Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Mar 1960

Vol. 180 No. 2

Committee on Finance. - Motion by Minister for Finance (Resumed).

This Vote on Account is in respect of the Estimates for the year ending 31st March, 1961. The Minister, in the Book of Estimates which he has published, has produced what I think is an all-time high record for this country. These Estimates are produced by a Government formed from a Party who, during their years in Opposition, campaigned against the height of Government expenditure. They are produced by a Government formed by a Party who put themselves on record as taking what I understood to be an irrevocable decision in 1953 that taxation in this country was too high and that taxation could not go any higher; that the danger point had been reached and that the limit of endurance of the people had been reached.

Now, after three years in office since the last general election, the Minister for Finance comes with a Book of Estimates higher than was ever produced in this country—higher even than the Minister's Party were capable of producing before. When the Taoiseach was speaking as an Opposition Deputy in 1956 on the Financial Statement, he gave the House the benefit of his views. He recorded the decision which he said he and his colleagues had taken regarding Government expenditure and high taxation.

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

I was referring to the fact that the Minister had introduced an all-time record as far as the Estimates are concerned, that he is doing that as a colleague of the present Taoiseach who on the 8th of May, 1956, speaking in this House announced the decision of the Fianna Fáil Party regarding taxation and the fact that, in their view, taxation had reached the danger limit. I am quoting from the Dáil debates of the 8th May, 1956, Column 49, in which the present Taoiseach, then Deputy Lemass, is reported as having said:

In 1953, the Fianna Fáil Government, of which I was a member, took a decision that taxation in this country had reached the danger limit. We announced that we had made up our minds on that fact and that, so far as we were concerned, there would be no increase in tax rates above the 1953 level. We made it clear that, if any Budget difficulty arose, that difficulty would be met by a reduction of expenditure and not by increasing the burden on the taxpayers.

On the same day, as reported at Column 68, the present Minister for Health, then Deputy MacEntee, speaking from these Benches, said:

That is what the working class people in our rural areas are paying for the fact that the Government has not tackled what is the basic difficulty in all this matter, the phenomenon of rising Government expenditure. Until we can manage to curb and curtail that, there will be no relief for any taxpayer in this country and the burdens upon the workers, upon the poorer sections of this community, are going to be increased. That is what is at stake here in this Resolution.

Just four years after the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health expressed those sentiments from these Benches, and after a general election which took place less than a year later and returned them to office, we find the Minister for Finance presenting this House with a Book of Estimates for very nearly £30 million more than the Book of Estimates for the year 1952-53. I do not pretend to know what plans the Minister has in store, so far as taxation is concerned, arising from the Estimates which he is presenting to us, but certainly I should be very pleasantly surprised if any of the Deputies opposite could convince me that in a Book of Estimates totalling something over £123 million there will be any relief for the taxpayer such as was spoken about by the Minister for Health and the Taoiseach when they spoke here on the 8th May, 1956.

What effort has this Government made towards reducing Government expenditure? What effort has been made by the Minister for Finance or any of his colleagues? Deputy O'Malley, when speaking here a short while ago, said that the increases in the Book of Estimates were due mainly to increases in wages and salaries. He inquired if Deputies on this side of the House were opposed to that. He asked if we did not criticise that, where did our criticism lie?

Assuming Deputy O'Malley is right in regard to this colossal Book of Estimates produced by the Minister and that the increases are attributable mainly to increases in wages and salaries, is it not pertinent to inquire how did those increases in wages and salaries come about? How were they occasioned? The trade unions, and those whom they represent here have not, I think, by and large over the years, proved themselves unwilling to meet, discuss and co-operate with employers' representatives on matters of wages and working conditions. Certainly, more than once they have shown very commendable restraint in face of what must have seemed to them to be provocation at the hands of Fianna Fáil Governments.

If it was necessary to increase wages and salaries, how did that necessity come about? Surely, it was because of the deliberate action of the present Fianna Fáil Government, or Party in any event, in pushing up the cost of living by deliberate positive Government action, increasing the cost of living and making it necessary to give wage increases? Was that the Fianna Fáil Party's contribution to curbing Government expenditure? Was that their contribution to avoiding increased taxation? The present Fianna Fáil Party, since they formed a Government in 1957, have not once but twice deliberately by their Budgetary and their financial policy implemented through this House, increased the cost of living and necessitated any wage increases there were.

When this Government were last in Opposition, occupying those Benches, the Estimates for the year 1956-57 totalled something more than £109 million. The following year, 1957-58, they were up to £112½ million approximately. There was a slight reduction in 1958-59 to £110 million. Of course, there have been Supplementary Estimates since that. Now we are faced with a Book of Estimates amounting to practically £123½ million.

In the face of that situation, I was amazed to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance use so little time and a great deal of energy in exuding confidence and Government complacency with regard to the position in this country, and exulting in the pride which he and his colleagues in the Fianna Fáil Party thought they were entitled to take in the housing figures for the past year in dealing with the question of unemployment.

I have not seen the Parliamentary Secretary's speech in the Dáil Debates yet because it has not been published yet but, according to the notes which I took, he said that his Party were rightly proud of housing figures for the past year. He went on to say that local authority housing is tapering off and that the emphasis is now on private housing. I want to examine whether or not the Parliamentary Secretary and his colleagues can be rightly proud of the housing figures for the past twelve months and of their record in housing since they took office.

If members of the Government and Deputies behind them feel inclined to stick out their chests about housing, I would advise them to be very careful that they are not sticking out their chins as well. I remember during the period of office of the last Government the hullabaloo set up on this side of the House on the question of housing, how the then Government were charged with falling down on the job, how we were told that the whole building industry was in a state of chaos caused by the ineptitude of that Government. All of us can remember the propaganda disseminated by Fianna Fáil spokesmen both inside and outside the House at the time of the general election and leading up to it, on the question of housing. We remember the charges levelled against the inter-Party Government. It is in the context of that campaign that I think it is right to examine now, as best we can, the Fianna Fáil record since they took office.

I want to support what I am saying regarding that Fianna Fáil campaign by a few references. I am sure Deputies opposite are sick and tired of some of these references and I hope that before this Dáil has run its course not only will they be sick and tired but also heartily ashamed of some of the propaganda that came out in their interests and over the names of some of them prior to the last general election, during it, and even since then.

The first quotation I want to make is from propaganda produced on behalf of Deputy Galvin when he was contesting a by-election in Cork City. In this Fianna Fáil pamphlet produced in his support it is proclaimed that private house-building was almost at a standstill. The Fianna Fáil Party in their efforts to get Deputy Galvin into the Dáil told the people: "Private house-building in Cork City and suburbs has almost come to a standstill. Hundreds of people, young married couples especially, who had hoped to build their own homes are being forced to abandon their plans as a result of the breakdown of the Small Dwellings Loans."

