewpoint.

It is difficult to determine whether or not the farmer's lot has improved in the post-war years. It is true that some farmers have a high standard of living and there are many farmers with low living standards. All these people in the agricultural community have been urged to produce more during the past 10 years. Various Ministers for Agriculture have told the farmers that the solution of all their troubles is to get more production from the land, but what has been the position? What has been the experience of farmers? Where did farmers who did produce more find themselves? They always had an innate fear that if they produced more, they would depress prices and that there would be a limited output. Unfortunately, in recent years, we have had evidence of that in respect of beet and in respect of wheat.

It is not for me to argue whether or not the Government Party had a certain attitude about wheat in the past, or whether the main Opposition Party had another, or whether or not they traded their opinions. What I am trying to convey to the House is that in respect of these two very important cash crops, the beet crop and the wheat crop, the experience of the farmer was that when he produced more, it did not do him a substantial amount of good, but, in many cases, did him a tremendous amount of harm. That was especially true of the small farmer who was not geared to change over from beet to some other crop, or from wheat to some other crop, or to change over to some other agricultural activity.

It seems to me, therefore, that the small farmer has a special problem. First, he has not got enough land. That is obvious and I do not think anybody need argue about that. Various people have different views as to what an economic holding is. It varies from county to county and province to province. In my opinion, the second problem of the small farmer is the more difficult and the more important. It is that he cannot avail, to the same degree as the large farmer, of the grants—in many cases, the generous grants—given by the State because in many cases he has to put up a certain amount of money before he can get such a grant. He has to comply with certain conditions before he can avail of that grant. Until we can readjust the distribution of this £12,250,000 to give more to the small farmer, I do not believe we can bring a prosperous era to the farmers.

Mind you, when one thinks about grants, State aids and agricultural grants, one immediately begins to think about something which this House has often debated, that is, a means test. Many people see a justification for a means test in respect of an old age pension or a widow's pension. Many people seem to think that a means test is justified in the case of an applicant for unemployment assistance, but there is no means test —and I do not advocate it here and now—in respect of the hundreds of pounds, the thousands of pounds and the millions of pounds given out to every single person in the farming community. I know it would be difficult to try to distribute that £12,250,000 on a equitable basis and having regard to the financial circumstances of the large farmer and the small farmer, but it does seem to me, and I shall believe it until I get evidence to the contrary, that the beet farmers receive State aid out of all proportion to what they produce as against the small and the medium farmer.

Therefore, I think the Government, the Minister for Finance, and in particular, the Minister for Agriculture, should, as soon as possible, have a review of the State aid given under the Agricultural Vote. It is true, of course, to say that many farmers have brought on their own difficulties and it is particularly true to say in respect of the small or medium-sized farmer that in recent years he has put a tremendous burden about his neck by the amount of machinery he has bought. I do not believe the purchase of that machinery in many cases was absolutely necessary. Apart from the fact—from the Labour Party's point of view—that it displaced a tremendous number of workers, it is machinery which in many cases is used for only a relatively small portion of the year. That is why the Labour Party have always advocated the co-operative method. Many may say that the temperament of our farmers is not such that they would adopt the co-operative method, but when one sees so many small holdings around the country with tractors, combines and so on, lying idle for most of the year, one becomes more and more in favour of a method by which a small community of farmers could use the same machinery, whether in the spring or autumn.

Another difficulty of the small farmer which no Government have solved for him is that he cannot get credit easily. There may be arrangements for it and there may be intimations from the commercial banks that credit is available for this, that, and the other thing, but they want security and the small farmer has not got it. The Agricultural Credit Corporation to whom we devote so much money here year after year, in my opinion, do not give a fair crack of the whip to the small farmer. It is common talk around the country that you get money from the Agricultural Credit Corporation only when you have money, when you do not need it. It is the small man who cannot get credit who needs the money to develop his farm. He is the man who should get the credit easily from such organisations as the Agricultural Credit Corporation.

However, it seems that we must admit, reluctantly though we do, that the agricultural industry has not prospered in the past 25, 30 or 40 years. It certainly has not prospered, no matter what Government were in power. The evidence of that lies in the fact that the agricultural industry in a big area, can afford to pay only a miserable £5 5s. per week to the farm labourer. We could talk at length on whether or not the farmers could pay more, or should pay more, but that is the minimum wage laid down by the Agricultural Wages Board. Each farmer Deputy must readily admit that the industry which can afford only £5 5s. per week to a farm labourer certainly has not succeeded over the past 25, 30 or 40 years.

As I said at the outset, we are told the agricultural industry is the industry on which we mainly depend. Unfortunately, it is not an industry from which we can get employment. The evidence, in recent years, has been that employment in the agricultural industry has dropped, and dropped rapidly, since the war years. As I said before, that it due, to a large extent, to the too rapid introduction of unnecessary, in many cases, agricultural machinery.

