Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 15 Mar 1960

Vol. 180 No. 4

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

Mr. Casey

When I moved to report progress on Thursday last, I was commenting on the speech by the speaker who preceded me, the Minister for Transport and Power. He expressed the wish that the House and the country should get away from the gloomy speeches and utterances of recent times and that we should have confidence in the Government and the county. Briefly, I pointed out to him that I personally, and I am sure the Labour Party, would not wish to hinder him in any way in his ambitions in that direction but I felt that the wish he expressed was very unrealistic because there was a really gloomy atmosphere pervading the country at the moment and that the Government could not just wish themselves out of the situation. I felt that the only way in which that could be rectified was by actions of the Government which would convey to the people that there was a definite programme and a definite policy before them which would get them out of the situation in which they now find themselves.

This debate affords the House the opportunity to reflect on the performance of the Government since its election and particularly on its performance over the last 12 months. We have an opportunity to pass judgment on the deeds and the misdeeds of the Government and to assess the merits of the stated programme of the Government in the coming 12 months. I do not think I shall be regarded as unreasonable if I invite Deputies to bring their minds back with mine in an endeavour to recapture the climate that prevailed when this Government was elected at the last general election.

The inter-Party Government had three years in office at the time we went to the hustings. Nobody can deny that the chief plank in the Fianna Fáil Party Programme on that occasion was the solution of the very high unemployment problem which then prevailed. The figures were higher than any of us, whether we supported the Government or opposed it, would have wished. Nevertheless, the Fianna Fáil Party went to the people and the main plank in their platform was that they had a panacea, not alone for the employment situation, not alone for the problem of creating extra opportunities for employment, but for emigration as well.

I can well recall in my own constituency in the City of Cork, and no doubt the same conditions obtained in every other constituency throughout the length and breadth of Ireland, the posters and pamphlets which outlined to the gullible electorate the alleged policy of the Party then seeking power, which eventually secured an overall majority in the election. On that occasion we were told that the Fianna Fáil Party had a dynamic policy for full employment. They were not just going to fiddle around with the problem; they did not simply undertake to reduce the number of people who were unemployed; they did not simply undertake to increase the number of opportunities for employment. Not at all. They were much more ambitious than that. We were told that in regard to the dynamic policy for full employment they were working out the details of the policy and they were anxious to "get cracking". That was the carrot held in front of the electorate on the last occasion.

Lest the House might think that these pamphlets and posters were concocted in the mind of some local election agent in Cork or anywhere else, we must remember that they were much more authoritative than that. These local election agents were simply spurred on and encouraged by a brief statement of Deputy Lemass, now Taoiseach, when he published what was at the time called by the Fianna Fáil Party his blueprint for full employment and his plan to end abnormal emigration. We were told by him that the plans were there and that he envisaged, within the next five years, if his Party were returned to power, 100,000 new jobs would be provided for those seeking employment. He planned that over a period of five years and therefore the electorate, by simple arithmetic, were entitled to think that over five years approximately 20,000 new jobs would be made available annually.

They had the plans, they had the blueprint, they had the men to implement all that and all they needed was to be given the power to get back into Government. The electorate, as it now turns out, were gulled by these false promises. They gave them the power and returned the Fianna Fáil Party with a majority greater than has obtained here in the past quarter of a century. They were scarcely in power, of course, when the then Minister for Lands, now the Minister for Transport and Power, stated in this House that the people misinterpreted this alleged blueprint for full employment; that in fact it was not a blueprint at all, it was not even a plan, but simply a subject for debate within the debating society of Fianna Fáil. Brazenly, the Minister said it was simply a subject for debate and proceeded to debate it. So far as I know, the debating society of the Fianna Fáil Party has been debating it ever since, but that is not how it appeared to the electorate during and before the last general election.

I well remember—and, if necessary, I can produce—a pamphlet issued by the Fianna Fáil Party on that occasion which said in two-inch type: "Fianna Fáil Plans to end Emigration. Quick Action needed to avert National Disaster." That was the kind of stuff that was put out, that if we were to avert a national disaster, the people would have to elect a Fianna Fáil Government and that not only would we, by doing so, avert a national disaster, but we would have a land flowing with milk and honey, with full employment.

That pamphlet went on to say:

The full employment proposals recently announced by Fianna Fáil show how the Party intends to deal with the problem of emigration by providing work for all our people at home. Fianna Fáil plans propose an increase over the next five years in the number of new jobs of 100,000. This would result in full employment and the end of abnormal emigration.

It was on that basis that the people were invited to come out and support the Fianna Fáil Party and elect them to Government. That pamphlet was trotted around the country and nobody outside of Grangegorman could think there was any suggestion in it that it was not a concrete plan. Yet the Minister for Transport and Power subsequently interpreted it as being purely a subject for debate at some future undetermined date, by the coherent members of the Fianna Fáil Party. The people now recognise what it was from the start. The people recognise that it was a hoax at that time. It is still a hoax. It was one of those stunts which emanate regularly from the fertile mind of the Taoiseach.

I suggest, without endeavouring to gain any Party kudos, that that is the kind of suggestion that brings public life into disrepute. All of us on both sides of the House have deplored, at crossroads, street corners, and outside chapel gates, the mentality that the people who submit themselves for election to this House, and are elected, regard the whole thing as a game of bluff. It is performances such as those given by the Taoiseach and his supporters that have brought public life into disrepute.

We have not got the 100,000 new jobs. We did not expect to have them in three years but we did expect them in five years. Not only have we not had an increase in opportunities for employment, but we have not even held the line at the same level as it was at the general election in 1957. We were told at Budget time last year that there were 10,000 fewer people in employment in 1958 than in 1957, in spite of the promises made, in spite of the speeches made by the Taoiseach, in spite of the blueprint of his plans for the ending of emigration and in spite of the plans for cutting down on the unemployment figures. No doubt at Budget time this year, we shall have official figures again, and I am sorry to say—I wish it were otherwise—that I feel that, far from having an improvement in the figures we got at Budget time last year, it will be revealed that we have slipped further down the slippery slope in 1959, so far as employment opportunities are concerned.

I do not think mine is the only voice crying in the wilderness in this connection. I do not think we on this side of the House are the only people who have been pointing that out. I have read over the past year or two that members supporting the Fianna Fáil Government, at meetings of local authorities, have expressed the view that things were never gloomier, and never duller, and that this country never before faced such dismal prospects. I recall Deputy O'Malley saying at a meeting of Limerick Corporation, not so very long ago, in relation to the unemployment situation, that, in his experience, things were never worse. I do not think anybody will regard me as being unfair or unreasonable when I quote that criticism by Deputy O'Malley of his Taoiseach and of the Government he supports. He expressed that view, and similar views have been expressed by members of local authorities up and down the country, who are supporters and members of the Fianna Fáil Party.

The fact of the matter is that while there may be a theoretically small decrease in the unemployment figures which are made available to us from month to month, all of us know that the emigration situation is such as to make these figures quite unreal. When I try to assess the unemployment situation, I look at the number who are employed rather than at the number registered as unemployed at the labour exchanges. For many years now, successive Governments have used the numbers employed in the house building industry as the yardstick in judging the general unemployment situation. It is no harm to bring to the notice of the House the most recently published figures of those employed on local authority building. On 31st January this year —I see the Chair is getting a little flash and I shall probably be pulled up——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should not refer to the Chair in that manner. He should continue with his speech.

Mr. Casey

I am sorry, Sir. On 31st January of this year, the total number of people employed in the building of local authority dwellings was 1,781. We must compare that miserable figure with the number employed on the same date in 1956, which was 6,147. In other words, over the past four years, about 5,500 people who were then gainfully employed in the building of houses for local authorities, have lost their jobs. The housing programme has been slowed down and people who were gainfully employed in that industry in 1956 and 1957 have now presumably emigrated to Great Britain. Of course, we get the usual brush-off from the Government spokesmen who tell us there is no shortage of money for the building of houses by local authorities. That is quite a simple thing to say. Then the Minister for Finance, having made that statement, whispers in the ear of the Minister for Local Government to implement and to operate every strategy at his disposal for the slowing down of the building of houses.

Dr. Ryan

Not now. It used to happen. There is nothing like that now.

Mr. O'Sullivan

What explanation is there for it?

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Casey learned in a wrong school. That does not happen now.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Minister thinks there is only one school.

Mr. Casey

No doubt the Minister for Finance and his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, know and appreciate better than anybody in this House the old saying that there are more ways of killing a cat than by choking it with butter.

The Minister for Finance says there is plenty of money for housing. The Government say "Carry on with your housing programme". However, they ginger-up the Minister for Local Government in the meantime so that when the Cork Corporation or the Dublin Corporation or the Waterford Corporation send plans up to the Department there is always some little flaw found in them with the result that they are sent back to the local authority again.

Mr. Galvin

He has not come to Cork City.

Mr. Casey

I am coming to Deputy Galvin now. The local authority send the plans back again to the Department with whatever fault that was found in them rectified but then something else is discovered to be wrong. That is all part of the slowing-up process. I would point out to Deputy Galvin that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. During the time of the last inter-Party Government there was available to the Cork Corporation for their capital development programme in relation to housing a sum of three-quarters of a million pounds per annum. I do not know whether or not Deputy Galvin has the current figure available to him but he should know that it has been decreased by approximately one-third —and you cannot produce houses without money.

All these sorts of stunts have been brought into play by various Ministers of the present Government in order to ensure that, while the Minister for Finance will be able to say there is plenty of money, one of his colleagues will employ a certain strategy so that the local authority will not be in a position to demand that money. Thus, they achieve their objective of slowing down the housing programme. They bring about a position in which they have to make available less moneys for local authorities for capital development in that connection and so Bob's your uncle.

It is typical of this Government that they are never short of a stunt. I pay tribute to them for that. Whatever else may be said of them, they are never short of a gimmick or a stunt to get over some difficult phase during the time they are in office. Their greatest stunt of all— they outstripped themselves on this occasion—was when they succeeded in getting this House and the people of this country to devote 18 months to the issue of the P.R. system.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise now.

Mr. Casey

I was simply saying that, far from addressing their minds to the various economic problems that confront the country, this Government succeeded in diverting the attention of the people from these very important matters and traipsed around the country engaging in debates at crossroads.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has already said that. He must not repeat it.

Mr. Casey

I bow to the ruling of the Chair. At any rate, the position now, in this year of grace, is that the Minister for Finance comes to this House to introduce his Vote on Account and that the Taoiseach finds himself in quite a dilemma. The employment situation has not improved. It has very much disimproved Prices were never so high. All semblance of price control has been abandoned. Emigration is as bad if not worse than it ever was. The poor Taoiseach finds himself in this dilemma that he must find a scapegoat. He must get a fall guy on whose shoulders he will place the blame.

It never enters the Taoiseach's head, of course, and if it does it would not be politic to express this point of view, that the reason for the gloomy atmosphere and the reason for the unfortunate situation in which the country now finds itself is the incompetence of the present Government. No, that would not do at all. He has to get somebody else so he looks around and, having examined the situation and found that it is not at the moment suitable to blame the farmers as he was wont to do on previous occasions, he decides that the wage-earner, the industrial worker, the urban worker is the fall guy on this occasion. He is the scapegoat. He proceeds in his contribution to this debate to point out that the trade unionist, the organised worker, who has secured increased remuneration in recent times has done something unpatriotic, has brought disaster on the farmers, on the weaker sections of the community and on the economy as a whole.