Fianna Fáil succeeded in putting Deputy Galvin into the House. Before the Dáil ends, I hope we may hear Deputy Galvin's vindication of the propaganda used on his behalf. It did not rest there. A pamphlet was produced for the Fianna Fáil Party as a whole, on behalf of all the Deputies in the Party, including the Minister for Finance, Deputy Corry and Deputy Gogan on the occasion of the last general election. It had a photo of the former Taoiseach, now Uachtarán na Éireann. The big, black, bold heading was: "Let us go ahead again—vote Fianna Fáil." One of the articles in it is headed "Homes for Irishmen." It says: "One of the most serious problems facing the new Fianna Fáil Government will be the question of the building industry which has been thrown into a state of chaos. Private house-building is almost at a standstill; the loan system has broken down while local authority operations have been greatly curtailed. Many thousands of building workers have lost their jobs." Then it goes on: "It will be a first task of Fianna Fáil to see that life and vigour are restored to the building trade so that Small Dwellings Loans once again become available for house purchase." That was a document produced, I think, in every constituency to assist in putting Fianna Fáil back as a Government.

Shortly after they had got back, there was a by-election in one of the North-side constituencies in Dublin which ultimately returned Deputy Sherwin to the Dáil. Fianna Fáil produced their usual type of election pamphlet. I do not know where it was printed; they are all the same type of thing but, if they are dreary in the monotony with which they come out, they are brightened by some of the articles which appear in them and some of the promises held out.

In support of the Fianna Fáil candidate in Dublin North Central by-election in November, 1957, Fianna Fáil had this to say regarding housing. The heading was: "We are going ahead with housing." The article goes on: "During the last year of the Coalition Government there was an almost complete close-down of housing. Not merely was there a serious slowing of house construction but many schemes due to begin last year or early this year were held up. In Dublin City the number of dwellings in tender on April 1st was only 222 compared with 815 last year. Private house building was in no better position due to the collapse of the Small Dwellings Loans scheme. During 1956 the number of grant houses under construction fell by almost 1,000. Action has now been taken to deal with this position." I want to remind the House again that notwithstanding the complaints made in those Fianna Fáil pamphlets regarding both private building and local authority building —which is referred to in the last quotation I read—Deputy Brennan, the Parliamentary Secretary, now assures the House that local authority housing is tapering off and that the emphasis is now to be placed on private housing.

Let us look at the record of the present Government since they got back to office early in 1957 and examine this record within the framework set by the Fianna Fáil Party themselves in the propaganda to which I have referred. If we consult the statistical abstract published by the Central Statistics Office for the year 1959, on page 190 certain figures are given with regard to new houses and houses reconstructed for each of the years from 1952 to 1959.

Starting in the year 1956—that, mark you, is the year which according to Fianna Fáil, according to their speeches, propaganda and all the hullabaloo they were kicking up from this side of the House, was the black year as far as the building industry and employment were concerned and was the main cause for Fianna Fáil's success in defeating the last Government in the last general election— according to the Statistical Abstract there were 9,837 new houses built in the year 1956 and 6,494 houses were reconstructed during the year 1956. According to the Statistical Abstract the number of new houses in the year 1959 was 4,893 and the number of houses reconstructed was 6,909. So that, after three years of Fianna Fáil Government, when they were telling the people that if they were elected work was to start at once, we find that, as between the years 1956 and 1959, there is a decrease of 4,944 in the number of new houses erected and as between 1958 and 1959 there is a decrease of 253 in the number of houses reconstructed.

If we turn to the local authority housing for the same years, there were 4,011 local authority houses erected in the year 1956 and the last year given in the Abstract—it does not go to 1959; it goes to 1958—shows that, as between 1956 and 1958, when Fianna Fáil had been in office for something over 12 months, there was a decrease to 3,467 in the number of houses erected for local authorities in 1958. This is the record which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance feels entitles him to say that the Government and the Party of which he is a member are really proud of the housing figures.

I examined these statistics in more detail, having regard to the Fianna Fáil campaign against the previous Government and the fact that Fianna Fáil Deputies now feel entitled to stick out their chests in pride at their record in house building. I think some other interesting figures are worth recording. In the Statistical Abstract new house building by private persons and public utility societies is shown for a number of years. Remember the Parliamentary Secretary claimed that the necessity for local authority houses was now tapering off and that the emphasis must be put on private houses. Let us see what has been happening as far as private housing is concerned over the last few years. Let us look at this record about which the Government apparently feel they are entitled to stick out their chests.

I should say that these figures are to the 31st of March in each year. To the 31st March 1957—and remember these figures would apply to the period in office of the previous Government because the Fianna Fáil Government took office only as a result of a general election held in March, 1957—the number of new houses built by private persons and public utility societies in rural areas was 4,066 and the number built in urban areas 1,495. After Fianna Fáil had been there for a couple of years, taking the twelve months to the 31st March, 1959, we find that the number of new houses built by private persons and public utility societies in rural areas was 1,651—in other words, a decrease of 2,415 as against the year ending on the 31st March 1957. Taking the same two years again, the 31st March, 1957, as against 31st March, 1959, on the 31st March, 1957 the number of new local authority houses built in rural areas amounted to 1,617 and the number of new local authority houses built in urban areas amounted to 3,167. Two years afterwards how does Fianna Fáil's record in the field of local authority housing compare when measured against those figures? To the 31st March, 1959, the number of new houses built by local authorities in rural areas under the Fianna Fáil Government amounted to 648 as against 1,617 to the 31st March, 1957. The number of local authority houses built in urban areas for the year to the 31st March, 1959, was 1,164 or more than 2,000 fewer than the number built for the twelve months ending on the 31st March, 1957.

I wonder if in face of those figures the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance still feels he is entitled to come into the House and say he is rightly proud of the housing figures for the past year? If he is rightly proud of them and if he feels he can stick out his chest, I wonder does his Minister agree with him? Does any Deputy representing the city of Dublin agree with him? That is the Fianna Fáil record so far as housing is concerned.

Only last week or the week before we had a discussion here regarding the state of affairs existing so far as housing grants are concerned. Every Deputy knows that a situation had arisen in the Custom House where houses were passed for grants and listed for payment but the grants could not issue because the money was not there to pay them and it was necessary for the Minister for Local Government to come into the House and get a Supplementary Estimate passed in order to enable the payments to be made. There were a number of private citizens and house builders who were gravely embarrassed and financially embarrassed because the present Government had allowed that situation to develop and exist.

Deputy Corish, I think it was, when speaking here yesterday referred to a question he had asked regarding the numbers employed in local authority building for the past five or six years. If any Deputy in the benches opposite doubts the figures I have given with regard to the number of houses built by Fianna Fáil as against the number of houses built before they took office, they can check and counter check those figures by reference to the numbers employed in the building of local authority houses for the past few years.