The Taoiseach tells us, and has told us on many previous occasions, that industry must provide not only increased production, and not only must it expand, but that it is to industry we look for the additional employment which is so badly needed to keep our people at home, and to take up the surplus of those who are not now required on the land. Nobody will argue that if the country is to prosper, and the problem I have mentioned is to be resolved, there must be increased production in the agricultural industry. I am quite amused when I hear people, especially professional people, economists and politicians, telling us we must work harder. Of course, the only person they mean is the man who works with his hands.

Harder work will mean increased production, but, as I say, it is only the man in the factory, on the roads, or in the fields, the farmers and those engaged in the agricultural industry who are expected to work harder. The evidence has been that the industrial worker will play his part in an endeavour to give increased production, but will he be allowed to do so? Is he to work himself out of a job? We have had too many examples of that in recent years. If he works abnormally hard or unusually hard, he will work himself out of a job. If any Deputy wants an example of workers working themselves out of a job, I can give it to him in private.

The workers have only an eight-and-a-half hour or an eight-hour day within which to work. I believe the Irish worker works as hard as anybody else, but we can get increased work only if the management of industry introduce improved methods and more efficient machinery. There are some firms which cannot afford better machinery to increase their production and generally to improve their efficiency. A peculiar thing which often strikes me is that whilst a newly established industry in certain parts of the country can get grants and loans to establish itself, and provide new machinery, the old established industries are left on their own. There is no provision in the Programme for Economic Expansion, and there is no Act of Parliament of which I am aware, that will come to the assistance of a firm which wants to instal new machinery, without attaching heavy conditions to any assistance which may be given by way of loan.

Therefore, the Government should, by way of legislation or otherwise, or through the Industrial Credit Company, introduce some scheme whereby firms which are established for 100, 150 or 200 years, will be enabled to bring their machinery up-to-date, and so provide more efficient methods, and consequently increase production. I mentioned this on many occasions in this House, but I want again to make a plea for equal assistance for the establishment of industries in all parts of the country. It is wrong that there should be special financial facilities for the establishment of an industry in a particular part of the country merely because it happens to be on a particular side of a river, or merely because people speak a certain language there, or are supposed to speak it. I do not think they should be given assistance which is not given to all parts of the country. The unfortunate thing is that Governments, particularly Fianna Fáil Governments, have endeavoured to establish industries in parts of the country where there is no tradition of running an industry.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Criticism of legislation is not in order on the Vote on Account.

Mr. Corish

May I speak about administration, because it has occurred to me that in another piece of legislation, the Government, or one of the semi-State bodies have power, in certain cases, with certain qualifications, to give equal assistance for the establishment of industries in all parts of the country? In my opinion, that has not been the practice since that legislation was introduced. I merely ask now that the Government, through the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in the administration of those Acts, should give equal assistance to all parts of the country where it is proposed to establish an industry.

The Taoiseach said recently—and again, I think it was on Saturday night—that one of the conditions for success was that all sections would co-operate. On another occasion when he spoke in this House, he said that the success of the Programme for Economic Expansion depended on the goodwill of associations like the National Farmers' Association, chambers of commerce, the commercial Banks and other people, and on that occasion—we know it was not deliberate—he omitted to mention the trade unions.

It is pretty well-known now, through the statements of their spokesmen, that the trade unions are willing to participate in any plan devised by the Government to increase production and provide additional employment. As a matter of fact, long before the Programme for Economic Expansion was published—and it was published in November, 1958—the Provisional United Trade Union Organisation published a programme not dissimilar to the Programme for Economic Expansion produced by the Government. Their programme was described as “Planning for Full Employment”. It was produced in 1956, I think, and it does not differ substantially from the Government's published programme. As a matter of fact, as soon as it was published, the Taoiseach, who was then Deputy Lemass, gave it his wholehearted approval and said he would back it, and help in its implementation, if, and when, he became a member of the Government again. I merely say to the Taoiseach that he should read again that plan for full employment, and live up to his promise, or the declaration he made, on that occasion in 1956.

That is an example of how the trade union movement of this country are prepared to co-operate, and an example of how hard they will work in an effort —I do not say everyone agrees with the proposal—to stimulate production in agriculture, and to improve generally industrial production, because they also appreciate the urgency of increased production in agriculture and industry.

It has long been my opinion, irrespective of what Government is in office, that there is far too little consultation between Governments and the trade union movement. I do not say that the trade union movement should be the only section of the community to consult the Government. The National Farmers' Association, Chambers of Commerce and especially the commercial banks have conferred with the Government or have been invited to confer with the Government much more frequently than the trade union movement. The trade union movement is willing to help. The trade union movement is willing to confer with the Government. It represents well over 500,000 persons in this country.