I should like, in referring to the Taoiseach's reference in that connection, to endeavour to bring this matter into its proper perspective and to keep the records straight. To do that, I shall have to refer back to the last round of wage increases preceding the one to which the Taoiseach was referring, that is, the round of wage increases which came late in 1957 and early in 1958. Everybody knows that the movement in wage rates on that occasion was precipitated by the Budget of 1957 which was outstanding for the fact that it abolished food subsidies and took from the pockets of the ordinary working-class people something in the region of £6½ million. That immediately meant a rise in prices of ordinary commodities to be purchased and consumed by a family. For every family depending on a wage or a salary it meant a lower standard of living.

No doubt, the trade union movement set out to do what it was intended to do, namely, to protect its members against such exploitation. For some time immediately after the 1957 Budget it looked as if we would have a free-for-all, with everybody looking for compensation in respect of increased prices arising out of the then Budget, and that in the end it would be a case of the survival of the fittest. As the House knows, there are some organised groups who, because of the contribution they make to industry or because of their organisational strength, can command a higher increase than the lower groups. The trade union movement recognises that the large body of unorganised people living on social welfare benefits of one kind or another and who always tried to carry on with them might on this occasion get something in the form of an increase.

The Taoiseach, who was then Tánaiste and Minister for Industry and Commerce, urged on the trade union people—it was the Provisional United Trade Union Organisation at the time—and on the Federated Union of Employers, the danger that a substantial all-round increase would be to the country's economy. Arising out of the urgings of the then Tánaiste, the trade union people and the Federated Union of Employers sat down together and arising out of their discussions, there emanated a code of general principles on which the trade unions would proceed for a partial compensation for the rise in prices in such a manner as to ensure that the partial compensation would have no very serious adverse effect on the country's economy.

At that time, the people on both sides of the House paid tribute to the wisdom of the leaders of the trade union movement for the sacrifices which they asked their members to make in that connection. The Federated Union of Employers and the trade union organisations came to this agreement in the general interest of the country but at no stage was it suggested by anybody on the trade union side that this was anything other than a temporary sacrifice on behalf of their members.

They made that sacrifice at a time when the consequences of the removal of the food subsidies and other factors demanded that they should have looked for and secured an increase of approximately £1 per week. In the general interest of the country, the trade unions were patriotic enough to settle that round of wage increases for approximately 10/- per week; in other words, 50 per cent of what they all felt they were entitled to and what the majority would have got. The industrial workers made that contribution at that time and said, in effect, that, in the national interest, they were prepared to accept a temporarily lower standard of living. They were prepared to accept a lower increase in wages than that to which the increase in the cost of living entitled them and, more important than that, a lower increase in wages than their organisational strength could demand.

They made that sacrifice. At that time, it was fashionable for the Taoiseach and others to pay a tribute to the trade union movement for what they did, but it was stressed that it was a temporary measure and nobody, including the Taoiseach, could have expected and did not, in fact, at that time expect, that this sacrifice should continue forever. Nevertheless, the Taoiseach saw fit to come to the House last week and say that the last round of wage increases was not based on any increase in the cost of living; that it was the first time in recent years that any increase had been given which was not based on the cost of living.

He pointed out that agricultural income had declined; that there were other increased expenses in connection with Civil Service pay and social welfare benefits and that it now behoved them to gather in the money to finance these things. He felt that in view of the alleged unreasonableness of the trade unions in seeking wage increases to which, as I pointed out, they were definitely entitled, he was going to give it to them in the back of the neck.

As far as I could gather from the speech of the Taoiseach, he now proposes—and may I say, in passing, that he is speaking now with his old Standstill Order mentality—to take steps to rectify the situation and there will be a further subsidy for the farming community. He proposes to get that by increasing the prices of certain farm produce and by higher taxes. In other words, the wage earners and salary earners in Cork, Dublin, Limerick and in every town in Ireland face the situation, as announced by the Taoiseach, that in the near future they will pay more for their milk, their butter, their eggs and farm produce. They also face the situation where they will have to pay higher taxes, direct or indirect.

Apparently the Taoiseach has made up his mind that the recent increases in wages and salaries of people in industrial employment must now be nullified, notwithstanding the fact that these were simply a carry-over from the agreement reached by the employers and employees arising out of the savage Budget of 1957 when the food subsidies were abolished.

In that connection, I am constrained to refer to a statement made here last week by the Taoiseach when he saw fit to refer in derogatory terms to a statement by Mr. John Conroy, the President of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, that the recent round of wage increases need not result and so far had not resulted, in increased consumer prices. The Taoiseach said he was quite sure that the President of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union was not so naïve as to believe that.

Since the Taoiseach made that indirect attack on the spokesman of the largest union in the country, certain figures have been published. Even today, we had the latest information in relation to the consumer price index, which shows that the consumer price index figure for mid-February—that was not available to the Taoiseach— was 144. The figure for mid-November last was also 144, so that there has been no change in the consumer price index as between mid-November, 1959 and mid-February, 1960.

I should stress that in these latest figures published today regard has been had to the recent increase in fares as operated by C.I.E. since 1st February, and so it would appear that the statement of Mr. Conroy holds good so far—that the majority of industrial workers have got their increases and most of these increases were negotiated around September, October and November and during the past four months, the official figures show us that there has, in fact, been no increase in the consumer price index. It is the same now in mid-February as it was in mid-November.

The Taoiseach also said that this was the first occasion on which an increase was given that was not based on the cost of living. Just for the record, and without pursuing or elaborating on it, I should like to point out that the wage increase which was secured in 1950 and 1951 during the term of office of the inter-Party Government had no relation to, and it was not contended by the trade unions that it had any relation to, the cost of living. It was simply a claim for increased standards of living and it was given on that occasion on that basis. Therefore, the Taoiseach, again, is not correct in saying that this is the first occasion in recent years on which a wage increase had been claimed which was not based on the cost of living.

The Taoiseach also referred to productivity and—referring again to Mr. Conroy—stressed that while it might be that there has been little or no increase in prices up to now, he was certain—and felt that Mr. Conroy should know—that in the coming months, there would be increases in prices directly attributable to the last round of wage increases. The Taoiseach is entitled to his opinion on that but I was struck this morning by a report which I read in the Irish Times, a report of a lecture at Malahide last night by Mr. Garrett Fitzgerald, who, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as leaning over backwards to make the case of the workingclass people. Mr. Fitzgerald was addressing a meeting of young farmers, members of the National Farmers' Association and of the Irish Country Women's Association. He quoted industrial production statistics for 1959 and said that it was a record year for industry, that production had outstripped that of the previous record year of 1955 by four per cent, and that the overall increase in production for the year was 7½ per cent. It will be noted that I am relying on no poisoned source to bolster up my argument; this was a statement by the economist, Mr. Fitzgerald. He stated that the sharp increase in labour productivity had already gone halfway towards wiping out the effects of the recent round of wage increases upon industrial costs and that if a further, if somewhat smaller, increase in output per worker might be expected during the current year, it seemed unlikely that this round of wage increases would have any significant effect upon either the cost of production of Irish goods or their price level.

That is not my opinion; it is the opinion of Mr. Fitzgerald, who states that already the increase in productivity has gone halfway towards wiping out the effect of the recent wage increases and that he anticipates that in the coming months, with even a smaller increase in productivity, the overall position will be such as to show no significant effect on the cost of production or the cost of commodities to the consumer.

It may be just as well to refer briefly to the reason the Taoiseach feels that wage earners should now be penalised and mulcted in increased prices and taxation. He says this is necessary for three reasons, one of them being that income in the agricultural industry is on the decline. Nobody in the House will deny that the income of those engaged in agriculture has declined but I question whether or not the position is such as the Taoiseach would lead us, or wish us, to believe. The income of the farmer has been reduced over the past year, but again, we have some very interesting figures published today by the Central Statistics Office. Bearing in mind that the income of the farmer is down, these figures show that the farmers' stock in hand has considerably increased. These official figures show that the cattle population is up by 220,000 head. The report shows that for January, 1960, the total cattle population was 4,272,800, representing an increase of 220,000 over January, 1959. I think therefore it is not unreasonable to say that while we all realise that the farmers' income over the past year has declined, he has been left with these assets, his stock-in-hand, which presumably will be disposed of in the coming months when the trading position—we hope— will improve. At any rate, the net point is that while income has declined, stocks have been built up.

I was particularly interested in looking at the various figures and I find, taking January of this year as against January of last year, that there have been these increases in the figures of livestock: there were 9,900 milch cows more than there were at this time last year: heifers in calf were up by 31,800; bulls, by 1,300; other cattle, by 177,100; sheep, by 125,700; and pigs, by 81,000. There was an increase in poultry of over 54,000. The trading situation was such that this stock was not marketable and, therefore, the income declined. We cannot disregard the fact that the cattle population on hands has increased by 220,000. We all hope these cattle will be marketable in the coming month, and that, of course, will affect the income of the farmer for the coming year. Taking one year with another, farm incomes may not be as bad as the Taoiseach would lead us to believe.

I turn now to a more interesting point and one with which I am greatly concerned. The Taoiseach unmistakably indicated that whatever increase there was in the national income, it had been siphoned off to the industrial workers, that nobody else got anything out of it, and that he proposed to take steps to rectify that situation. When I heard the Taoiseach's statement, I decided to look at the position to find out how the profit merchants had fared. Curiously enough, my research revealed that they had done damn well. They have done much better than the wage or salary earners. The House will understand, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle that in a short time it is not possible to examine the situation fully, but I can give an undertaking that the examination I carried out was not selective and can genuinely be regarded as a fairly good cross-section of the picture in relation to profits during the past year.

Of the 150 public companies who publish their trading accounts, approximately 50 end their accounting year on 31st December. Therefore, the results of their trading year were not easily ascertainable at this time. But of the other 100 who end their accounting year on a date other than the end of the calendar year, I ascertained the position in regard to 93 of them. It was not an easy task. In the case of those 93 companies, taking the financial year 1957-58 as against the financial year 1958-59, their increase in profits amounted to 42 per cent. I shall repeat that: 42 per cent. I challenge the Taoiseach, the Government or any spokesman on that side of the House to say that figure is not correct. In view of that average increase in profits of 42 per cent. over the period indicated, how in honesty can the Taoiseach say that any increase in national income over the past 12 months or so has been grabbed and put into the pockets of the industrial workers? I submit that those who are by nature of their avocation or profession engaged in business where profits are the payoff have done damn well.

The Taoiseach referred to the fact that productivity was of prime importance in relation to our whole national well-being. He generously paid tribute to the fact that, by their actions, trade union leaders had shown they appreciated this, realised we were dependent on our exports and that we were engaged in fierce competition in foreign markets. However, he questioned whether this enlightenment had been carried from the trade union leaders down to the worker on factory floors, in the shop and in the field. In view of the official figures showing increased productivity, I think it can be said that workers generally do recognise the importance of increased productivity, but they would be less than human if they were to approach the problem with any degree of enthusiasm and with no suspicion whatever.

This question of productivity has become a fetish with many people. They talk about more productivity, and very many industrialists and employers mean, by increased productivity, that they will have the same level of productivity with fewer employees. That more dangerous approach is the approach with which the Taoiseach should concern himself rather than with whether the fellow on the factory floor appreciates what increased productivity means. In the case of the worker who, because of new methods, automation, work study and what-have-you, has been forced out of his job and now finds himself on the emigrant ship, it is very poor consolation to know there is increased productivity ala the employer and that his colleague whom he leaves behind is now getting 10/- or £1 a week extra. It is too much to expect the ordinary working-class man to get enthusiastic about a situation such as that.