The note I have of the figures given to Deputy Corish in reply to his question showed that the number employed in local authority building to 31st January, 1956, was 6,147; to 31st January, 1957, 4,580; for the year to 31st January, 1958, it dropped to 2,604; there was a further slight drop to 31st January, 1959, when it was 2,583 and another drop to 31st January this year, when the total was 1,781. In other words, on 31st January of the present year, there were practically 3,000 fewer persons employed in local authority building than in the year to 31st January, 1957, the last year for which the previous Government were responsible. That is the record of this Government and of the Party opposite, so far as housing is concerned.

I would advise the members of the Party opposite, particularly their Ministers and junior Ministers, to show less confidence and less complacency when dealing with this question of housing. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance must feel he has a lot of facetious Deputies behind him because one of the questions which he posed for the consideration of the members of this Assembly was whether or not any serious Deputy contended that unemployment could be ended in a short time? I want to remind the Parliamentary Secretary, and every other Deputy opposite, that that is precisely what the members of the Government Party contended before and during the last general election, and it was because they contended that, and because they persuaded the voters that they were right in their contention, that they now form the Government.

If any Deputy opposite does not believe what I am saying, I would refer him to the Fianna Fáil pamphlet which was produced during the last general election to persuade the people to give their votes to Fianna Fáil and to entrust the Fianna Fáil Party with the government of this country. The Parliamentary Secretary now asks if any serious Deputy can contend that unemployment can be ended in a short time. This Fianna Fáil pamphlet has a big black heading on page 3, "Action Can Start Now", and the article starts this way:

Over 90,000 people are now out of work. The Coalition say they can do nothing for them now. Fianna Fáil believes that work must be provided at once...

and the words "at once" are in italics. Surely that was contending exactly what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance now says cannot be contended by any Deputy who approaches this problem seriously? Every member of the Fianna Fáil Party occupying a seat in Dáil Éireann is there partly because of his success, or the success of his Party, in persuading the voters that Fianna Fáil could do something immediately in regard to putting people back into employment. I do not think it necessary for me to labour at any great length the fact that that was the Fianna Fáil effort and their campaign during the general election.

We have already had—not in this debate but in other debates—some quotations from speeches of the Taoiseach during the course of the general election campaign, and every one of us remembers the posters with which the Fianna Fáil Party candidates placarded every wall up and down the country, the notorious posters addressed to the housewives of this country: "Wives Get Your Husbands Off To Work—Vote Fianna Fáil." We remember the theme of the propaganda that unemployment was the test of Government policy and that no Government policy was good enough which allowed any people to remain out of work or in idleness. What is the record of the Government since taking office in March, 1957?

At the end of last year, just before Christmas, we had an opportunity of discussing that record in this House on the occasion of the Adjournment Motion. I want to go back on that because I have not heard any explanation, which is satisfactory to me in any event, of the figures given by the Taoiseach in reply to a question put by Deputy T. Lynch on 11th November, 1959. I propose examining those figures again and asking the Minister for Finance to say, when replying to this debate, if he can give any better explanation for them than that which was attempted by the Taoiseach and some other Fianna Fáil speakers when they immediately sounded the retreat after the figures had been published and appeared in the Official Report. All of us recall how, as soon as the seriousness of the position as disclosed by the reply given to that question was apparent, the bugle sounded immediately and the Government went into a huddle to try to give this House some explanation which would prove that the position was other than as disclosed in the reply to that question.

According to the figures given by the Taoiseach on 11th November last, there were approximately 41,000 people fewer in employment in the year ended 31st March, 1959, than there were in the year ended 31st March, 1956, based on the estimate of the number of persons in insurable employment. That was after two or 2¼ years of Fianna Fáil Government. They had succeeded in driving 41,000 people out of employment, 41,000 people who were in jobs, who were earning their living in this country at the time Fianna Fáil were sticking up their posters "Wives Get Your Husbands Off To Work." At the time Fianna Fáil speakers were campaigning through the country, promising action at once as far as the unemployed were concerned, there were 41,000 people earning their living in jobs and those people, two or 2¼ years later, under a Fianna Fáil Government, found themselves out of jobs and, presumably, either having to sign on at the labour exchange or emigrate and look for work elsewhere. Those are not figures that are manufactured by anyone on this side of the House. They are figures issued by the Taoiseach's Department in reply to a Parliamentary Question.

Fianna Fáil have failed dismally on the housing programme. They have a dreary, dismal record. It is one of God's mercies to them that the Deputies now in Opposition did not take advantage of that position as Fianna Fáil Deputies did when they were on this side of the House and it is another of God's mercies to the Fianna Fáil Party that the Government's political opponents do not control a powerful string of newspapers to give publicity to the position existing over the past few years, as far as housing is concerned, because if there were publicity or even half the magnitude of that given by the Fianna Fáil string of Party newspapers in 1956, the Government would not have lasted for six months.

Fianna Fáil have failed in housing. They have failed in dealing with the unemployment situation. I do not think it necessary to dwell at any length on the question of emigration. I do not believe that even Fianna Fáil Deputies, even if they tried to whistle up the same type of confidence as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance endeavoured to whistle up when speaking in this debate, are foolish enough to feel complacent as regards emigration. There may or may not be a slight improvement in the emigration figures, but, whether there is an improvement or not, every Deputy, no matter which side of the House he occupies, will concede that emigration is running and continuing to run at too high a figure and there is nothing the Fianna Fáil Government have done since they came back to office that has alleviated that position.

I shall not rub their noses in quotations any further. I invite them to look back over the propaganda which they issued during the last general election and they will find that they dealt with the question of emigration in exactly the same way as they dealt with the question of unemployment.

There is one other topic I want to refer to, that is, the cost of living. Before Fianna Fáil succeeded in getting themselves elected Government at the last general election, the Government immediately preceding them had faced an extremely difficult year. It had faced a year in which a balance of payments problem arose and had to be dealt with. As a result of the political and moral courage of the members of that Government in dealing with that problem, they incurred, and knew they would incur, a certain amount of political unpopularity, but I think it is true, and I think it will be conceded even by their political opponents, that one thing which ran through every action of the previous Government, one motive which was there all the time, was to try to minimise the effect on the weaker sections of the community of any of the actions which it was necessary to take, and right throughout the period of office of that Government, and indeed of the previous inter-Party Government, all the time they were in office, they did whatever they could by Governmental action to cushion the weaker sections of the community against anything in the nature of increases in the cost of living or anything which might affect their standard of living.