I often think it strange to hear Ministers, when introducing legislation to this House, say for example: "We discussed with the solicitors" or "We discussed with the Incorporated Law Society and they have agreed." Sometimes a Minister may say: "We discussed this with the Creamery Milk Suppliers,""We discussed this with the National Farmers' Association.""We discussed this with the banks,""We discussed this with the teachers" or some other organisation. Never do I hear in respect, say, of social welfare legislation or legislation in connection with wages or P.A.Y.E., and so on—except in respect of one matter in my time in this House, the Apprenticeship Bill—"We have discussed the matter and got agreement with the trade union movement."

Whilst the main and primary duty of the trade union movement is to safeguard wages and conditions of employment of workers it is also concerned with the matters mentioned in their booklet Planning for Full Employment, with the general question of production, distribution and marketing of goods, and has shown evidence of that in the plan produced 3½ years ago. I readily admit that whilst the Government can do a certain amount they are not the be-all and the end-all, even as far as employment is concerned. I should think that employers generally can make a contribution towards the reduction of emigration. We have much too much casual employment. The attitude of employers who let off men for days and weeks, take them on again and let them off again is to be deplored. That sort of behaviour towards any worker in any country is to be deplored. Many an employer will say about a workman: “He is being let off only for a week.” In that respect, public bodies err also and particularly county councils with regard to their road workers. Let me give an example.

On one occasion, I went to one of the district engineers and asked him to give a job to a particular person. The reply I got was: "Sure, he got ten months' work last year." Ten months' work is supposed to be sufficient for a man. The implication was that he got much more than any of the other workers who had some casual work with the county council. However, ten months' work is not good enough for anybody. It is not good enough for the barrister, the shopkeeper, the teacher or for any of the professions. What this country must aim at and what employers must co-operate in is an endeavour to give security of employment to our workers by keeping them on as long as possible trying to guarantee twelve months' work to them. The man who is told he will be laid off for a month must, no matter what the size of his family, live on £3 1s. per week. He can get across to England for £3 or to London for £4. Surely, a man in such circumstances would gladly gather the £4 and go to London or Birmingham and get a job there for twelve months in the year?

We should be concerned about the loss of workers to this country. I deplore the attitude of certain of the farming community who lay off their agricultural workers and who say: "It is a bad time; it is a wet season; come back again when the weather is dry or when we are going to do this, that or the other." If that sort of behaviour continues in this country there will come a time when agricultural workers can be had at only a very high premium. They will not be available for 5 guineas, or 7 guineas or 10 guineas per week. They will be so scarce that farmers will have to pay them quite a ridiculous amount of money in wages.

It does not seem that the Government's policy on the establishment of industry has been very successful in the past three years. I know there are many financial inducements; I have talked about them. I know there is encouragement by way of financial hand-outs and loan facilities. Nevertheless, we have not got extra factories to the extent that we have made any appreciable impression on the number of unemployed. While private industry —established in this country, as it has been, for so long—has filled a big gap it does not seem to have availed of the opportunities that exist. Therefore, on another occasion, I want to ask the Government seriously to consider entering certain branches of the field of industry. I have not in mind that the Government should enter into competition with the man in a small way in industry or in small things.

Nobody saw any objection when the Government entered industry in the production of electricity or in the production of turf. Nobody took exception when the Government went into the shipping business or when they got the monopoly in relation to sugar. Nobody sees any objection to the fact that the Government are the main people engaged in the production of timber through their forests. Therefore, why should the Government not enter other fields of industry? Some people may point out that these are essential services or essential products. However, there is a precedent for it.

I would not be critical of the action of the Government in a town in Ireland about two years ago when they established a factory. They provided the capital and appointed directors who took over the business and employed the necessary people. When I raised the matter with the Minister for Industry and Commerce and with the Minister for Finance, they said it is not State enterprise. There was so much fiddling—I do not use the word "fiddling" in its basest connotation—between the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Industrial Credit Company, the Department of Finance, and here and there that I suppose one could prove theoretically that it was not State-established. However, it was State-established inasmuch as the money to establish that factory was raised in the name of the Irish people. Whether it was raised by way of National Loan or otherwise does not make any difference. It was raised in the name of the Irish people to establish a successful industry within the past two years in one of our Irish towns.

I do not say the Government should take over industry entirely—far from it. However, a Government is surely justified in establishing industries where private enterprise will not do so in order to keep Irish men and women at home, working in their own country. They are very well equipped, through the Department of Industry and Commerce and through the Industrial Development Authority, to know the type of factory to be established. I think that with the facilities at their disposal and with the knowledge they have, they could at least alleviate acute unemployment in many pockets in provincial towns. They need not run the factory; they can establish a factory. They should have a fair idea whether it will be a success or not, having regard to the knowledge they have of the commodities that are imported or the commodities that could be exported.