In view of the programme the Government Party put before the electorate at the last general election, I regard the record of this Government as being a particularly sad one. We are told we have no money to increase the miserable pittance being doled out to the old age pensioner, the widow and the blind and yet in the Book of Estimates this year, we find the Estimate for the Department of Defence up by £742,661, bringing it to an overall figure of £7,472,740. Secret Service, if you do not mind, has gone up by £1,500. The Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies is up by £7,000. Of course, to keep in step with the manner in which we have been exhibiting ourselves abroad in recent years, we find an extra £28,330 for External Affairs, and in breaking down that figure it is no harm to note in passing that there is a £1,500 increase for official entertainments abroad.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Details will be discussed on the main Estimate and should not be referred to in the debate on the Vote on Account.

Mr. Casey

I do not intend to dwell on that matter. I simply wish to state that my feeling and that of the people is that this Government not alone has not honoured the promises its members made during the last general election but that they have lost touch with the common people of Ireland. I think the Government cannot appreciate the difficulties confronting the people. I blame the members of the Government for deliberately misleading the electorate because, on the strength of the promises they made, they were returned to office with the largest majority that any Government had in the past 25 years.

There is nothing to hinder the Government, nobody at all to put an obstacle in the way of their implementing any programme or policy they wish to implement. There is nothing to stop their using their overall majority even to steamroll legislation through this House or to prevent them from producing in legislative form the promises they made and the solutions they offered the people during the 1957 general election. They have failed to do that and they say they are still just about to get around the corner. The Taoiseach now tells us that the industrial wage earner is the fly in the ointment, that he is the person who could upset the whole applecart. However, if there were a bye-election in Dublin or Cork city it would not be the wage earner who would be attacked; it would be the farmer, but at the moment it is the policy to play off the industrial worker against the farmer.

I blame the Government for misleading the people during the last election. I think they will go down in the history of this country as the Government who, in spite of their undertakings not to remove the food subsidies, abolished them in 1957 and filched £6,500,000 from the pockets of the ordinary people. They will go down in history as the Government who, pre-election, promised to end emigration, to end unemployment and to give full employment, but who have succeeded during their three years in office in decreasing the numbers of employment opportunities available, not by hundreds but by thousands. They will go down in history as the Government who succeeded in putting people out of jobs. People who had been working and were gainfully employed at home when they came into office are now working in Dagenham, Liverpool and Birmingham.

They will go down in history as the people who slowed up the housing programme, even in areas where houses are still required. In Cork city we still require 2,000 houses. Our programme was such that we would have ended that problem in three years' time but by various manipulations, stratagems and excuses, the Government have succeeded in ensuring that we shall not have even 1,000 houses in the next three years. They will go down in history as the Government who put extra expense on insured persons in regard to their commitments under the Health Acts and as the Government who have confounded the confusion that already exists under these Acts. They will go down in history as the Government who completely abandoned price control and who, because of their activities, have brought about a situation in which our price levels are the highest this generation has ever known.

I shall conclude by quoting from the speech made by the Minister for Health on the occasion of the debate on the Vote on Account in 1956 when he was upbraiding Deputy Sweetman, then Minister for Finance. I quote from Column 813 of the Official Report for the 20th March, 1956. He asked:

What does the Minister propose to do for them?

That is, the people.

Rates are rising, costs are rising and taxes are certainly not coming down. How does the Minister intend to put the farmers of Ireland in a position to export more in the face of increasing competition? What about the country shopkeepers? Their shops have been empty and trade has been stagnant over the past month.... What relief has he in store for the country shopkeepers? What about the self-employed person, the tradesmen, the retired civil servants, the superannuated employee of a private concern and the elderly folk living on the fruit of their small savings?

I would ask the Minister for Health to reflect on the crocodile tears he shed on that occasion and on the fact that, shortly after this, he and his Party, with an allegedly cure-all policy and with the present Taoiseach's blueprint for increased employment, secured their return to office with what results we now know. I challenge him to ask himself whether the questions he put to Deputy Sweetman on that occasion are not now much more appropriate to address to his colleague, the present Minister for Finance.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

It is on this occassion that an opportunity is afforded to Deputies, particularly to the Opposition, to examine the conduct of the Government and to inquire what is the state of the country. It is particularly important that now, after this Government have been three years in office, we should avail of this debate to ascertain whether they have succeeded in the policy they put before the electorate just three years ago. This Vote on Account in which the Minister for Finance asks the House to vote him over £40,000,000 is not merely a formal matter. The Minister asks for a considerable sum of money; he must ask for it in relation to the policy being pursued by his Government and we on this side of the House are anxious to know what progress has been made by the Government in the past three years in carrying out its policy.

During those three years we have had from the Government Ministers, and from the Civil Service through the Ministers, a plethora of speeches and plans. We have learned to read of Ministers speaking at banquets and various gatherings of important people; we have learned to read speeches from them which have been rather in the nature of bromides intended to convince the country that everything was getting better and better. I wonder have we now reached the period of disillusionment? I should like to know who in this country is, in fact, better off now than he was in the month of March, 1957?

Whose lot is better? Whose situation has been improved? Is it to be suggested that the farmers are better off today than they were three years ago? They are getting less for their cattle today than three years ago, less for their sheep, less for their pigs, less for their barley, less for their milk and less for their wheat. They are paying more for the things they have to buy. Their outgoings have increased. Their rates have increased. Their lot today is very much worse than three years ago.

We cannot say, therefore, that those engaged in our primary industry have benefited in any way over the past three years. We were led to believe at one stage that the midnight oil was being burnt in Government Buildings in order to formulate plans for economic expansion. The fact is that the farmers are much worse off today than before the change of Government. Perhaps it will be suggested that, if the farmers are not better off, then the workers must be. Let us see if that is so.

Those who come within the insurable employment code are generally referred to as the workers. It is interesting to note that today, three years after this Government took office, there are 40,000 fewer people in employment; 40,000 fewer Irish boys and girls are holding down employment in their own country. The workers as a group cannot be regarded as having benefited in any way from the change of Government or from all the bromides that have been doled out to the public over the past three years. What is the position of those who were fortunate enough not to lose their jobs since the change of Government in 1957? What is the position of those who still hold down the jobs they had prior to the present Fianna Fáil Government coming into office?

The Taoiseach appears to think that these people have got too much in the way of wage increases over the last three years. I do not propose to enter into that matter, but I suggest that, by reason of the steep increase in the cost of living, the real value of wages and the real value of incomes have substantially dropped in the last three years. Just as the farmers are worse off to-day than three years ago, so are the workers worse off as a result of the change of Government.

Possibly Ministers, and those supporting them, will say that business people throughout the country are better off. I assert—it is regrettable that I should feel compelled to do so because the matter is one that should concern all Deputies in this House— that Government Ministers are inclined to live in a sort of make-believe world of their own. They fail to appreciate that our provincial and country towns are slowly and inevitably dying. They fail to realise that the business done in small shops and businesses throughout the country is growing less and less month by month and year by year. Less business is being done to-day throughout the country generally as compared with the volume done three years ago. There is less money in circulation, and there is absolutely no evidence of that situation being changed.

I do not say that all this is due to the operation of Government policy. Much of it may be due to the fact that systems of transport have increased and possibly a good deal of business now by-passes the smaller country towns and goes into the larger centres of population. The fact remains, however, that things have disimproved in rural Ireland over the last three years. We are concerned to know what benefit has been conferred upon the country or upon any section of the community since this Government took office three years ago. Perhaps before the debate concludes some Government spokesman will show what section of the community is better off to-day than it was three years ago.

As has been pointed out already in this debate, all that represents quite a serious challenge in relation to this Government's honesty of purpose and probity in office. It is true to say that, if ever a political Party claimed for itself a perfect policy, that Party over there on the left of the Chair claimed it three years ago. Fianna Fáil were the one Party in recent political history who asserted, with conviction, that they had a plan—a plan to beat the crisis, a plan to solve our economic difficulties and the people could vote themselves better times by supporting Fianna Fáil candidates. We suggested then that that campaign was illusory and wrong. But the people believed the promises made. Today, they are disillusioned and that is why I say that the honesty of purpose of the Fianna Fáil Party is being challenged. The probity in office of the present Ministers in Government is being challenged. They had no right to say three years ago to the women in my constituency whose husbands and sons were out of work that jobs would be there for those husbands and sons if they supported the Fianna Fáil candidates. Today, the policy of the Party who made those promises has resulted in 40,000 more people being out of work as compared with three years ago.

I believe this Government is the most unpopular Government this country has ever had and, when the day of reckoning comes, the Government will very quickly find that my assertion is correct. I do not believe the Government realise just how unpopular the Fianna Fáil Party is in the country today. It is not a question of individuals. It is not a matter of personal idiosyncrasies or character; it is a matter of the confidence trick that the people feel was played upon them in the month of March three years ago. The people feel cheated and let down. I do not believe that anything that can be said now by individual members of the Government can alleviate that situation.

In relation to employment, there are in this country decent, small people who desired, as any Irish boy or girl would desire, to work gainfully and properly, in their own land. They noted with interest the assurance implied in the various speeches made by the present Taoiseach and the present Minister for Transport and

Power, which suggested that Fianna Fáil had a plan to create 100,000 new jobs. Where is that plan? Where are the jobs? Where was the honesty behind those promises? Do Fianna Fáil Deputies realise what the unfortunate unemployed in this city, those who banded together to elect a Deputy to this House, must be thinking now? There was not a plan. There are no new jobs. There are 40,000 fewer jobs than there were three years ago. That is a situation which Fianna Fáil created for themselves by the spurious propaganda campaign which they introduced and conducted in the last General Election.

I do not mind what harm Fianna Fáil do to their own political fortunes; they are in charge of their own destiny; but what does concern me, and it should concern Deputies very much, is the harm that kind of propaganda does to the institution of Parliament. I have little doubt that Fianna Fáil went so far in the last general election that they may well have damaged the prestige of this House and this Parliament in the country. The ordinary public who feel cheated and let down do not very readily distinguish or apportion blame. They are entitled to say, and are inclined to say, that the blame must be shared by everybody taking part in our discussions here.

It is not only in relation to employment that Fianna Fáil in the last three years turned their back squarely on their promises. In this Vote on Account there is a fresh example of the apparently callous disregard by members of Fianna Fáil for their own speeches and promises made in Opposition. It is only four years ago, on the Vote on Account in 1956, that the present Taoiseach, deliberately, with premeditation, knowing what he was doing, said in this House:

In 1953 the Fianna Fáil Government of which I was a member took a decision that taxation in this country had reached the danger level. 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 taxpayer.

That was the present Taoiseach speaking in March 1956, just before the last general election, and that speech was intended to appeal to people in the business community, the taxpayers generally, as being an expression of the determination of the Fianna Fáil Party, if elected to Government, not to increase taxation. I believe it was a foolish speech. I do not believe the Taoiseach, when he made it, believed in it and I do not believe that he had very much intention of observing it, but I am referring to the fact that he used those words intentionally, deliberately, and that now, when he is the Leader of a Government himself, he comes into this House to ask for a payment on account of the highest bill ever sought from the taxpayers, a bill over £123,000,000 in size. It is well to remember that the man whose Government asks for that is the man who four years ago told the taxpayers: "If you put us into office we shall not increase taxation." Again, there is some sleight of hand, again there is some confidence trick being played, and it is well that we should know, if there is a cheat, who is the cheater.