When the previous Government were in office, one of the matters in respect of which the Fianna Fáil Party campaigned against them was the question of the levies which were introduced and, generally, the question of the cost of living. We now have it on record from the Taoiseach that the action which the inter-Party Government took, in face of the balance of payments problem, was an action which remedied the situation. Speaking in this House on 14th May, 1957, the Taoiseach, who was then Tánaiste, dealing with the action taken by his predecessors in office in connection with the balance of payments problem said, at column 1151:

I did not think they were dealing with it the right way but we certainly recognised their obligation to do something about it and as a result of the measures they took that balance of payments problem was solved for the time being.

So that, at last, we have it on record now from the head of the Government that when he and his colleagues took office, the danger and the problem which had arisen regarding the balance of payments was solved and that it was solved by the action of his predecessors.

Since the Fianna Fáil Party came back to office, I do not think they can afford to be complacent with regard to trade figures to-day, with regard to the question of the balance of payments. In any event, the point I want to make is that whatever problems existed in that respect before they came into office were solved by the methods taken by their predecessors and yet, when Fianna Fáil came back to office, despite what I believe were at least implicit commitments to the electorate not to increase food prices or not to increase the cost of living, the Fianna Fáil Party, in their very first Budget, increased the cost of living by deliberately removing food subsidies and shoving up food prices.

I tabled a Parliamentary Question on 9th December last, in which I asked the Taoiseach to state the commodities included in the calculation of the cost-of-living index figure which have increased in price since March, 1957, and the price of such commodities on 1st March, 1957, and the latest convenient date, and the percentage increase in each case. I got a reply from the Taoiseach's Department in which 197 items were listed, items which were included in the calculation of the cost-of-living index figure and, since March, 1957, since the Fianna Fáil Government took office, 149 out of those 197 items had increased in price. There were decreases in 42 of the 197 items and there were six where the prices were unchanged. That is the Fianna Fáil record so far as the cost of living is concerned and so far as prices are concerned. I do not believe that any member of the Fianna Fáil Party, indeed any member of this House, can feel in any way complacent with regard to the Government's record. They have now well passed the half-way mark of the lifetime of this Dáil. Unless they are able to render a very much better account of their stewardship, whenever the next general election takes place, than they can now after three years in office, I have no doubt at all that they will get an opportunity from the people of resting from their political activities for some time. would consider it cheap and false if The Government will shortly be introducing their Budget and presumably on that occasion they will lay down the pattern of their financial policy for the next 12 months. I should like to express the hope, although I believe it is a forlorn one having regard to the record size of the Estimates introduced by the Minister, that some consideration will be given to the taxpayers. I do not want to go into that subject now but I do feel that practically every section of the community has been harshly treated by the operation of the policies of the Government. The people have been badly let down by the Government in their last three years in office. Without wishing for the success of the Fianna Fáil Party at the next or future elections, for the sake of the people I hope Fianna Fáil will now pull up their socks, take off their coats and, for the remainder of the lifetime of this Dáil, "get cracking."

I do not intend to take the line pursued by some previous speakers, on the one hand deploring the increase in the amount of the Estimates and, on the other hand, regretting that bigger allowances are not given for certain services. I have always held that if services are to be provided and improved services demanded, whether at national or local authority level, these can only be given at an increased cost and that that would be reflected either at local authority level in increased rates or at national level in increased taxation.

I have no quarrel with the fact that the Estimates produced each year over the past number of years show an ever-increasing figure, because I am aware that the people have kept up a steady clamour through their representatives in this House for an ever-increasing standard of benefits. I am one who is unrepentant in the belief that the people have not, as yet, reached the pinnacle of the benefits they need, particularly those in the social welfare group. Because other members of my Party and I will be asking the Minister for Finance to remember that and to alter that position by increasing the benefits, I we made any complaint about the increase in the amount of the Estimates.

If I had any quarrel it would be rather by way of pointing out, if I could, where the amount of money spent was not being used to the best advantage; or, if I could, pointing out where savings could be made which would in no way interfere with the services given. I consider that the most important service a Government can give a country is the promotion of the employment of the people. To that end the spending of any money, however great, is, in my opinion, justified. It is justified because a country with full employment has a happy and contented people who carry out their function in life by earning their living and rearing their families secure in the knowledge that they will be able to provide for them.

Money spent in the promotion of industry or, in other words, in the giving of employment in any sphere, will be repaid not only by the contentment and happiness given to the people but in actual cash by savings under the heading of social welfare benefits which will not be required, such as unemployment and various other benefits which have to be given to them to enable them to exist during periods of unemployment.

The Fianna Fáil Party have adopted that as a policy. If we are to accept their Programme for Economic Expansion I would call it an avowal of a policy of the pumping into industry, be it agricultural or other industry, of the money necessary to create more employment. I agree with that policy and in so far as the Fianna Fáil Government will attempt to carry out that programme they will receive no criticism from me or from any other member of my Party.

Deputy Sweetman, speaking here last evening, gave some facts and figures in relation to employment content over the years 1957, 1958 and 1959. The test of whether the Fianna Fáil policy of economic expansion has been successful during the past year can be measured by the increased employment resulting therefrom. Deputy Sweetman, being a member of the Front Bench Opposition, would naturally paint a picture which would not show the Government in the best light possible, to say the least of it. Notwithstanding the fact that he was speaking as a member of the Opposition, there is no gainsaying the figures he produced from statistics obtained from Government sources in reply to Parliamentary Questions. It must be clear, having made due allowance for the colouring which perhaps Deputy Sweetman or any of us on the Opposition side might give to a speech, that no matter how you examine the figures, you cannot show any progress along the road of increased employment.

Even today from the trade returns published in the daily newspapers, and measured by that standard, we find that the year 1959 ended up with £1,500,000 less exported than in the previous year. Let me hasten to add that it was heartening to see the much greater volume of industrial goods which were exported this year as compared with last year, which almost offset the falling off in the export of livestock. In as far as that is a proof of industrial expansion, I and other members of my Party welcome it.

It is true that there is another side to the picture. Our imports were of such a magnitude as to give one reason to think that perhaps some of our exports were but re-exports of industrial products which came in here and were re-exported after assembly and which have but a very small employment content. I do not need to produce any sets of figures from the Statistical Abstract to prove that there is unemployment. Anyone who stands in any railway station, or in any bus depot in any town, village or city in Ireland, can have all the necessary evidence of boys and girls, young men and young women, leaving the country to seek the employment which is not available here for them.

I am quite well aware that members on the other side of the House will remind me of the figures in the live register. I am quite well aware of them. I know that if these are compared with last year's and with the previous year's and still more, compared with the figures of the year previous to that, they will show a steady decline. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that increased employment is not the reason for that decline. Rather is it that the people have given up all hope of securing employment in this country and have emigrated and the vast majority of them are taking up permanent residence in Britain.