I often wonder why we do not carry out a serious "buy Irish" campaign. I remember very well many years ago when I was not even in my teens, a campaign that was conducted by President Cosgrave, as he was then described. He did a tremendous amount of good, I thought, away back in the 1920s, campaigning the country and asking the people to buy Irish. Everybody who heard him on that occasion was impressed At least I was. Whether I was of an impressionable age or not does not make any difference.

I firmly believe that the Government, through their various Departments, could intensify a "Buy Irish" campaign because I do not believe the people realise how very much we could improve our economy if we were all determined to buy Irish, if we were satisfied that the goods were goods which suited us. Nobody now seems to care so long as it is in the country whether it is made in Ireland, Britain, Germany, Japan, America or any other country in the world.

We can well campaign, and the Government members can well campaign, to get a President elected, a Government elected or people elected to local bodies. That may happen only once in every four years. A similar sort of campaign to tell the people why they should buy Irish and what advantage it would be to the country to buy Irish would, in my opinion, do a tremendous amount of good.

I think it can well be said that it is the aim of all Parties as quickly as we can to raise the standard of living and to employ all our people. We are told that we have the resources in agriculture. We are told that our resources in agriculture are such that we can develop industry to an extent that will provide employment for many more of our people in the years to come. We must see that that is done as quickly as possible but in the meantime people are going from the country.

I think it is a stupid sort of thing to have said in the past three or four years that the only type of work the Government will give substantial sums of money for is productive work. It was easy for them to say that because the establishment of productive work had to be planned over a period. In the meantime, as I said, we had 58,000, two years ago, leaving the country. Last year, we had something like 35,000 or 32,000 and this year, goodness knows how many more we shall have, but whether it be more or not, it will not make any difference because thousands will go.

We should, therefore, ask ourselves if we have regard for these people who are now contemplating emigration. Should we not make an effort to keep them employed at home? If we believe them should be kept at home, is it not worth spending money to provide jobs to keep them at home? For that reason, one deplores the entire scrapping of the subhead of the Estimate which provided jobs for thousands of people—the Local Authorities (Works) Act.

I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance another question. I am sure he is concerned about this matter. It must be about 12 months ago that the Taoiseach again used another one of his gimmicks in an endeavour to boost the morale of the workers—sending a letter signed by himself to every local authority requesting them to send as quickly as possibly what schemes they had for the employment of men.

He sent it to Cork, Kerry, Wexford and Galway and to urban councils, town commissioners and county councils. I suppose if the costs of all the schemes were added up, it would be a fantastic amount of millions of pounds of money. What happened to it? The Taoiseach invited every local authority to submit what schemes they could. He said there was plenty of money there. He did not say it in the letter but in this House. He said they had plenty of money for any worthwhile scheme and he asked the people to send up worthwhile schemes. I ask the Government now: up to last week, was any one of them approved or sanctioned? If there was, there was no announcement about it. I know that the local bodies in my constituency sent up various schemes. Some of them were rejected and none of them was approved. Have any of the schemes from Cork, Dublin, Athlone or Donegal been approved of? Was this another gimmick used by the Taoiseach, when he knew the morale of the people was sagging, to boost it up again?

I remember well in 1953, when we had a big unemployment problem, the acting Minister for Finance, the present Minister for External Affairs, came into this House and introduced a piece of legislation known as the National Development Fund Act, the purpose of which was to establish the national development fund. The then acting Minister for Finance, told the House that every year there would be £5 million in that Fund, out of which money could be drawn to provide work for people who were unemployed. It was a simple as that. I do not think any Fianna Fáil Deputy will contradict me in regard to the description I have given of the provisions of the Act.

There was a sum of £5 million out of which money could be taken to put people to work. It did not talk about productive employment. It did not say that you must produce things. They could be paid on Local Authorities (Works) Act schemes, on road work or any sort of drainage and forestry. That disappeared. I am advocating tonight that in order to keep more families and their children at home in Ireland, that sort of money be provided again.

The Taoiseach asks us to have faith and confidence in our country. How long are we to have confidence? If he is confident and if we are confident that we can establish factories in five years, would it not be worth while, within the five years until factories are established and until there is increased industrial employment, to spend not £10 million, £20 million or £25 million but even more to keep Irishmen and women at home? It would not be productive employment and somebody might ask where the money is to come from. The Taoiseach says that plenty of money can be raised. If money can be raised to establish industry, surely it is equally important to raise money to keep the people in Ireland and not have them emigrating to England to be lost for ever?

I spoke about the possibility of the Government establishing factories and I saw a clear hope when I read nearly 18 months ago the Programme for Economic Expansion. I was attracted also by paragraph 68 of that booklet. It read like this in a reference to fish-processing factories: “An Bord Iascaigh Mhara will build these factories if the private sector fails to do so, and will consider leasing them to private concerns.” There was a hope of the Government stepping in where private enterprise would not but there is no indication to-day that An Bord Iascaigh Mhara has any intention of doing what was promised in paragraph 68 of the booklet.