Also, four years ago, it is clear that the present Taoiseach, as Deputy Lemass, was speaking to the Party line. We often note with interest, in this House and outside, that the Fianna Fáil Party are always careful to have two or three people make the same speech, so that, by repetition, by the multiplicity of speeches, the point will sink home. On the same day as the Taoiseach made the comment to which I have referred, the present Minister for Health, and Tánaiste of this Government, its deputy leader, said in relation to taxation:

That is what the working class people in our rural areas are paying for the fact that the Government have not tackled what the basic difficulty in this matter is, 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. The burdens upon the workers, upon the poorer sections of this community are going to be increased. That is what is at stake.

It is well that sentiment, already referred to in this House, should be repeated. There was the Tánaiste, four years ago, stressing and emphasising that Government expenditure had got to be curbed and that it could not be permitted to be increased. What was the Government expenditure that he was talking about at that time? That was expenditure on a Book of Estimates that included a cheap loaf, a cheap lb. of butter, cheap flour for the people and some £9½ million to subsidise food and thereby keep wage levels at a norm that would retain and contain costs of production. According to Deputy MacEntee, as he then was, four years ago, the phenomenon disturbing everybody was rising Government expenditure and it had to be stopped. We find now that neither Deputy Lemass as Taoiseach nor Deputy MacEntee as Tánaiste can in any way do what they implied they could do if elected to office, that is, prevent an increase in taxation and contain and restrict a rise in Government expenditure.

It has been pointed out—it is no harm to repeat it—that the fact is that the expenditure provided for in this Book of Estimates, compared with Government expenditure of three years ago and taking into consideration the £9 million saved on food subsidies, now runs at £22 million more than in 1957. Twenty-two million pounds more is required by the Government now to provide for the services covered by these Estimates. That is an astounding increase and it calls into question whether this Government have any settled policy in relation to this matter. Do they know where they are going?

I notice the Taoiseach in his intervention in this debate blames particularly the Minister for Health and the Minister for Social Welfare for the increased expenditure. The onerous duties of these two Departments are now discharged by the one man, Deputy MacEntee, who four years ago commented on the phenomenon of rising Government expenditure. To-day Deputy MacEntee as Minister for Health needs £17 million to provide a lower standard of health services, I suggest, than was available three years ago. As Minister for Social Welfare, he has had the implied stricture of the Taoiseach that social welfare payments and benefits are responsible in large measure for this increase. That may be so. Certainly the recipients do not feel that what they get in the way of social welfare benefits has in any way helped, as the State should, to meet the problem of living since the change of Government.

I have made reference to the Minister for Health on the phenomenon of rising Government expenditure. May I make one comment in passing in relation to the health position? Without going into any detail on that matter, may I express the concern that is felt by most people in relation to the huge expenditure now being incurred for health services and the continuing difficulty people experience in relation to the quality of the services? I have little doubt that in the last three years, with all the changes Deputy MacEntee has introduced, there are more irritants and more difficulties facing people in relation to securing the services which their condition requires. The health situation is, in my view, in a considerable mess and requires a very detailed examination. When that health problem is clouded, as it continues to be, with a silly row between the Minister for Health and the Irish Medical Association, one wonders is there any sanity left in the country at all. I only hope both sides have sense as quickly as possible and that we shall have a continuation of progressive administration in providing better health services for the people.

While this money presumably must be given to the Government to maintain essential services, it does call into question whether any real progress has been made since the change of Government. When it is found necessary to think, and think very hard, as to whose lot is improved since March, 1957, then it does indicate this Government's policy has not been a success. Whatever their intentions may have been—and for the moment we shall assume their intentions were of the best when they went into office three years ago—the fact is slowly emerging that they have not been able for the tasks they undertook and their policy has not been the success they claimed it would be.

Dr. Browne

Most of us know the Taoiseach to be a man of considerable self-confidence, a man who is not easily worried and, as Deputy O'Sullivan said the other day, if it is possible to put a good face on a bad case, he is the man to do it. I am inclined to agree with that statement. It is because of our knowledge of the Taoiseach over many years that we must take very serious notice of his particularly lugubrious intervention in the debate last week. As Deputy O'Higgins has just said, most of us, over the last couple of years, have been led to believe by Government speakers, by the economists who support the Government in the Irish Press and the Irish Times newspapers, right up to the recent trade figures, that everything was going well, that the main obstacle to economic prosperity had been removed out of our path and that when the new Taoiseach assumed office, we would have the solution to all the problems that have faced the country over the last 40 years.

It is now quite clear that the position is particularly grave. That is emphasised by the fact that the Taoiseach has taken the opportunity at this time, which could conceivably be an election year, to tell us that we are to have what will be, in its effects on the mass of the people, a penal Budget. That must have given the Taoiseach no pleasure. It certainly gives the followers of his Party little pleasure, but the reasonable inference to be drawn from his speech is that we can expect such a Budget.

Some of the speakers here have dealt with the position—and the Taoiseach also tended to do it — as an analysis of the activities of the Government who have been in office for three years and who have failed to discharge their election promises. That does not put the position in the proper perspective because if this Government had taken over a serious economic situation and had failed within three years, there might be a case to be made in their favour. But I think it much more reasonable for us at this time to examine the record of the Government as one which has been in office, not for three years but for the best part of 23 years. These problems which have just arisen are not due to the evolution of the free trade attitude in European trade and, above all, they are not due to the fact that we had a wonderful summer last year, as a result of which our livestock exports were reduced, causing a difficulty in the balance of payments and so on.

It must be obvious to everyone that this is not the first time we have found ourselves in this type of situation. The Taoiseach gave an over-simplified explanation for the present position and particularly for the continued emigration and for being unable to give anything much more than rudimentary social services for our old people and our unemployed; the fact that there is a seven per cent. unemployment figure; that the Department of Education have not enough money to provide better educational services; that the Minister for Health gives us the appalling health services we have, largely because, he says, he has not the money to give better.

All these factors in the society in which we live are not the creation of any recent development in Europe or in our own country. They were all pointed out in the clearest possible terms by an objective commission established by a Government of the time to investigate this whole question of emigration from Ireland and particularly the question of rural depopulation and the consequent difficulties created for the urban, town and industrial workers. The report of that commission was virtually ignored. Certainly its findings appear to have been neglected by successive Governments since that magnificent report appeared in 1954. In it practically everything that we say today, every criticism that can be made, every reasonable analysis of our failure that is made by the objective-minded person in our society, was supplied to the then Government for its assistance and guidance for the future.

The then Government were told of the potentially castly wealthy fishing industry operated by 7,000 or 8,000 inshore fishermen, fishing largely from rural ports. They were told that our forestry was a potential source of vast wealth just as it was in Finland, Sweden and Norway and that our forestry area was the lowest in Europe with the exception of Iceland. They were told six years ago—as if they did not already know—that the tillage area was less in 1951 than it had been in 1851. They were told that we had, as a great social evil, the lowest and latest marriage figures amongst the white races. They were told that in our agricultural production we stood 13th out of 16 other countries, and the 14th 15th and 16th countries have the illustrious names of Spain, Greece and Turkey. We know that the three of them are still the most undeveloped countries, possibly in the world, but certainly in Europe.

They were told that our relatively high infant mortality rates were due to malnutrition and poverty stemming, no doubt, from inadequate allowances to the families of the unemployed. They were told how defective our educational system was and of the fact that it taught too little and mostly the wrong things. They got a very clear analysis of the flight from the land, of rural depopulation, and of the complete failure of our industries to absorb that flight from the land which created progressive emigration. Surely those figures should have frightened the Leaders of the Government who received that report, and a successive Government, into a more radical activity than that which followed the publication of the report? The figure for emigration for the first decennial period since the formation of the State, was 16,000 a year. The next annual figure for the second decennial period was 18,000 a year and for the third period, 1941-1951, it was 24,000. Then the figures ran from 24,000, to 40,000 and 50,000 and higher, and are to be taken together with a consistently high unemployment figure which is chronic at seven to ten per cent.

No matter which side you are on, you must give credit where it is due. The slum clearance problem was certainly solved but outside of that, outside of the creation of fine housing settlements in the towns and villages, what did the Government offer? What action did the Government take in the light of those disastrous figures, or the fact that the country was advanced in decay and at that time had probably reached the point of no return? From the Leader of the leading Party, the greatest Party at that time, we got his answer to the facts disclosed by that objective, non-political, right-wing conservative commission.

His answer to those findings was his proclamation, his declaration, that the primary objective of Government policy would be the restoration of the Irish language—irresponsibility amounting to lunacy in the light of the facts as he had them. That decay has gone on to this day. It is conceivable that neither the Taoiseach nor any other Deputy on either side of the House can now resolve our difficulties. The opportunity that was there then to that leader has slipped and probably gone for ever.

It is interesting to see one of the notes from the Report of the Commission on Emigration, 1954. Paragraph 57 says:—

Agricultural production has failed to expand to any marked extent even under favourable conditions and this failure has created one of our most pressing problems today.

That Report was made six years ago. The Irish Trade Journal and Statistical Bulletin, published in December, 1959, says:

Already many of the country's agricultural products are not competitive in export markets and clearly they cannot continue to carry the unnecessary burdens that are arising because of the failure to adopt more modern and cheaper shipping arrangements or because of the existence of restrictive practices. There is no significant amount of organised and scientific market research and little or no regular use is made of the comprehensive facilities which market research organisations can provide. Even though market conditions and requirements may be altering fundamentally, most Irish exporting interests appear to trade in what has been the traditional manner for the products which they export.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McAuliffe)

Would the Deputy give the reference?

Dr. Browne

Page 255 of the Irish Trade Journal and Statistical Bulletin. I am quoting these statistics to show how little change there has been, in six years, in agriculture which should be our basic industry creating most of the wealth we need to give us the social amenities we all want — educational services, health services and care of the aged — and which has now become virtually a bankrupt industry. I could not understand the Taoiseach's extraordinary gloom in view of some of the optimistic figures about our external trade that have been published, until I turned to the graphs in the Irish Trade Journal, at page 271, and saw emphasised in the most depressingly dramatic way possible, the continued deterioration in the agricultural industry due to the—catastrophic it must be for rural Ireland — catastrophic drop in prices. Everything, butter, eggs, potatoes, fat cattle, fat sheep, store cattle, have varied up and down, virtually uncontrolled under both Governments for many years. However, latterly there has been this most precipitate continuous and uninterrupted drop in prices.

If rural Ireland goes bankrupt, clearly there is no possibility for that younger partner, Irish industry, in the industrial-agricultural axis of our society because Irish industry certainly cannot fill the gap left by agriculture to create the national wealth needed to give us anything like the standard of living to which I am glad to see the Taoiseach now admits our people have a right and which they intend to get.

The Taoiseach has given us a lecture about wage and salary demands arising out of these figures, and they are frightening figures, figures which any leader of the Government must necessarily find disturbing. They are not the picture of success he gave us to understand before he came into office—as has been pointed out to him on many occasions—and subsequent to his taking office, that he could win using his solutions for our social and economic problems if he were given a chance to put them into operation. We are now told that he must introduce some form of agricultural price support for which we, the ordinary taxpayer will have to pay.