Within the past year, at least in the area which I live, it has become a common sight, to see not the father or the son or the daughter emigrating to secure employment to feed their dependents at home, but to see the entire family, father, mother and children, selling their furniture, giving up their home to take up employment, mainly in Great Britain. That is a deplorable position and it is against that background that the Minister for Industry and Commerce was reported in the national papers a few weeks ago as saying that the young people "never had it so good". Outside of the fact that the expression "never had it so good" is but a parrot catch cry and a repetition of the Conservative slogan in Britain during the last election, one would think that the man with the main responsibility for the promotion of industry would bow his head in shame at a time when two out of every three young people born into any family in this country have to emigrate, rather than use the expression "the young people never had it so good".

I do not know what his contrast is but I suggest that the only improvement that can be claimed for the young people is an improvement in contrast to conditions at the time of the Famine. Surely there is no great glory in saying that related to the time of the Famine, things are much better. There is a barometer used by trade unionists to test the trend of employment. Trade unionists have noticed from experience that if things are improving, if money is plentiful, the building trade group will be kept busily engaged. On the other hand, when a depression is setting in or when times are bad, those engaged in the building industry are unemployed. If we are to test the prosperity or the depression of this country by that barometer, I am afraid the figures are against anyone claiming credit for what is happening.

Information, in the form of a tabular statement, was given in reply to a Dáil question tabled by Deputy Corish yesterday. The figures show the number of men employed on local authority housing schemes. The date is 31st January in each case: 1956, 6,147; 1957, 4,580; 1958, 2,604; 1959, 2,583; and at 31st January, this year, 1,781. If a barometer reading of a reduction from 6,000 to 1,500, approximately, is to be taken as an indication of the condition the country is in, then we may expect, and know, that we are in for a very bad time.

I am aware that could be answered by such statements as: "The needs of the working classes have now been almost met", "Local authority house building is falling off", but Deputy M.J. O'Higgins, a few moments ago, gave the complete answer to that suggestion. He proved conclusively, with official figures, that not only in local authority housing, but also in private building under the S.D.A. or any other scheme, the employment content is gradually growing smaller. How then are we to face the years to come with complacency?

I should like to point out that, while I am in no way against the progressive use of machinery, it has been made abundantly clear to those of us in the Labour Party who are members of local authorities, that the excessive use of unnecessary machinery on road work has had a deplorable effect on the employment content of the money used for road repairs. I know it is generally pointed out that if we watch Great Britain and America, our old-fashioned manual methods can be put to shame by the advanced techniques and machinery used in those highly-advanced countries. I would remind Deputies that in Great Britain and, to a certain extent, in America, the shortage is a shortage of man-power. They have more jobs to give than people to fill them. In Ireland, unfortunately, the reverse is true, and what we have in most plentiful supply are unemployed men and women seeking employment. If, in America and Great Britain, man-power is diverted from manual employment where machinery can do the work, a certain number of those who are diverted will be taken up in producing the machines which replace them.

Unfortunately, that is not true of this country where heavy industries are practically non-existent. From the economic point of view, it has been made clear in most estimates of local authorities which I have read, that there is no actual saving in cost per mile of road surface where the work is carried out with the most up-to-date machinery, as compared with manual work carried out a number of years ago.

That would seem to be a matter for the Estimate for Local Government.

I bow to your ruling, Sir, but I suggest that what I am trying to show to the House with regard to this talk of efficiency and improved methods, is the fact that while that might be an excellent thing for a country with a shortage of man-power, it could be a dreadful thing for a country like this where there is insufficient employment. I shall pass on and leave it at that, in deference to your ruling, Sir.

Last evening, Deputy Corish drew attention to the fact that it was always the manual worker who was expected to make the increased effort to produce more, so that we can all live in comfort. Productivity has been screamed at us from Press and radio for the past two years, in fact, practically ever since the Programme for Economic Expansion was produced. We have had Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, company directors, professors, and managers of businesses, giving their comments, and their recommendations to the workers to produce more. We have had learned professors, Senators from the other House, in a certain Sunday newspaper, indicating to the working people what they should do. I would recommend to Deputies a statement of the workers' side which appeared in an open letter in the Sunday Press, last Sunday week, from the President of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union. In that letter, he replied to a good deal of the criticism and the suggestions about how increased productivity could be achieved.

I want to repeat something I said here this time two years ago. If there is, and I believe there is, such a call for increased productivity, it is the duty of the Government to set up some form of legislative body that will ensure to the workers the right to meet the employers at some level, so that they may have some say in how the savings or the increased profits accruing from their increased productivity will be used.

That is frequently done.

Not by Government legislation, surely.

By good management in factories.

By good management, certainly, but unfortunately, where there is not good management in factories, it is not done. I suggest that is in the national interest and that the Government would be doing a good day's work if, on the same basis as they formed savings committees and safety committees, jointly, between management and workers, they set up a committee——

They have a bonus system.

I know of the incentive bonus scheme but that is a different thing altogether.

It is a reward for extra production.

If a worker receives an incentive bonus and goes on to earn more wages, it would appear to be a good thing for him and for the country. But if, because of his increased activities and earning of more wages, at the end of a period the costings of the article he manufactures were not reduced, there would be a danger that he would work himself out of a job whereas, if the savings and profits earned by increased productivity were to reduce the costings of the article manufactured and that in turn could be exported in a more plentiful supply, it would be a continuous improvement in the manufacture of the articles and in their sale abroad.

If workers could be sure that some portion of the increased effort produced by them was diverted to reducing costs so that more employment would be created they would enter into it with a much greater effort and a much greater amount of confidence. Unfortunately, the effort thrown in by the workers has in the past, in many cases, been used either to swell directors' profits or fees or been used in the form of share bonuses for shareholders.

It is true that the trade unions have taken good care to see that their workers secure a proportionate increase of the effort they give; I suggest that, with the knowledge that this would be used, not for personal gain on either side, but for a greater national effort in output that would secure a continuity of employment, we would have much greater co-operation from the workers' side.

If the trade unions demand increased pay for increased work I suggest that that, of itself, is not a bad thing. If anything, I believe this country is suffering from the fact that the wage structure of the ordinary working people is in a deplorable state. We are told, and I expect it is correct, that agriculture is our main industry. We are pumping into that main industry about £12 million a year in the form of grants. If we are to believe the Agricultural Wages Board, the total amount of wages that can be paid by this, our major industry, is £5-5s per week for a fully trained adult worker. I have no particular knowledge of agriculture but if that is correct, then unfortunately we are leaning on a very broken reed.

The industry that can give only that starvation wage does not deserve to exist. It is true that many farmers claim that they exist at an even lower level than that of their paid help. If that claim is true—I have no means of disproving it—then agriculture in this country must be in a pitiable condition. If wages were stepped up, the products for which the farmers now claim they cannot get a decent price—products which they claim would remain unsold if they increased their production—would, in turn, be consumed by the urban workers. It is regrettable on the one hand that our agricultural community are claiming they have an abundance of products for which there is no sale while we know that in the City of Dublin and in many cities and towns throughout Ireland there are people hungry because they have not sufficient money to buy the produce they so badly need.