Deputy Sweetman has dealt fairly extensively with the problem of housing and has given information to refute some of the statements made here last Thursday by the Minister for Local Government when he told the House that there was much more building and many more men employed now than in the period when the inter-Party Government were in office. Immediately he said that I put down a question asking him to state the number of men engaged in local authority house-building on the nearest available date and on similar dates in 1959, 1958, 1957 and 1956. The reply I got was that on the 31st January, 1960 the figure was 1,781; on the same date in 1959, it was 2,583; in 1958, 2,604; in 1957, 4,580 and in 1956 6,147.

I do not want to make a song and dance about these figures; I merely quote them to refute the statement made by the Minister for Local Government. I think we have a housing problem on our hands apart from the fact that I do not believe that we know at the present time how many houses we really need. I believe that the surveys carried out by various local authorities are not accurate and, even if they were, I think local bodies would have to change their attitude towards the building of houses for what were termed the working classes.

As far as I can see—and I think most Deputies in the House with experience of local authorities and local authority conditions will agree—the big difficulty is that people cannot afford to pay the rents of local authority houses. Where there is a big number of applicants for houses the difficulty of the local authority is to decide not who is in the greatest need of a house but who can pay for it. That is a serious situation because we find people having these houses allocated to them who, five, six or ten years ago, would not be housed while people who cannot afford to pay the rent—or even half the rent—are left without houses. That is a problem for the Government at present and a problem that must be tackled vigorously. It is not true to say that the housing problem has been solved but it is true that there are many thousands of people at present deserving good houses but living in bad and insanitary conditions and in houses in respect of which demolition orders have been made. The local authorities are not building houses to suit the pockets of such people.

Even if the State provides a certain amount of assistance for local authorities towards house building at present, I think they will have to consider giving even greater grants or making some concession in regard to the rate of interest on money from the Local Loans Fund or make some other concession to enable local authorities to build houses for the people most in need of them. I do not say that there has been illegal letting or that people who occupy local authority houses should not have got them: the Department of Local Government is quite well able to look after that, but the fact remains that quite a number of people cannot avail of the houses built by local authorities at present.

The Taoiseach told us recently and continues to say that we must have confidence in the country's future. Nobody would take exception to that but one must also have confidence that there is a future for himself and his family in this country. He remains doubtful unless he is shown otherwise. If there is insecurity in his employment, if he is only casually employed he cannot have much confidence. If the father of a teenage family sees little immediate prospect for his children he cannot have confidence in the future.

The problem with the family man at present, if he has a child leaving school having done the Intermediate or Leaving Certificate, is what to find for them to do. The fear of every family is that as soon as the boys or girls finish their schooling they will go to England and fathers and mothers become nearly frantic at the thought of their doing so. It does not happen in every case; some are brainy enough to get into the Civil Service, a bank, or some commercial employment but a big number seem to have no prospect of work at home. The parents' fears may be unfounded in some cases but they do not seem to see much in prospect.

I think, therefore, the Government must give a lead in inspiring confidence. We should, here and now, agree to forget the past. I do not mean the fighting past, so to speak, but the comparison between what one did five or ten years ago with what another did; what one thought of this or that and what another thought of it; how critical some people were of the grass policy; what they said in the House and what we said in the House. Talking like that does not inspire confidence in our young people. It is inevitable that these discussions and arguments crop up from time to time and I suppose it is very hard to forget the past, whether the warring past or the economic past, but the Government must inspire confidence in the people, especially in the younger people. One cannot do that by merely telling them that the prospects are bright. They must be shown evidence of it and so far, in the lifetime of this Government, there has been little evidence of any advance.

The Taoiseach and the Government must make their plans not so much with an eye on the next general election but with a determination to lead the country to an improvement of living standards. If we merely make our plans and order our business to coincide with general elections I do not think we shall get progress. Ministers and Governments are tempted to act like that but until we can, by our actions, show that we ourselves have confidence in the future of the country I do not believe that the people will have confidence that there is a future.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. J. Brennan)

I do not intend to usurp the functions of the Minister for Finance in replying to what Deputy Sweetman or the last speaker said nor do I pretend to be competent to do so but I should like to make one general reference to what Deputy Sweetman said in his lengthy speech on this Vote. Perhaps, what he said was not nearly so important as what he did not say.

The last speaker concluded by pointing out the importance of restoring confidence in the country by letting the people know whether or not we were moving in the right direction in regard to any branch of policy. I do not think we had a single suggestion from either of the two speakers. They criticised the magnitude of the Estimates and tried to take credit for some of the increased expenditure under the heading of capital development by pointing out that they, in their time, gave the necessary impetus to policy which had now resulted in a demand for extra expenditure. There is nothing constructive in that. If we are to get any inspiration or if the confidence of the country is to be restored, we shall have to look elsewhere than to the speeches which have just been made.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Perhaps we shall get it now.