It is clear this decision was thrust on the Taoiseach by his failure to get the British Government to keep Irish agriculture as a pet and to provide for these supports. Many of our agricultural products are not competitive in the export market. That is what the Advisory Committee on the Marketing of Agricultural products discloses. So the Irish home consumer will have to pay fancy prices for what are declaredly uneconomic agricultural products. There is no farmer who can honestly tell us that price supports are the real solution to his problem. It is more markets that he must have and certainly the home market is not sufficiently large to justify the use of modern agricultural methods in the use of all the land which is available to us, to provide a good living for the average middle or small farmer in rural Ireland if he is to depend primarily on a home market.

An amateur economist recently said there was a boom around the corner or that we were in the middle of a slight boom. Recent figures disclose that the deterioration continues. In reply to a Parliamentary Question the Taoiseach told me that in 1959 there had been a drop of 9,000 persons employed in agriculture in rural Ireland, and that this was taken up to some extent by an increase of 3,000 in industry, leaving a deficit of 6,000 fewer people in employment in the year 1959. Our net income is increasing at the rate of something in the region of 2 per cent. In most other countries it ranges from seven or eight to 11 or 12 per cent. It is quite clear that at that present rate there is no hope whatsoever of our providing the better social conditions to which the Taoiseach referred, and for that he blames the present trend in emigration.

From his speech it seems to me that he has completely lost his head. He is concerned about the effect of recent wage and salary increases on the cost of living. The Taoiseach must be either a fool or a hypocrite if he does not understand that the cost of living has continued to rise for a number of years, and rose particularly sharply as a result of the removal of the food subsidies, and that the consequence of that removal was not compensated for by agreement between the trade union leaders and the Government at that time. I personally believe they were foolish to come to that agreement at that time, and said so, but that is their affair. Now they are getting the consequence of having been so generous as to come to an arrangement which they thought at that time was in the national interest.

The industrial worker is now to be blamed as being largely responsible for creaming off the greater part of the wealth made by increased production, as if anybody had a better right to it than the man that makes the wealth. However, surely the Taoiseach must have known that with the removal of food subsidies— whether or not it was a good policy— it was inevitable that the worker would have to ask for higher wages to compensate for increased costs in essential commodities. He has asked for that compensation and, to a limited extent, it has been given.

It is difficult to believe that the Taoiseach was not aware of this. He should now be able to understand that if he proposes further taxation or increases in the price of food, agricultural commodities, and so on, there will inevitably be justifiable demands for increases in wages and salaries. In a year's time, when these increases have been won by a trade union, or whatever the action may be, it will be no good for the Taoiseach to come here and to blame the industrial worker or the agricultural worker when, as a result of Government policy, wage increases will have been sought.

An increase in the cost of essential commodities must inevitably be followed by demands for increased wages and salaries. The Taoiseach and the Government, by removing subsidies in the past and imposing new charges on the public, particularly in relation to essential commodities, will in the future be responsible for introducing the new inflationary spiral about which the Taoiseach is so concerned. He must accept the responsibility and not the trade union leaders, not Mr. Conroy, not the industrial worker or the rural worker. Government policy will be responsible.

The Taoiseach pointed out that, through the arbitration machinery, the Government had handed over to a certain extent the determination of wage rates. The Government have the power, broadly, to determine what these rates will be by ensuring stability in relation to living costs. Therefore, it is no good for the Taoiseach to think he will get away with lowering the standard of living of the worker in order to get himself out of his dilemma of falling agricultural prices because of uneconomic agricultural conditions.

I should like to join with Deputy Casey in asking somebody to read a lecture, instead of to the industrial worker and the rural worker, to the people who have been earning larger and larger profits successively over the years without anybody pointing out to them that this increase in unearned income on their part had any inflationary or any deleterious or damaging effect on our economic position.

Yesterday's papers carried the report of profits made by the commercial banks. The total profits in 1938 of ten banks in Ireland were £1,314,000 odd. In 1958 the figure was £1,753,000 and in 1959 the figure was £2,024,000. Here are some dividend rates by people who make no attempt whatsoever to increase productivity, people who do no work for their living, the wealthy unemployables. In 1938, the dividend from these banks was 13½ per cent.; in 1958 it was 18 per cent. and in 1959 it was 20 per cent. Yet, from none of the leaders of the Government Party have we had any strictures on these increasing intakes of profit by these banks.

With various firms there is the same story—10 per cent., 12 per cent., 17 per cent.—a consistently high and increasing rate of profit. In the same newspaper, the Irish Times of 14th March, 1960, it is shown that the £1 Ordinary units of Cement, Limited, at 58/6 yield £6 16s. 9d. per cent. on the basis of a 20 per cent. payment. The worker is living from hand to mouth in conditions of great difficulty and hardship and yet these people, most of whom probably never did an honest day's work in their lives, are allowed to earn increasing amounts without anybody asking them to make a sacrifice in the public interest.

The shareholders' association, if there is one, did not meet in 1957 to ask their members to forgo an increase in their dividends in the national interest, as did the trade union leaders, and they are never criticised. The time must soon come when the worker will understand that this fraud, this pilfering of his wage packet, is going on behind his back. He will refuse to allow this hand-out of the profits he creates to these wealthy unemployables. He will insist that this ten per cent., 15 per cent., or 20 per cent. is divided up, as it should be divided up, in giving him better wages for a lower-cost article, the product he is making, and that these dividends are paid in to give better social welfare services and better education for his children. That is what he will have when we ultimately become a fully socialist society.

That is the basic problem which the Taoiseach refuses to face. All this dickering around with subsidies, the removal of subsidies, increases in subsidies, tax remissions on profits, is not the solution to the problem. He talks about the complicating factor of wage demands and wage increases. Private enterprise over 40 years of activity has given us a net drop in employment of seven per cent. Forty years of achievement and seven per cent. fewer people in employment and we continue to cling to that.

He talks about not being able to control wages. The fact that they are not able to control productive capital investment is due to the fact that the Taoiseach and the Government have left it entirely in private hands. We are completely at the mercy of private enterprise as to when and how they spend the money. They are motivated by the simple profit motive—the simple personal advantage motive. They want prosperity for their own families and the national interests can go hang. In no country in the world have the selfish motives of private enterprise in control in a society been more shown up than here in the past 40 years. It is utterly indifferent to the national interest. Instead of trying to consider controlling the wages of workers——

Acting Chairman (Mr. McAuliffe)

The activities of private banks and matters of that kind are not relevant in discussing the Vote on Account.

Dr. Browne

We are discussing Government policy. I am suggesting that the reason the Government are in the mess they are in at the moment is their failure in the ways I have outlined. The Taoiseach seemed to imply it was unfair that we had somehow failed to keep control of wages. Why have the Government taken no really effective steps to control one of the most costly pieces of the apparatus of private enterprise in the country, the cartels, the rings and monopolies, most completely demonstrated by the recent investigation into the petrol companies? Rings and monopolies can produce only one thing, that is, inefficiency. They can foster only one thing, that is, further inefficiency where the so-called dynamic of private enterprise is stifled by the activities of these monopolies.

There is no free competition. The factory can operate as it wants to. It can produce an article at higher cost. It can produce a lower quality article. There is no competition. The consumer has to pay. Why did the Taoiseach not concern himself with the activities of these groups who fix the prices the consumer has to pay? That is one of the barriers against the operation of this alleged valuable incentive in private enterprise—free competition.

The Taoiseach told us that we must prepare to meet foreign competition. Before this House at the moment there are, I think, upwards of 20 different tariffs to be discussed, passed, continued and retained year after year since the early 1930's. In the beginning, there was a cause and a need for the tariff policy but it has been retained uncriticised for the best part of 30 years.

We now find ourselves with Europe entering a free trade phase. The Six and the Seven have just recently proposed a 20 per cent. reduction in tariffs. We are reinforcing our tariffs; we are reinforcing protection and stabilising inefficiency in our industries. Our exporters will not survive in an export market. They cannot even survive competition in the home market.

Mr. T. Lynch

Hear, hear!

Dr. Browne

Now they are to compete with West Germany, Japan, America, Britain and everywhere else after this hothouse treatment for 30 years. If the Government were interested in creating national prosperity and providing for the social justice that would follow, the tariff policy should have been reviewed year after year and mitigated, improved or altered. What evidence is there of efficiency and success in establishing and maintaining export markets and increased production from the factories?

Those are a couple of the matters with which the Taoiseach could concern himself instead of fiddling around with the negligible wage increase which the unfortunate worker has at last succeeded in getting for himself at great sacrifice, at a time when, if he wanted to stick to the letter of the law or on foot of the cost of living figure, he could have demanded more than 10/- a week at a time? That sacrifice has now been pilloried by the Taoiseach. Because the worker still wants to feed his children; because he still wants to clothe his children and still wants to live in a house and go to sleep in a bed at night, he has to be chastised and castigated in this House. It is about time the unfortunate worker replied and he may have an opportunity of doing so before very long.

The Taoiseach knows well that he made the basic blunder 30 years ago when he refused to trust the people and turn to them for capital for the creation of productive capital investment in Ireland. Instead he went to Britain—all this fiction of freedom—as he went the other day to ask them to take us back into the Commonwealth. He went to Britain and got these companies to set up their plants here. The members of the Party became branch managers. This cretinised industrial arm is a dwarf that will never grow.

We are now prisoners of that decision and of that blunder by the Taoiseach. British export is going on from the parent company but they do not care two damns about social justice on that side of the channel. I do not blame them. That is not their worry. The bank rate goes up and goes down as Threadneedle Street decides, to suit the needs and demands of the great British industrial economy, irrespective of what its impact on our economy here is.

We have freedom. Freedom from what? To change the colour of the pillar boxes, as James Connolly said. We have Green, White and Yellow instead of the Union Jack. That is the freedom. Let the Taoiseach concern himself with this fact. Recently I asked questions about our imbalance of trade with various countries. South Africa was one — a disgusting trade. In view of our imbalanced trade relation with South Africa, if we had any interest in real freedom in face of Apartheid, we would have curtailed or discontinued our trade as a protest and repudiation of the actions of these half-savages who pretend to act in a civilised and Christian way as the Government of South Africa.

We have a great imbalance in trade in common with West Germany and with France and various other countries in Western Europe. When I asked could we not restrict trade with these countries, could we not insist on having a better balance between imports and exports I was told that this is a private enterprise country and that people can buy and sell wherever they like. Fair enough: they are doing that, and we are going bankrupt in consequence because we cannot control them. If you want control, let the Taoiseach control the rings, the cartels and the monopolies; let him review and reduce tariffs. Let him tell private enterprise that they will buy or sell in the markets that best suit our national and personal circumstances and let him accept the fundamental decision which some Government will have to make in this country some day, that is to realise that only by the establishment of publicly-owned corporations on the industrial side and the establishment of a strong widespread co-operative movement in rural areas can we retain full power of decision to the people through their Government.

The Taoiseach is worrying about the power in relation to wages, the perfectly legitimate chasing of prices by wages. If the Government do not want to control prices, nothing can stop inflation—nothing except Government determination to control prices by controlling industry and by determining where capital investment will be spent, the way in which it will be spent and on what it will be spent. That is not a novel suggestion; there is nothing new about it. It was preached by James Connolly 40 years ago. It is in practive in most of the socialist countries in the world which are outstripping in great and wonderful strides the productivity of the capitalist societies who are limping sadly behind. Socialism is no longer an experiment; it is tried and tested and has triumphed. It is shown to be the most effective method for the creation of prosperity and social justice in a society.

It is absurd to talk to the worker, in my view, about increasing productivity. Why should he? So that it will go to somebody in a dividend of 17 or 18 or 19 per cent., to somebody who does not even know where the worker is, what he works at, or how he works?