There is just one other point on which I should like to touch before concluding—the question of the tourist industry in this country. While welcoming every effort by this or any other Government or anybody in this country to attract people from outside our shores to spend their holidays here, I believe we are geared to too rich a type of visitor for this type of country. Luxurious hotels at costly charges will not be attractive to the ordinary British workman. I believe that the ordinary worker in Great Britain, his wife and his family, are the source most likely to supply us with our tourists.

It is quite true that rich American families on the grand tour of Europe may call in for a short period to see the Lakes of Killarney or to visit some other beauty spot in this country. It is more particularly true that people with Irish blood in their veins may call at some period to trace their ancestry. However, on the whole, the tourist trade in this country must depend on the neighbouring island and on the ordinary men and women there.

I could not be loud enough in my praise for those organisations, be they Bord Fáilte or local development groups, which are promoting the fishing competitions and fishing contests that have been so successful in many parts of the country. I suggest that the hundreds of thousands of our Irish exiles in Great Britain should be supplied, through local development organisations in each town and area, with free literature, be they leaflets, photographs or brochures of any kind, that they could distribute in Great Britain. I think that not half enough effort is spent on bringing home to the ordinary men and women not so much the attractions of Ireland as the cheapness of the accommodation and the goodness of our food. I believe that an ordinary worker, having completed fifty weeks of employment, is more attracted to a relaxing and carefree holiday at cheap cost in a country that will be a change from his own than——

That would be more appropriate on the main Estimate on Tourism.

I agree. It is pretty difficult to make one's point without going into some detail. I believe that one of the main factors in encouraging tourism in this country will be the improvement of the method of transport of our visitors from Great Britain to Ireland in the passenger ships. Any effort to improve our tourist industry should be directed towards improving the conditions under which tourists travel, if necessary even by some subvention in the way of a small payment towards the cost in the slack season period.

It is with regret that I note there is some reduction in the Estimate for Social Services. While it would not be reasonable to suggest that the Minister has no intention of improving the lot of the old, the widow and the unemployment assistance groups in his coming Budget, the fact that the Minister for Social Welfare has not increased his Estimate, augurs very badly for them and that there is, in actual fact, a cut or a saving.

If there is a saving, I cannot see where is must come from other than from the local authorities. If there is any tightening up—I know this is denied by the Parliamentary Secretary —in the regulations or conditions under which benefits are got and which has caused the saving, those deprived of their benefits will have to be assisted from local rates. I would regret any effort to reduce still further the position of those people who even at the moment are in such dire need.

I should like to conclude by pointing out that what we need most in this country to carry out the programme of Fianna Fáil or the programme of any other group in this country who are minded to improve the lot of the people is money. It is my honest belief that no Government in this country will ever succeed in getting us out of the position we occupy at the present moment, unless they take their courage in their hands and secure some kind of control over both the banking and the insurance systems.

In these two spheres, there is the means of carrying out an economic programme. In these two systems, there is the means of improving our social welfare services. I look forward to the day when some Government in this country will secure to themselves the right to say where the money secured by these groups should go, and not only that, but see to it that most of the money is returned to uplift the people who have made it possible both for banks and insurance companies to prosper.

The general trend of criticism in the activities of the different Parties in this House seems to be a criticism of housing. At the same time, we have a general wail about emigration. If all those thousands are leaving the country, one wonders what the houses are there for. Members of every Party jump up here and claim that they built so many thousands of houses in their time. One member says that they built so many thousands in their time and then, according as each Party changes place, we have a howl about the thousands who emigrate. If the thousands are emigrating, who occupies the houses they are leaving? What is all the shouting about houses for?

I listened to Deputy M.J. O'Higgins on that matter and I felt rather amused. He knows the condition of affairs under which his Party left office. He knows the condition of affairs in regard to loans outstanding to Cork County Council and to the thousands of people, newly married people, who had applied for grants and loans to build their houses and the loans were not forthcoming. He knows the number of contractors who were broken and the number of builders providers who had to go out of business as well. He knew all that when he got up to speak here. He knew the step Deputy Sweetman took to prevent any further local authority housing from going ahead.

I remember coming in here and raising a question with the then Minister for Local Government, Deputy O'Donnell, in regard to a scheme of houses in Ballinacurra in my district. I do not know how he managed it but he produced the result of an inquiry by a Local Government official and a refusal was given in regard to the site because there was no water supply. That was in 1956 but, lo and behold, on that very same site today houses are being built with the sanction of the Minister for Local Government who apparently succeeded in striking the rock, like Moses, and produced the water out of the watermain that for the past 25 years has been running in front of that site. That is the kind of stuff you got and that is the manner in which housing was held up. Any Deputy who is interested, can go to the library and he will find Deputy O'Donnell's statement on the Ballinacurra housing scheme and the results of the inspector's inquiry in 1956. It is down there in the Official Report and Deputies can go down and have a look at it. When I stated that there was a watermain in front of this site, I was laughed at by the Minister for Local Government. Those are the facts.

Again, we are accused here in regard to salaries. The vast bulk of the increase was on salaries for civil servants and others. They can apportion the blame now as I read this out. I want to take the case of the civil servant who had £915 a year in 1947. In 1948 he got an increase of £50 per year. In 1951 he got a further increase of £106 a year. In 1953 he got a further increase of £64 a year. In 1955 he got an additional increase of £84 a year. In 1958 he got an increase of £26 a year and in 1960 he has got an increase of £78 a year. That is £408 of an increase per year for the civil servant who had £915 in 1947. I have called out the years and the blame can be apportioned during that period. Apparently some genius of a judge—I suppose he is another civil servant—decided that the cost of living had gone up and that they were entitled to this. That man had practically an increase of 50 per cent. in his salary from 1947 to 1960. The 50 per cent. increase, in the Estimates for the Civil Service over these years now amounts to £17 million. There it is, and it is simple enough for anybody to understand.

We heard Deputy Kyne complain about the wages of the agricultural workers. If I had my way, I would put the wages of agricultural workers on a higher plane than those of industrial workers. The agricultural workers have to be far more skilled, but out of what are they to be paid? In 1948 the farmer got £24 per ton for feeding barley; this year it is £19. He got £33 10s. per ton for wheat; it is now £28. The price of milk has not changed since 1948 and, if we are to take the tape measure on which all those other increases were given to the civil servants and apply it to agriculture, it works out this way. Beet, the price of which is based on the cost of production, has increased in the meantime from £4 8s. per ton to £6 8s. per ton. That means the cost of production on the land has gone up to that extent while the price paid to the farmer has gone down.