Mr. J. Brennan

I shall be interested to hear what the Deputy has to say when his turn comes. In making the statement I have just made, I do not think I was unduly critical. I listened carefully to the last two speeches. The last speaker was not so severe in his criticism nor did he attempt to take credit for what he believed would be popular, as the previous speaker did, and at the same time decry anything which might not be popular and point to the alleged failure to implement certain points of policy.

I am concerned with the type of Estimate before us rather than the detail. I shall not venture to discuss in detail matters which will come up for detailed discussion on each individual Estimate. I am surprised that none of the speakers referred to expenditure on such things as the eradication of bovine tuberculosis and the increased estimate for advanced agricultural education, possibly one of the most important features of the Estimates. Reference to these matters was conspicuous by its absence. Deputy Sweetman contented himself mainly with bringing out a few figures in relation to housing to try to show there was greater activity in that respect during his years in office.

Mr. Sweetman

Oh, no. It was to show that the Minister for Local Government was not telling the truth.

Mr. J. Brennan

There will be ample opportunity to discuss that in detail when the Estimate is before us. However, I am satisfied that the activity on private housing in the past year, both in the reconstruction and erection of new houses, was something we can rightly be proud of. The last speaker tried to complicate the issue by mixing up local authority housing with private housing. He referred to figures for employment on local authority housing on comparative dates over the last few years. Everybody is well aware that local authority housing is now tapering off but that there is yet much to be done in the matter of private housing. It is on that type of housing we must lay emphasis now. The number of application forms which a Deputy must carry in his pocket nowadays to hand out to the numerous people seeking the rather generous grants available is in itself an indication of the activity under that heading. However, we still have a long way to go, but I am glad the necessary provision is being made.

Mr. McQuillan

Does the Parliamentary Secretary carry the application forms around in his pocket? Is that the idea?

Mr. J. Brennan

Any good Deputy would need to do that.

Mr. McQuillan

Evidently, that is the new way of doing it.

Mr. Lindsay

But he will not get them if he is in the Opposition.

Dr. Ryan

The Parliamentary Secretary must be going very hard on Deputies. They cannot listen to him.

Mr. Sweetman

I am listening very carefully.

Mr. J. Brennan

I am giving my own experience in regard to my constituents' requests. Other Deputies may have a different experience. One of my most active fields of operation is procuring the application forms necessary for persons desiring to avail of grants for houses, either in the reconstruction or erection of new houses. I take that as a criterion of the activity throughout the year. I would venture to say it was the most active we ever had, pending the publication of the figures.

Mr. McQuillan

No wonder you are not able to do any drainage work in the rest of the country.

Mr. J. Brennan

We shall come to that in a moment. We are very proud of our record there, too. A good deal of play was made about unemployment and emigration but nobody ventured to go too deeply into either subject. The last speaker admitted that the unemployment figures today show a reduction of 7,000 compared with the same period last year. He seemed to think that was not sufficient. Every Deputy would like to see a greater reduction in unemployment. He also went as far as to admit that when the figures for emigration were published, as far as it is possible to ascertain them, they, too, would possibly show a reduction. But he said we were not moving sufficiently fast in that direction either. We would all like to see greater progress made in both these important matters. But at least let us admit we are moving in the right direction.

However disappointing it may be to the members of the Opposition who would prefer to see the figures the other way, let us be frank enough to admit we are all sufficiently interested in the welfare of the country that we have reached the stage where we will give credit for any good which has been done. If the confidence referred to by the previous speaker is to be restored, then it is time we set about tackling our problems in that way.

Employment is not something which grows up overnight. I was particularly interested in the suggestion of the Leader of the Labour Party that more money should be made available for the relief of unemployment. That may require the carrying out of what are known as relief schemes. A certain amount of that work is absolutely essential, particularly when related to works of utility, but I wonder will Deputies on the Opposite side argue that huge sums should be channelled into the promotion of relief works alone when so much money could be so usefully spent in financing more permanent employment of a productive type, the type which Deputy Corish admits does not happen overnight?

After castigating the Government for their failure to implement more rapidly the proposals in the Programme for Economic Expansion, in the next breath he admitted that the results of that programme, however good they were, could not be made evident in a short time. In making that point he advocated the expenditure of more money for the temporary relief of unemployment. I was particularly interested in his agreeing that the proposals in the Programme for Economic Expansion were sound, though the results could not be immediately forthcoming, but I fail to see how the expenditure of extra money on the temporary relief of unemployment could have any important effect on emigration, even on that type of emigration which is brought about by sheer economic circumstances.

We know there is the other type of emigration which, possibly, we always shall have where people will go to a better labour market, where better wages and higher salaries are available, but the type of emigration which everyone deplores is that brought about by sheer economic circumstances. I do not think that a fortnight's work or a month's work at any time on a bog road or other scheme will stop that type of emigration, though I must say that these works are very important and I should be the last in the House to say otherwise.