Our failure in Ireland has been the neglect of political leadership—not to realise these facts, because I do not pretend to have more brains than anybody else, to be a finer economist or to know more about politics than anybody in this House—that is not true— to recognise that these facts, if pursued to their logical conclusion, must lead to their dismantling private enterprise as we know it and the establishment of State enterprise for the productive capital investment side of our economy. This is the logical consequence of any intelligent analysis of our situation here to-day. That situation has arisen here because, on both sides of the House, I regret to say, the vested interests are so deeply embedded that the radical changes needed are not likely to be forthcoming.

The Taoiseach in particular cannot wash his hands of our present dilemma. He cannot abdicate and say the price of bread is going up and there is nothing we can do to stop it, and if wages go up, the price of bread will go up again and with it the prices of milk and butter will also go up, and we have no control over them. If that is his belief, then let him get out of office. It is the responsibility of Government to govern and he has all the powers at his disposal, if he chooses to use them. He has the biggest majority any Government ever had in this country for 20 years. For a beginning, I have given four lines which he might usefully pursue and let him leave aside the question of whether wages should, or should not chase prices. If he stabilises prices, wages need not worry him.

I did believe that the Taoiseach was a man overshadowed by a great shadow which has now fortunately left the political field. I am now inclined to believe that that is not so. He treated us the other day in his speech to a collection of inept, specious, empty platitudes. Faced with a serious national situation, he runs up the white flag and tells us that there is little or nothing he can do. There is plenty the Taoiseach can do if he is prepared to take the advice of his predecessor. Goodness knows, circumstances never more eloquently demanded it. It was Mr. de Valera who promised—another of his unfulfilled promises: "If we do not solve our problems within the present economic system, then we shall be prepared to go outside that system." The Taoiseach has given the private enterprise economy system 40 years in which to create prosperity. It has failed him and the country. It has failed to do so. Has he any reason to believe that, given another 40 years, it is likely to create a socially just society and prosperity? Last year we had a drop of 6,000 in the number of jobs available and there was a total net drop of 7 per cent. in 40 years.

The Taoiseach appears to me to be, as it were, a kind of political schizophrenic with one loyalty to industry and industrialists and then a second lesser loyalty to the welfare of our society as a whole. The facts of the figures of his dilemma to-day must prove to him, without possibility of equivocation, that it is impossible to reconcile these two loyalties and that as Taoiseach, as Leader of the Government, his first loyalty must be to the people and to their welfare, that, unless he repudiates the whole economic basis on which he has established our society —because it is to him we must give credit or blame for any industrial advances made in the past 30 years— as having failed, it is his blunder in depending on private enterprise to look after the productive investment side of our economy which has created his own present serious and grave dilemma.

Mr. Cummins

Listening to Opposition criticism of the Vote on Account, I was struck by one thing in particular—the insistence that a cloud of gloom has descended on the country. I do not believe there is that widespread depression as Deputies opposite would have us believe, but it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that they see despair where in fact there is none. On the contrary, it is my opinion that the mood of optimism created by the publication of the Government's Programme for Economic Expansion is still with us and the moneys asked for in this measure are necessary if the Government's all-out effort to provide reasonable prosperity for all our people is to succeed.

The year just passed has shown the wisdom of the Government's policy. Industrial production, employment and exports are up. The building trade has improved. These items alone prove the Government's willingness to implement its proposals by action. While agriculture is admittedly our most important industry, it is also agreed that opportunities for employment on the land are not sufficient to attract our rural population. There will be an inevitable drift from the land and the only means by which we can absorb the surplus rural population is by setting up manufacturing industries. They need not always be set up in our existing larger towns; they could be started in the rural areas. Here I must disagree with Deputy Corish who believes it a mistake to start manufacturing industries in towns where there is no tradition of such industry. This belief seems to be a form of defeatism. Many of our ancient traditions were stifled or trampled out of existence over the centuries. Can we not now create fresh ones? A tradition can only be built up over many years but a start must be made somewhere, sometime, and the time is now when the need is realised and appreciated. I think we are too prone to complain of what we have not, rather than to appreciate what we have or could hope to have if we set ourselves to work, build and create.

I submit we are committed to a predominantly private enterprise economy. It behoves us to move cautiously in our decision as to what industries the Government should operate. I believe it would be a step in the wrong direction if the Government were to engage in industry in competition with private producers themselves. This would set us on the road to complete nationalisation. While a case could be made for such extreme measures, and speeches and plausible arguments used in its favour, the dangers and disadvantages of such a system far outweigh any inherent advantages. The destruction of initiative is not the least of the dangers of this system. That is something which we can ill afford to lose these days. We need every spark we can find and encourage. There is room here for co-operation between State-controlled industries and private enterprise. It should be possible for a man to live and prosper in his own country without being looked upon as an exploiter or racketeer.

The Government's appeal for greater productivity is addressed not only to the manual worker but to all sections and grades in industry. Managers, clerks, and administrators are all included in the appeal to help step up productivity and so increase the real wealth of our country. However, there is a need for a more generous and reasonable approach to the worker on the part of some employers. It should be remembered that the employee is not merely a cipher or another addition to the cost of the item he is helping to manufacture. He is a human being with a life to live who depends on a regular weekly wage packet. Furthermore, there may be quite a number of other people depending on him. Employers and management should lay off workers only as a last resort. This is the only way in which the worker can be encouraged to help in the industrial drive, because a worker will take a cynical view of a drive for increased production which results in putting him out of a job.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I feel that matter of the dismissal of workers does not relevantly arise on the Vote on Account.

Mr. Cummins

I shall just mention then, Sir, that I agree with Deputy Corish that something should be done to reduce as far as possible the incidence of casual labour. In a special feature published in a Sunday newspaper last November—and it was not The Sunday Press—a reporter wrote of the great changes taking place in the city of Dublin. He referred to the new multiple stores being erected and the various blocks of flats which were under construction. This was spoken of as a great industrial building boom. “Big business,” the article says, “is looking to the future.” There was no evidence here of depression and gloom, but of a go-ahead with an extensive building programme, paralleled by that of the local authorities, and private enterprise was demonstrating new faith in the country's future. That is what the article stated.

Deputy Ryan appears to take exception to the Government's call to the people to help in the programme for economic expansion. As reported in volume 180, at column 363 of the Official Report, he stated: "The Taoiseach said the Government need everybody's help." To whom else could such an appeal be made? No Government can purely and simply by Act of Parliament bring about full employment and prosperity to a country. The people themselves must be prepared to cooperate in the implementation of a specific programme.

The author speaks of the people having a right to expect help from the Government but surely in this Vote on Account there is ample evidence of the Government's willingness to help in every way possible to provide employment and to provide incentives to industry to increase production, which we all admit is essential? Further than that no Government can go. It is futile to give people the impression that they can lie in the lap of luxury without making a conscious and conscientious effort to help themselves.

The old gibe has been cast at Fianna Fáil that they have been 20 years in office and have achieved nothing. I do not think Deputies who make that charge are sincere because it is Fianna Fáil who set the headline which successive Governments must follow if we are to achieve our aim, economic—no less than political—stability and prosperity. Fianna Fáil have never been afraid to take a calculated risk. We took a risk with cement and beet and shipping, and in more recent years, with air transport. In that connection alone, it must be remembered that even in the teeth of bitter opposition and misrepresentation, we have built up an airline of which we here in this House and the people in the country can be justly proud.

As the representative of the wonderful young talent which we are led to believe is attracted to Fine Gael, Deputy Ryan has disappointed me. In my opinion, these young men have apparently not succeeded in hammering out a policy—that is to say, a new policy—or, if they have, they have kept it secret from that Deputy because his speech on the Vote on Account contains all the old accusations and shibboleths to which we have become accustomed. Unemployment and emigration are subjects which are easy to use when one wishes to castigate a Government——

Mr. T. Lynch

You are telling us.

Mr. Cummins

——but we have never pretended that there is an easy solution of these problems. We are here trying to undo the evil work of centuries and we in Fianna Fáil have no need to feel ashamed of our Party's contribution towards the provision of a remedy for these evils.

Referring to the importance of the British market, Deputy Dillon, the Leader of the Fine Gael Party, expressed his pleasure that the Government had at last become convinced of the importance of that market, but I would remind the House that the idea that Fianna Fáil were a Party of extremists who wished to build a wall around Ireland, to isolate it totally from every outside country, is a myth spread by the opponents of Fianna Fáil. We are not extremists, purely and simply, but we have recognised that the ideals of political independence can be allied to economic independence. That is not to say that we can become absolutely and unequivocally self-sufficient but we can put ourselves on terms of equality with any country with which we wish to do business, and which wishes to do business with us.

Mr. T. Lynch

I wish we could.

Mr. Cummins

If Great Britain has something important to offer us, we in our turn should be able to prove that we have much to offer them. In fact, I would say that therein lies the fundamental difference between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. It is that we have faith in the country's ability to achieve all that is necessary to make us a proud and independent people, without recourse to intransigent and face-saving measures which in the long run would only aggravate our position. In my opinion, this Vote on Account is evidence of the Government's desire and willingness to carry out to the full their programme for economic expansion and as such must be recommended to the House.

Mr. T. Lynch

The speeches made here in this House and outside it since the Vote on Account was introduced have been most revealing to me and to many people all over the country. I was in the House last week and I was called out, but luckily a friend told me that the Taoiseach was speaking, and I returned to get the biggest surprise I got since I came into Dáil Éireann. I hardly knew the man who was speaking over there. This was not the cocksure Tánaiste I used to see here last year brazening out anything. There was no brass face on this speech last week because he could not brazen out what he had promised the people. It was hard for him to face the House having confessed that the policy of his Party for the past 30 years was a failure, the policy of seeking alternative markets here, there and everywhere outside of Great Britain.

When I saw the headline in an English Sunday paper: "The British Market Must Come First—Lemass," I thought it was one of the fairy tales of Ireland we so often read in the British newspapers, but this was no fairy tale. I make no excuse for commenting on this and on what the Taoiseach said. During the past 30 years, in many parts of this country, including my own constituency, these were fighting words as far as the supporters of Fianna Fáil were concerned and there was a time when it would be at the risk of one's life that one got up and said such a thing. I have myself been described as a West Briton, an imperialist and a traitor, as a person who would sell this country to Great Britain, because I had the temerity to say, long before the Taoiseach was ready to say it at Inchicore, that the British market should come first with us. I am very glad that even at this late hour he has seen the light. But there is more of failure in the Fianna Fáil Party than just that failure.

Over the past three years, there have been continuous exhortations to the farmers and industrialists to increase production. Increased production is the complete answer to everything. Increased production to the Irish farmer means a surplus. A surplus means a cut price. The only market we can guarantee is our own protected home market. Any surplus we have, be it industrial or agricultural, has to be sold elsewhere in the teeth of competition. At these various dinners and functions where Government policy is so often expounded—occasionally it is expounded in this House—the cry is always for increased production; they call on management for increased production and they call on the workers to increase production. I have come to the conclusion that many of those who look for increased production ‘haven't a clue' as to what to do with that increased production.

The first essential is, of course, to sell it. The fishing industry provides a good example of what happens in nearly all industries. There was a time when, if 200 or 300 crans of herring were landed on an Irish pier, there would be a glut and the herring would have to be sold at 5/- per cent. On the other hand, when there is a market, hundreds of thousands of crans can be sold. It is the market which is the important thing. For the benefit of the Government now, there is one part of the industrial arm which was practically rendered useless under Fianna Fáil policy. I refer to the salesman. The type of salesman created by the Fianna Fáil policy is not a salesman in the real sense of the word. He goes out into a protected home market. His only function is to allot the products of his company. He never stands up against the strain of competition.