When I hear people here sneering, particularly Deputies representing Dublin, at the agricultural community, I feel like telling them that the largest industry in this city practically owes its existence to the subsidy the farmers pay for it. Some three years ago we had a conference with Arthur Guinness and Son and they said that the agricultural community do not contribute to exports. Forty per cent. of the production of Arthur Guinness is for home consumption while 60 per cent. is for export to go into competition with the products of the British brewers. They asked us if we were prepared to help them out in that regard. When we examined the figures we found that although the British farmer has a guaranteed price of 58s. per barrel for barley, the British brewer is paying only 44s. a barrel for it.

We supplied 466,000 barrels of barley last year for brewing. In plain language we contributed—in order to keep that industry going and to provide employment in Dublin—out of the sweat of the farmers' brows, £480,000.

This, I would point out to the Deputy, is not the Estimate for Agriculture. It is the Vote on Account. The Deputy is going into too much detail.

There seems to be a horror of anybody saying anything about agriculture. I am speaking of employment and the number at present employed in Dublin in one industry, due to the assistance given by the farmers in helping out on prices to provide an export market. That is just one instance of what is happening. When examining the position in regard to employment, you must consider many things. There has been a rush by Governments here for the export market. In my early days in Sinn Féin we learned first the policy of self-sufficiency. Unfortunately, Governments are apt to close their eyes to the markets at home and not to bother much about ways and means of supplying them.

Anybody studying trade and shipping statistics in the Library will find some amazing things. For example, he will find that we imported £2,000,000 worth of cane sugar last year, 64,000 tons. There is £2,000,000 on to your adverse trade balance. You also find that we exported 34,000 tons of sugar and sugar products last year and we paid the amazing sum of £855,000 for the privilege of sending that across the water to Britain. I raised the matter here and I found, to be quite frank, that those dealing with it did not know their subject. They said we were getting the very same conditions as Commonwealth countries are getting. What is the position? The Cubans are guaranteed a market by the American Government at somewhere between £54 and £60 a ton for their sugar. What they have left is thrown on the surplus market and that is what we get.

May I again point out to the Deputy that he may speak only on general policy? He may not discuss any matter like that in detail.

This is definitely very general policy.

It is the policy under which the farmers must decide whether to increase production or not. There is a market of £2,000,000 here on the one hand and a body of small tillage farmers on the other who signed contracts this year for 96,000 acres of beet and who were told that only 66,000 acres were required. There are 30,000 acres of beet—sufficient to fill that £2,000,000 gap. We are entitled to know what is wrong. It is this: on the one hand you have a trick under which agreements that were made are by-passed. Commonwealth sugar is entering Britain today at a price £14 per ton better than the price of Irish sugar. I admit the Irish Sugar Company pays the same duty and the same levy.

The Deputy has said sufficient about sugar. Will he kindly come back to the Vote on Account?

The Deputy intends proving his case and showing the Government where they can save £2 million of the adverse trade balance.

I am warning the Deputy that he may not continue on that line any longer.

Very well, Sir; I shall take another line. In answer to a question here on 17th February, I was informed by the Minister that £1,462,344 worth of agricultural machinery was imported from Britain. Is there not an opportunity for establishing an industry there and giving employment to the thousands Deputy Kyne says have to emigrate? I should like the Minister to examine that matter.

In reply to a further question, the Minister also told me:

Certain agricultural implements, and their component parts, designed for operation by a mechanically propelled vehicle are liable to Custom's duty at the rate of 37½ per cent. ad valorem (full) or 25 per cent. ad valorem (preferential, applicable to goods of United Kingdom or Canadian origin).

Twenty-five per cent. of £1,462,000 is £365,000—or at least it was when I went to school. Last Wednesday, I asked the Minister if he would tell me the total amount of tax levied and customs duty collected on agricultural machinery imported from Britain in the years 1958 and 1959. The House will remember that the figure for those imports is £1,400,000 and the duty is 25 per cent. The reply I got was:

The total amount of customs duties collected on agricultural machinery imported from Britain in the years 1958 and 1959 were respectively £36,500 and £35,000 approximately.

Twenty-five per cent. of £1,400,000 amounted to £36,000! Has somebody forgotten a nought?

However, that is beside the point. I suggest there is undoubtedly an opportunity there. Judging by the figures, there is evidently a very considerable market for such machinery in this country. There was an import of £757,000 worth of agricultural machinery from other countries as well, making a total £2,000,000 worth of agricultural machinery coming into this country each year. Surely the Government should examine that matter? I have repeatedly referred to the position this country would be in, if there were a war tomorrow. Within 12 months, every foreign tractor and item of agricultural machinery would be thrown in the dyke because there would be no parts for them. I suggest to the Minister that there is room here for the manufacture of tractors and other agricultural machinery and that employment could be given to at least 1,000 or 2,000 men.

In 1953, this House voted £250,000 for the expansion and extension of the steel industry at Haulbowline. The Government went out of office and I do not know what became of the £250,000. I suppose it was levied off the people in one way or another. In any event, the £250,000 disappeared and there was no expansion or extension in Haulbowline from 1954 to 1957. Today, however employment in that industry is increasing at the rate of between 25 and 50 men a week. That is a happy position for any industry to be in. Undoubtedly, the change of Government has saved that industry and has resulted in an enormous increase in employment.

Only a few months ago, I had the pleasure of seeing 43 young men from the locality sent out to Holland to learn the trade of shipbuilding for the Rushbrooke Dockyard. Again, that is a happy augury for the future. I understand that three teams of 40 are to be sent out for such training. When those lads come back trained, it will mean that, instead of foreigners, our own skilled people will be in charge of that industry. We shall not have the Irish as merely the hewers of wood and the drawers of water.

I can see all these changes going on around me. There is also the position at Whitegate. A very notable statement was made by my former colleague in this House, Mr. P.J. O'Gorman. I remember seeing Deputy Palmer strolling around Youghal during a by-election, knocking at the doors and being told: "My husband is in England. What can I do?"

Deputy Corry was not very far behind me.

Perhaps the Deputy will conduct himself. There has been a change since that time, since the palmy days when Deputy Palmer was canvassing in the by-election. We have the pleasure now of hearing the former Deputy O'Gorman welcoming people to the town of Youghal, a town in which he said there is no unemployment and everyone is working.

Deputy Corry was the first to welcome me there on the occasion he now mentions.

I did and I produced good results, as I always do.

They are all working on Youghal Bridge now.

Deputy Corry should come back to the Vote on Account.

I saved the ratepayers down there £200,000 on the building of that bridge. The consulting engineer reduced his estimate by £200,000 all in a day.

The Deputy should come to the Vote on Account.