We make fairly generous provision for them but I believe they must be directly related to works of utility. The amount of employment which we gain from them can hardly be expected to give other than a few weeks' work in the year to smallholders and persons of that type who may be temporarily unemployed in the winter months from November to March. However, they do not make any appreciable impact on the figures of unemployment and, with the increase in wages and the inclination to make greater use of machinery, it is becoming increasingly difficult to provide sufficient money to give any worthwhile number of men any employment under that type of scheme.

Coming down to employment in the industrial field, which the previous speaker referred to at considerable length, the figure which is required to give employment to one individual is so great in comparison with what it was, say 30 years ago, that one requires to have a tremendous impetus in industrialisation in any country to have any appreciable effect on the figures of employment. On the other side, in the agricultural field, the output in agriculture can be considerably increased. The figures over the past few years show that to be the case, but there is no corresponding increase in the number of people employed in agriculture. The opposite is actually the case and that does not apply more to this country than to any other country in the world.

No Deputy who has spoken proffered, nor will any of those yet to speak, be likely to proffer, any panacea for that rather particular situation. If we are to make a constructive approach to the problems which are confronting us, the man in the street will be more interested to hear what solutions those Deputies have to offer to these serious and important problems. I do not think that any Deputy who seriously approaches this matter will contend that unemployment can be solved in any short period.

Mr. Lindsay

It was contended not so long ago—100,000 jobs.

Mr. Rooney

Just change the Government.

Mr. J. Brennan

I should love to pause to get a few more interruptions of that type.

Dr. Ryan

They cannot take it.

Mr. J. Brennan

That type of statement would come very well if it were not for the fact that the gentlemen on the opposite side have had two periods in which to solve these problems.

Mr. Rooney

You had 16 years.

Mr. J. Brennan

They had two periods in which to try any of the panaceas they had advocated in this House. What the people are concerned with is: are we going in the right direction? I contend that we are.

Mr. Lindsay

And we are not getting very far.

Mr. J. Brennan

The signpost on the road to the future points to the fact that we are moving in the right direction. That is something I would defy any Deputy to contradict.

Mr. Sweetman

I only wish it were true.

Dr. Ryan

Why does the Parliamentary Secretary not get the same courtesy as Deputy Sweetman got when he was speaking?

Mr. Sweetman

The Deputy interrupted me a couple of times.

Mr. Rooney

The Minister cannot take it now.

Mr. J. Brennan

Deputy Sweetman made no reference to the amount of money available for such things as agriculture, fisheries, electric power, housing and tourism. He made no reference to the increased provision in any of these cases or to the possible outcome. In fact, if he made any reference in passing it was to try to show that any good reflected in the Book of Estimates by some peculiar means springs from something the Coalition Government attempted in their time.

Mr. Lindsay

Of course, it did.

Mr. O'Malley

What about the £6 million they left us to pay?

Mr. J. Brennan

Without going into detail, which the debate on the Vote on Account does not permit because we shall have the opportunity later of discussing each Estimate separately, it is sufficient to say that that story is no longer accepted by the people and I would advise that it is a sheer waste of time indulging in that type of argument or in that type of opposition. Deputy Sweetman did make reference to drainage. There again I do not want to go into detail on an Estimate that we shall have to discuss in the Dáil in the course of a few weeks but let me say with regard to the overall position—and I say this for the benefit of Deputy McQuillan who tries to cash in on it possibly more than any other Deputy in the House—that drainage in this country is being tackled as it was never tackled before——

Mr. McQuillan

Hear, hear. That is a fact anyway.

Mr. J. Brennan

——in a real, organised, methodical, systematic manner——

Mr. Lindsay

Of doing nothing.

Mr. J. Brennan

——with the amount increasing year by year.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The amount of flooding or of drainage?

Dr. Ryan

You cannot listen.

Mr. J. Brennan

A great deal of money was spent on drainage in the past. I said that I would not be drawn into the details of the scheme. There was a great deal of talk about the Local Authorities (Works) Act. As a member of a local authority, I know all about it and how it operated. If ever money was thrown out for the mere purpose of getting votes, it was the money thrown out in the grants under the Local Authorities (Works) Act.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis wanted it back.

Mr. J. Brennan

There was scarcely a job done under the scheme which has not been the subject of representations to me, in my few short months in the Office of Public Works, to have it re-done.

Mr. Sweetman

Not from Kildare.

Dr. Ryan

They have all gone back again. That is right.

Mr. J. Brennan

It was starting a good job backwards.

Mr. Sweetman

Not in Kildare.

Mr. J. Brennan

The Minister for Finance at that time may have been in a position to influence the expenditure of more of that money in his own constituency than in any other county. I am not saying that he did that but he may have been in that position.