That disability is one of the principal causes of our lack of industrial promotion. We have no proper sales promotion. People are always talking about the know-how; know-how is the important thing. It is just as important to sell the article as it is to turn it out. It is no good having a well turned out article at a reasonable price piling up in the warehouses. There must be sales promotion behind the manufacture of the article.

The question arises as to what we could sell if we were to go into increased production. We have an increased number of cattle. In my opinion, that is not due to increased production. It is due to the fact that the cattle were not sold last year. I do not impute blame because of that. The people who are selling Irish cattle have never got enough credit. They risk their money and they spend a considerable amount of time travelling around. People who impute blame are those who have never stood in a market and have never had the experience of investing their money in animals for which they could not subsequently get a bid, after transporting them across the water. More attention should be paid to the people engaged in the cattle trade. More notice should be taken of the recommendations they make to the Government, especially recommendations in regard to freight rates.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would seem to be a detail which would arise on the Estimate. It is certainly not relevant to the Vote on Account.

Mr. T. Lynch

I shall not pursue it, but freight rates are most important. When the Taoiseach first returned to office as Minister for Industry and Commerce, he guaranteed 100,000 jobs. He had the crock of gold with £100,000,000 in it. There would be no scarcity of money and there would be no shortage of jobs. The women were told that they need only vote for him and his colleagues to put their husbands and their sons back into work. To-day there are 40,000 fewer people in employment. Were these 100,000 jobs just a mirage? Was the cheque for £100,000,000 a phony, a dud cheque liable to bounce? There has never been any attempt to put any policy commensurate with those promises into operation. Most of the Taoiseach's time when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce was spent racing to Paris—here, there and everywhere—looking for markets. He was carrying out the old Fianna Fáil policy of looking for markets anywhere but in Great Britain. The market was there on his doorstep and he would not take any notice of it.

Deputy Dr. Browne said we should take some of these continental countries to task because they sell us a great deal but buy very little from us in return. Of course, we would not take them to task. We would even tolerate impertinence from them. If we are the great and independent nation we are cracked up to be, these countries which refuse to sign trade agreements with us should be told to take their goods out of this country. They buy £2,000,000 worth from us and we have to buy £10,000,000 worth from them. We could do better elsewhere. We are chasing all over the world trying to buy cheap coal and we buy any coal but British coal. On top of that, we send the Taoiseach and a flock of Ministers to Britain to try to make a trade agreement. I should prefer to buy British coal, and at a higher price, to make a deal for the great amount of produce we have to sell to Great Britain. There is a fine market there for us.

If anyone wants to suggest that there is any success behind this Fianna Fáil Government, I ask was it success, when they went to Great Britain 12 months ago, having been exhorted from the benches here not to mind going to the Outer Seven, the Lower Five or the Inner Six, but to make their arrangements with Great Britain first and then see what they could do afterwards? They took no notice. They were engaged on the referendum, a fine red herring which they introduced in order to keep the people occupied. While discussion on the referendum was proceeding, the Danes wiped our eye in regard to a preference that we had had on the British market for longer than any of us can remember. The Danes until that time had to pay 10 per cent. in order to sell their bacon. Now they are on the same level with us. Was that success? Then the Government woke up and the Minister for Agriculture was sent over, heavily escorted by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the present Taoiseach. They went to London, got their luncheon and came back again.

Of course, the people opposite will not admit it but the only thing in which we can compete with the Danes and the only thing that we can put on the British market which the Danes cannot, is the live pig. That Government over there saw to it that the live pig trade would be destroyed. I do not want them, with their mean representation, to say that I want to ship live pigs out and leave our factories idle. I do not see why we should not be able to ship live pigs out of the country and keep our factories going, as we did before, and feed our own people, as we did before, and export bacon, as we did before, and export live porkers, as we did before, and dead porkers, as we did before.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

These are all details of the Estimate for Agriculture.

Mr. T. Lynch

They are very important.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

They may be very important but they are not relevant.

Mr. T. Lynch

The few Deputies on the opposite side who have taken part in the debate all seemed to have been briefed by somebody, either in the Fianna Fáil office or in the Irish Press, to say that there was no gloom about the speech of the Taoiseach and that we on this side of the House were only taking advantage of it. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the conduct of members of the Opposition as against the conduct of members of Fianna Fáil. The Fianna Fáil Party have never been fair to anybody in Government when they were in Opposition. They have taken every mean advantage possible. Whenever a Government intended to float a loan, members of their front bench and Cabinet Ministers of the present day made statements to endeavour to undermine the credit of the country. Let it be said to our credit that that is something we never did and never will do, that we shall not put our Party above the nation, that we shall not in a matter that is for the national good take advantage of the Government of the day. If the Government are floating a loan or endeavouring to obtain credit, we shall not endeavour by any means to undermine the credit of the State.

I shall point out to you, sir, if I may, something that the Fianna Fáil Party were prepared to do when they were in Opposition that we are not doing when we are in Opposition. The Minister for Transport and Power made a very long speech on 10th March, 1960, on cattle. It would almost make me suspect that he had his eye on the Department of Agriculture again. There are pages of it in the Official Report. I quote from column 426, Volume 180 (3):

As I have said, let us take cattle prices out of politics.

He says it three times. When we were on the opposite side of the House, in 1956, no matter what debate was proceeding, whether it was in regard to Local Government, Finance, Forestry, or Lands, somebody from this side of the House would shout, "What about the cattle prices now?". That was followed up on the following day with headlines in the Irish Press.

On each occasion the report of the Dublin Cattle Market was published gloom was created about the future of the Irish cattle trade. Then the Minister for Transport and Power and Deputy Vivion de Valera appeared as two sound cattle men and advised the House and the country that the cattle trade was finished, which was a rather serious thing to say about our most important industry. I want to repeat that for the benefit of some Deputies over there—it was a very serious thing to say about our most important industry, that it was finished. Even though the cattle trade is bad, we are not saying that the cattle trade is finished. We have faith in the cattle trade.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I fear the Deputy is drifting back to the Estimate for Agriculture.

Mr. T. Lynch

With all due respect, the Deputy is replying to what the Minister for Transport and Power talked of in three pages of the Dáil Debates. I shall read only a little of it. He said:

One hopeful indication of what may come in the future is that Aberdeen Angus store cattle from accredited herds can be sold for from £1 10 0 per cwt. to £2 0 0 per cwt. more than for beasts that do not come from accredited herds, showing what we hope to be able to achieve when this campaign has finally succeeded.

Mr. Casey

The Deputy should not take him so seriously. Nobody does.

Mr. T. Lynch

In reply to Deputy Casey, this actually gets me on the quick because I had a very fine herd of Aberdeen Angus at one time and the Department, at the behest of some of the Deputies over there, would not give premiums for Aberdeen Angus or Hereford bulls.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

None of these matters arises on the Vote on Account. I am sorry but I must ask the Deputy to come back to the Vote on Account.

Mr. T. Lynch

I shall come back to it but it shows the failure of another of Fianna Fáil's policies. There is another policy that Fianna Fáil have, a policy of distributing dope to the people. The people are told about factories that will employ hundreds of thousands of men, of a £6,000,000 nitrogen factory in Offaly. of which no more has been heard. I do not know how many people were to have been employed in factories in Waterford recently but nothing happened. According to a newspaper, there was to be a new factory which would handle up to 25,000 horses a year; this horseflesh plant was hailed in Limerick as another scheme which would ease considerably unemployment and emigration. They have killed about eight horses since the 22nd March, 1958.

Do the Government consider that is a right kind of policy, to fool the unfortunate unemployed by putting hope into their hearts with such announcements? They remind me of the tipsters long ago who used to tip 25 horses in a race knowing that one person out of 25 would have the winner. However, the people are wakening up to the fact that all these factories are just fairy stories; they are like the 100,000 jobs; they are just put on paper for election purposes.

When the Government assumed office their first action was to remove the food subsidies. Were the Government right in taking that action? They saved £6,000,000 but that did not reduce taxation. The £6,000,000 just disappeared, but the effect was extraordinary. Some months after the Government had taken away the food subsidies, consequent on the rise in the cost of bread and butter especially, supplementary estimates were sent in to the various local authorities down the country to offset the increased cost of these commodities. The Government said it was only taking something out of one pocket and putting it into the other. Let us see how much came out of one pocket and how much went into the other.

Some time after that, a round of wage increases was sought and it was settled at 10/- a head. That must have cost the people more than the £9,000,000. The Government followed its rake's progress and did nothing to control the price of food. The millers continued as before. Butter was increased by 7d. a lb., or by 8d. in some cases, and the old age pensioners and other people who received no rise worth talking about were just left there. The cost of living went up and the whole spiral started when the subsidies were removed. With the cost of living going up another wage increase was sought. This has hit every local authority and every ratepayer right on the nose.

I attended a meeting of my local authority last night and we were asked to increase the rates by 6/- in the £, having increased them by 4/- last year. That is a heavy load to face. We have to ask shopkeepers, small businessmen and big businessmen down the country to pay these rates. This increase in rates is due to Government policy and the removal of the subsidies. If someone were to give us the money to restore the subsidies it would be too late. The rises have been given and the whole economy of the country is upset. The Government have allowed themselves to be led by big business pressure groups: "Take away this £9,000,000 in respect of food subsidies and give it to the big taxpayers." Now we have to pay for it.

It was said here there was no gloom. There is plenty of gloom down the country and why would there not? It is all due to the stupid policies of Fianna Fáil all down the years. By these inept policies they have proved themselves a failure. Their industrial policy has created a whole series of monopolies. It has put unfortunate shopkeepers in Dublin and down the country at the mercy of the restrictive practices of the monopolists. There are many decent firms in this country but there are a great many of them hiding behind tariffs, and behind the Government's protection policy. They have become impertinent. They will sell their goods only to certain people. A person has no chance of starting in a new business because he would not get a quota. This is not a country in which a person can start off afresh. You must belong to the group of people who used to get licences, and many of them are getting them still. We are asked to say that is good Government policy. That is a rotten policy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question of licences does not arise. Criticism of legislation is not in order on the Vote on Account.

Mr. T. Lynch

All right, but Government policy as a whole towards industry has created monopolies, and these monopolies are pressing very hard on the people to whom I have referred. They have reduced the margin of profit to such an extent that many shopkeepers must sell an article by the gross to make a profit of 1/6. With their profits going down, with the number of their customers falling because of the tide of emigration, with the purchasing power of some of their customers down on account of unemployment, these small shopkeepers are faced at the same time with soaring rates and higher costs in every way. Yet the Deputies opposite say there is no gloom down the country. I am sorry there were not more Fianna Fáil Deputies here and more Fianna Fáil supporters in the Gallery when the Taoiseach made his speech. I am sorry the Taoiseach was not televised when making that speech. This was not Deputy Seán Lemass, the Taoiseach, who could brazen it out. This was a subdued man.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has already referred to that.

Mr. T. Lynch

I wish to repeat that for the benefit of a few Deputies who have just come in. We might as well get this matter of Government policy regarding building, this wonderful building policy, settled once and for all. I do not care what public buildings are being erected or what multiple stores are being built; there were 6,147 men working in 1956 and in 1960 there are only 1,781. We should all mention the conditions in our own constituency when we come to these matters. In the Borough of Waterford we always had some 300 to 350 men, up to 1954-55—and we increased that number nearly to 400. Not one man is building local authority houses there today. There has not been a man working in Waterford on local authority houses for the past five months. The Government tell us that is a progressive building policy. The plans come up and go down again, but no houses are being built.