I cannot help answering, Sir, when I am interrupted. However, I am giving the history of each town in my constituency as I go on. That is the position in Youghal. I have already described the position in Cobh and am also happy to say that, thanks to the late William Dwyer, God rest his soul, there is no unemployment in the town of Midleton, either. That is the general position in my constituency as far as industry is concerned and I wish I could say the same for the agricultural community. Undoubtedly there is something wrong when, on the one hand, there are cries for increased production and people are anxious for increased production, while, on the other hand, there is a prohibition against producing more.

Only the year before last, the prohibition took the form of a fine of 5/9d. on a barrel of wheat because our farmers were producing too much wheat. As I pointed out a few minutes ago, this year, we had a position in which the farmers were prepared to produce an extra £2,000,000 worth of sugar beet and it should not be beyond the capabilities of Ministers, or Departments, to devise some means of preventing Britain from putting a £14 a ton barrier on Irish sugar exported there. Surely that is an extraordinary state of affairs when one recalls that some years back—I cannot recall the exact date—the tax was taken off British sugar coming in here and has never been imposed since, although the British are charging a 52 per cent. duty and levy on our sugar going into Britain. What a joke that is!

I suggest to the Minister that he has bargaining power which he could use—there is no doubt about that— and which could mean an awful lot to us. It could mean an awful lot to the livelihoods of a large section of my constituents, extending from my own house down to Youghal. That part of the county lives on beet, barley and wheat. There is something like 35/- an acre poor law valuation on the land there and I believe the people are paying over £2 in the £1 this year in rates. At the same time, the rates have gone up by something like 75 per cent. in 10 years, while the price of what these people produce has gone down by something like 30 per cent. in the same period. Then we have Deputy Kyne wondering why there is not more employment on the land. I thank God that the unfortunate people have somewhere to go off the land.

The price of Irish beet to-day, and the price of Irish sugar is based, among other things, on about £5-11-0 a week for an agricultural labourer and one could hardly get anybody to sweep the floor in any kind of factory for that amount. Still, we have suggestions that we could produce more cheaply. It is good that we have the costings on something and that we have some basis on which to work. However, I do not intend pursuing that matter further. I am sure the Minister will use his good offices in this connection because his constituency is like my own, a constituency of ordinary, hard-working, tillage farmers and it is up to him, as to me, to do something about the situation.

As was my duty, I have consulted the general manager of the Irish Sugar Company and he assures me that the factory in Mallow and one other factory could be extended to take an extra 500 tons of beet a day. That would fill the whole gap. With the high production of beet this year, the factories had to work very hard and, instead of 1,700 tons of beet a day, they cleared something like 2,500 tons a day, and were working 105 days during the campaign season in Mallow. By expanding the factories, extra production could be coped with. The farmers are prepared to produce so why not go ahead on those lines?

Boards are periodically set up by this House but they are completely removed from the jurisdiction and the control of this House. They are little dictatorships on their own and I suggest to the Minister that it would be wise to bring those boards under the control of this House, or that there should be somebody in the House prepared to answer for them.

The Deputy is not in order in advocating legislation.

I do not think any legislation is needed. I am certain that if I were one half-hour in the job, I would have them all wiped out.

Would you send them to Sing Sing?

I want to be quite frank about it. People who are anxious to establish or to expand industries in my constituency from time to time find themselves pushed aside. There is no money available, no grants available, nothing available to the Irish citizen who wants to expand industry and give employment. A Deputy who puts down a Parliamentary Question is informed that the Minister is not responsible. Who is responsible? Whose money are they using? These matters need full investigation in the House.

Possibly, but not just on the vote on Account.

We shall find a way of doing it. I have found ways of doing many things in my time. But for the operations of those gentlemen I would have a far happier picture to point of the town of Fermoy than I have at present. The town of Fermoy is a worry. There is a big unemployment problem there, of men who should not be unemployed and I can assure Deputy McAuliffe that that would not be so but for the fact that areas were taken away from me.

The "curate" was done out of his job.

There are people who are anxious to expand industries there and to give employment. I suggest to the Minister that he should use his good offices on their behalf. I suppose I cannot say more than that on this Estimate. I have given the reason for the increases that are, unfortunately, to be seen in the Book of Estimates. There is £17 million for the Civil Service. That is a tale of woe. I have given the increases given periodically. They were given every two or three years—1948, 1951, 1953, 1955, 1958 and 1960. Therefore, neither side of the House can claim that they reduced the cost of living because these increases were based on increases in the cost of living. The gentleman who had £916 in 1947 got £408 more because of increases in the cost of living. I hope that when our Bill is discussed next week the Minister will think of that.

Deputy Corry spoke for nearly three-quarters of an hour and I do not think that anyone in the Opposition could put forward such a scathing indictment of the Government as he did. Although he is a supporter of the present Administration, I did not hear him say one word in support of their policy or in favour of anything they have done, not only in their present term of office, but in their other terms of office to which he referred.

We have to judge the Government's general policy on this Vote on Account. The first thing that strikes one is the increase of £7 million. The second is that it is the taxpayers who will have to pay the bill and the taxpayers are not as strong numerically as they were 12 months ago. In other words, there is an ever-increasing rate of expenditure and an ever-dwindling population to pay it. That is the strongest indictment I can offer of a Government with a huge majority such as the Government have, free to do anything they want to do, free to implement and policy, free from worry about the division bell and the anxieties associated with narrow majorities. Yet, all they can do is to present us with an enormous bill, while the economic condition of the country is unsatisfactory, as is perfectly plain, no matter how anyone may try to gloss over the fact.

Were it not for the increase in exports of industrial goods in the past couple of months, we should be facing a financial crisis. No matter what economists, bankers, Ministers or senior civil servants may say, the balance of payments position must be a cause of disquiet. When one finds a decline in the exports of the principal industry, the fundamental industry, the root of our economy, naturally there is cause for serious anxiety. There is no use in a Government who have been three years in office presenting us with this enormous bill, unless they have some policy to implement and some slight hope to offer to the citizens.

I thought Deputy Kyne made a very reasonable contribution to the debate. He stressed one point which I think is most serious, namely, that instead of the breadwinner or the grown-up children of a family emigrating, as was the practice formerly, whole families are now going away, that people are turning their backs on this country, selling their furniture, closing up their homes and starting a new life in another part of the world. That is an indictment of the Government and of Ministers who come in here and speak of their policy without indicating what that policy is. As far as I can see, they have no policy except to try to struggle on from day to day and week to week.

As Deputy Corry very truly said, they are establishing boards divorced from the administration of the country and divorced from political control, and State funds are being pumped into these boards. That is the only thing they have offered to Parliament since they became the Government over three years ago.

Anyone who has a family, anyone who has to earn a livelihood, is naturally anxious that the Government should have something to offer the country. The change in political outlook in this country and in the countries with which we trade, the recent decisions taken by other countries to liberalise trade—such things cannot pass us by.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 10th March, 1960.
Top
Share