Mr. Sweetman

No. I am talking about the time before I was Minister for Finance, when I was chairman of the county council.

Mr. J. Brennan

I can visualise good work being done under the Local Authorities (Works) Act in 25 years' time when the main channels will have been cleaned to give the flood waters a chance to empty into the sea, but it is sheer nonsense to suggest that it was a worthwhile scheme to start at the upper end of the job, to divert the water on to somebody else's land, to create problems that were insoluble, and to make no provision for maintenance.

The programme of arterial drainage is expanding more rapidly than even the architects of the 1945 Act anticipated. That is largely due to the good summer of last year. Drainage of a permanent type was carried out which will permit of further drainage to deal with smaller arteries and, finally, field drainage. It is the type of work which was recommended by the Commission which thoroughly investigated the problem. Its success is reflected in the clamour at the moment from places like Deputy McQuillan's constituency to have work carried out immediately. It is not physically or financially possible to have all schemes undertaken at the same time.

Mr. McQuillan

If the Parliamentary Secretary suggests that money was wasted under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, how is it that his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, is prepared to sanction a loan for the Roscommon County Council to carry out work that should be done under the Local Authorities (Works) Act?

Mr. Geoghegan

That is not a county council at all.

Mr. Lindsay

I suppose it is not. It distributes the rate collectors.

Mr. J. Brennan

If they carried out any worthwhile scheme, I hope they made provision for future maintenance.

Mr. McQuillan

I want an answer.

Dr. Ryan

Let the Parliamentary Secretary make his speech.

Mr. J. Brennan

I said when I started that I shall have an opportunity very shortly of examining fully the whole question of drainage. That matter is entirely covered in the Estimate for the Office of Public Works. That will give every Deputy a full opportunity of discussing in detail every matter relating to it and I shall be only too glad to give the facts as I find them. I am happy with the progress that has been made.

Mr. McQuillan

Where?

Mr. J. Brennan

Throughout Ireland. I think I should refer to one of the matters raised by Deputy Corish in regard to the question of Irish-manufactured goods and the necessity, as he put it, to promote a "Buy Irish" campaign more vigorously than is being done at the present time. I thought we had reached the stage when everybody, whether out of sentiment or patriotic duty or otherwise, was prepared to buy Irish goods, if available, in preference to anything else on the market because not merely have we reached the stage where we should buy Irish, for patriotic reasons, or for the purely material reason that the manufacture of such goods employs our own people, but we have gone so far in the industrial drive that we have convinced even the most sceptical and pessimistic, who opposed the industrial drive at the outset, that we are capable of producing goods not merely as well but better than anybody else.

Deputy Corish believes—and I do not think he was using it for propaganda purposes—that a good deal has yet to be done. It is rather serious if that is the case. When Deputy Corish advocates that the State should directly promote industry to a greater extent than at present, I would remind him that the Programme for Economic Expansion explicitly states that in any case where private enterprise fails or refuses to do the job, the State is prepared to move in, as it has done in the case of Bord na Móna, the Electricity Supply Board aviation and various other matters.

Remember, successful industry nowadays must be based on the best possible production techniques and the strictest possible management in order to compete on the markets of the world. It is not always easy for State-sponsored industry to compete with private enterprise, particularly on the export market. I doubt if it could. It is easy to understand that State-sponsored industry will succeed in a reserved home market. That is quite a simple matter. I doubt very much if State-sponsored industry will ever be able to compete with private enterprise on the export market because of the fact that in State-sponsored and semi-State-sponsored industries, the overheads are rather heavy. I wonder if the Labour Party have made due allowance for that fact, or are they concerned only with goods which may be produced for a reserved home market?

The export market and the home market are entirely different matters. I would say that the State should step in only when it is certain that private enterprise, with all the incentives available or which may be made available, has not succeeded. In saying that, I do not think I am saying anything contrary to the spirit of what is set out in the Programme for Economic Expansion, that in any case where private enterprise fails or does not undertake the promotion of industry, the State would be prepared to step in.

Deputy Corish also made great play with the alleged statement of the Taoiseach that money was available for industry ad lib, so to speak. If I remember rightly, the Taoiseach, whether as Minister for Industry and Commerce or since becoming Taoiseach, was always careful to point out that for worthwhile projects, there would be no shortage of the necessary capital. That is somewhat different from saying that there is plenty of money available for employment, which the Labour Party obviously interpret as meaning that we are ready to spend money ad lib on schemes of any type, so long as they relieve unemployment for the time being.

If all the money that has been canalised into temporary schemes for the immediate relief of unemployment in the past 30 years had been used for the promotion of a properly thought out scheme, such as outlined in the Programme for Economic Expansion, how much better off would the country be today? I am not saying that that money was all wasted. As I have already said, a certain amount of money must have been spent annually on schemes directly related to public utility which, at the same time, provided a measure of relief of unemployment.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 9th March, 1960.