If it is right that Deputies should be given answers to their questions then I may say that sometimes the answers they receive are unreliable. I put down a question to the Minister for Local Government after I had read a tabular statement in reply to a question asked by Deputy O'Malley about the number of local authority houses built. In the tabular statement it was stated that at December 31st 1959, in the Borough of Waterford, 25 houses were being built. The following week I put down a question and the Minister explained to me that the reconstructed houses had been mixed up with the new houses. He said that these were houses that had been taken over by the corporation for reconstruction. I pointed out that people were already living in these houses and they were no relief to people who had applied for houses. I asked the Minister if it was an error and he said it was not; he would not admit it and would give me no satisfaction. We are treated continually with discourtesy in this House and as I say the answers that we get sometimes are not reliable.

So far as lands are concerned, I think that the policy carried out down through the years in regard to landless men not qualifying for land should be reviewed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It cannot be reviewed in this particular instance.

Mr. T. Lynch

Very well.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is out of order on the Vote on Account. The Deputy will get an opportunity to discuss it on the Estimate.

Mr. T. Lynch

Would I be in order in saying something about the Government's policy in regard to fisheries in general? I do not think that policy is a good one. I do not believe that the general policy of putting up fish factories where no fish is caught is a good policy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That again is a matter of detail for the Estimate.

Mr. T. Lynch

I bow to your ruling, Sir. May I say that if we are to survive as a nation, not only must we have increased production but that the Taoiseach's pronouncement on increased production should be qualified by the statement that that increased production should be for export? I do not agree with the Government's approach to this matter and I am not in agreement with some members of my own Party when they say that all that is necessary is to set up a board and that they can sell the produce. That is not sufficient. I want to urge on the Minister for Finance, the, Taoiseach and the Government, that there is no substitute for the salesman who will call on the customer to sell him the goods. That is the final way to sell the goods. It is not just a question of having a party. I have been at many of the so-called promotion parties but I could not see anybody selling anything at them.

As the Taoiseach has made a confession, at Inchicore, regarding the failure of his Party, I ask him is he man enough to get up and confess that his promise of 100,000 jobs to the unemployed people of Ireland was a cheap trick and that the £100,000,000 that he was to make available was a cheque that could not be cashed?

Mr. Wycherley

The increase in the cost of running this country is a matter of very serious concern to every thinking person. That cost is increasing steadily every year by so many million pounds which have to be provided by the tax-paying public. The unfortunate position today is that the numbers in remunerative employment are decreasing annually while the numbers in non-productive employment are increasing. The result is that we have fewer to meet the everincreasing cost of running this country and the burden in consequence weighs more heavily on the people who have to bear the cost of maintaining public services.

It is of course an unfortunate state of affairs that we have two Parliaments in this country, and two sets of civil servants, a duplication which is making the cost of running this small State very excessive, indeed, and a great hardship on the people. Even in Northern Ireland, I see the cost of running their affairs is higher than the cost of running our affairs down here, in proportion to population. I have no doubt that if there were only one Parliament running the affairs of the country, a great saving could be made in the interests of the people, north and south. If anything could be done to bring about a state of affairs where we would have one set of civil servants, one Garda force, one Army, there is no doubt that the cost of running the country could be greatly reduced.

However, unfortunately, the fact remains that very little, or nothing is being done to rectify that very serious condition of affairs. Indeed, we have in this House men of outstanding ability—men like Deputy Sheldon who has graced the Chair with honour and dignity—and men in the Upper House who could lend a hand in trying to solve the serious position that obtains in this country. They are proud of their Irish heritage. I have no doubt that if the proper approach were made, and if a committee representative of all Parties in this House and the Upper House, and a similar committee representative of all Parties from the Northern Parliament combined to discuss our problems great achievements would result. I do not believe that any religious bigotry would prevent the setting up of such a committee, because the religious minority here have always been treated fairly and equitably, and they appreciate that very much indeed.

The time is now ripe for every section, both in the north and south, to pull their weight in the interests of this little island. We have seen in other parts of the world that great countries are forming into one economic bloc to improve their position. We should avail of the opportunity now to form an economic bloc at least within our own country, to try to improve our social, economic and political situation. There is little use in looking to the countries of the world for markets because the replies we got to Questions in the House were to the effect that the markets, even the Common Market, or the Outer Seven, are not very attractive to us. We import ten times more from these countries than we export to them. The surest market we can have for our produce is the home market, in the first instance.

I see no justification, whatever, for the huge importation of luxury goods from all the countries of Europe at a colossal cost to the people. These goods are brought in largely as a result of our exports of agricultural produce, and I can assure the House that the farmers who produce so much of our wealth consume very little, indeed, of those luxury goods which are imported from all the countries of the world. They are consumed largely in Dublin, and in the other cities, by people who have enriched themselves as a result of our agricultural output. It is unfortunate, as I say, that agriculture has gone down the hill in the past couple of years. The incomes of the agricultural community have been drastically reduced. Weather conditions perhaps had something to do with it, but the fact remains that their income has dropped in two years by over £20 million.

Every Deputy who has spoken realises the seriousness of the position of the agricultural community, at the present time, because of their decreased income during the past couple of years. Even Deputy Casey of Cork, who is a city Deputy, referred to it. He realises as well as I do that there are 220,000 cattle on farms to-day which the farmers expected to sell last year but for which they have not pocketed a penny. These cattle have decreased in value by from £10 to £15 a head. That will run into millions of pounds, so that the future does not look good.

I was glad that in his speech last week the Taoiseach saw in the same light as I do the serious position which exists. Something must be done to rectify that position. It must be something big and something great if it is to be altered to the necessary extent. I believe that the section of the people who have benefited so much by the activities of the farming community for the past 30 years could now come to their resuce without its bearing too heavily on themselves.

At column 320, Volume 180, of the Official Report of 10th March, 1960, the Taoiseach said:

...the whole benefit of the improvement in the national income has been secured by one section of our people alone, the wage and salary earners.

I feel that some of that increased income should go back to where it sprang from, to the hardworking farmers and the agricultural labourers, because the day agriculture goes down will be a sad day for salaried workers, and wage earners of every description. Agriculture must produce the bulk of our wealth and unless it continues to do so, salaried men and wage earners will not get a decent living.

I sincerely hope the price of milk will come up for review in the immediate future. It has been stagnant for the past dozen years, except for the fact that it was reduced a fraction of a penny to make up for the increase in wages given to the creamery employees.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The price of milk is a matter for the Estimate for Agriculture.

Mr. Wycherley

There is also the question of turkeys. Perhaps that is not a matter for the Vote on Account. I warned the Taoiseach last Christmas of the shocking prices the small farmers were getting for turkeys. At that time they were getting 1s. 4d. a lb. for them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is a matter for the Estimate. The Deputy is going into the details of the agricultural industry which do not arise on the Vote on Account.

Mr. Wycherley

The wages of agricultural workers are often referred to. How can the farmer pay a decent wage to his workers if he does not get a remunerative and reasonable price for his produce? The minimum wage rate prescribed by the Agricultural Wages Board is misleading to a very great degree.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question of wages for workers in that industry does not arise on the Vote on Account. The Deputy will get an opportunity of raising that matter on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Wycherley

The point I was about to mention was that industry has been protected for the past 35 years. Every line of industry set up got great protection with the result that the agricultural community had to purchase their necessities at a very high price. If such articles had been obtainable at their ordinary import price, possibly the farmer could have produced at a cheaper rate and thus paid a higher wage to the agricultural worker. However, that was not to be. He had to pay the protected price for the Irish-produced articles of every description while, at the same time, he had to sell his produce on the world market at a competitive price. That position could not continue. The agricultural industry could not prosper under such conditions. Many small-holders had to sell out. Many small holdings have been amalgamated. The tendency today is towards bigger holdings and more machinery for working them.

I would say that agriculture generally has been exploited at the expense of industry, at the expense of the wage-and salary-earners. It is high time some consideration were given to agriculture which has sacrificed so much in the building-up of the State. There are many sidelines in agriculture which could be developed to the benefit of the community.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy seems to be embarking on a debate on agriculture. The details of agricultural policy do not arise on the Vote on Account. The Deputy will get an opportunity of raising these matters on the Estimate.

Mr. Wycherley

A great case is being made on the subject of the cost of living. I hold that it is not the cost of living that is affecting the people of Dublin City or any other city as seriously as their own way of living which has changed enormously in the past ten years. The prices of most commodities produced on the farm and consumed in the cities are far cheaper today than was the case some years ago.

I can get an excellent quality bacon in my town at 2s. 2d. a lb. When I come to Dublin I am informed that people pay 8s. 6d. a lb. for ham. I cannot understand why there should be such a great uproar about the cost of living in Dublin. It seems to me that they are so selective in their taste that nothing but the best of turkey, ham, wines, foreign goods and fruits of every description will satisfy people here in Dublin as a result of the change which has come over them. They have become more selective in their taste and in their choice. They are not satisfied with the cheap types of food which the people down the country take and which their fathers and those before them again were quite satisfied to live on. That is my experience.

I know that big families in rural Ireland are reared very cheaply and economically. The people in rural Ireland and in our villages and towns have a lot less talk about the high cost of living than one hears in the City of Dublin. They can get plenty of cheap cuts in beef and bacon. They can get potatoes, oatmeal and everything necessary to satisfy the requirements of even a large family down the country at reasonable prices. However, the people in Dublin have become so selective, because of the high salaries they enjoy, that nothing will satisfy them but the best of everything.

Mr. Larkin

The Deputy must dine only at the "Russell."

Mr. Rooney

Did Deputy Wycherley ever hear of "one-and-one" for a meal?

Mr. Wycherley

I sincerely hope that the cost of running this country will be reduced. I believe it can be reduced if the matter is tackled in a business-like fashion but the demands coming from every section of the community are very hard to resist, indeed, because every section is trying to pull the most for itself. The Government have a hard task to try to satisfy the various sections but it is their responsibility to see that justice is done and that the whole economy is not put out of balance as a result of any one section getting more than its just share.

I shall close on the same line as I started, namely, that I hope the committee which I recommended at the outset will be set up, a committee representative of the various sections of the community and of the various religious sects North and South of the Border, to try to solve the difficulties of this country. It should be foremost in the minds of the Government and of the people of the North because it would be far better to have an exchange of views between the people North and South of the Border than to have an exchange of firearms, with detrimental results to all.

Mr. Jones

The Vote on Account is a sobering type of document for Deputies and the speech of the Taoiseach on it was equally sobering and worthy of thought and study. The Book of Estimates shows an increase over the previous year of approximately £3,500,000. This, the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach explained, was in very large measure, if not in toto, due to the increases which were given to what he termed the public servants. He seemed to be in some doubt as to whether it was wise on the part of previous Governments to surrender their freedom of action in this matter. He admitted that he did not begrudge the raising of the standards of these public servants.

His speech was a re-statement of the views held by all Deputies that the country's prosperity is based on our agricultural industry. Our potential wealth here is derived from the land. While our industrial arm is a very valuable source of employment and of earning capacity, our hopes of expansion depend, in the main, on increased production from the agricultural industry.

In that connection, the committee recently set up to study the problems in relation to the export of agricultural produce pointed out that, in the main, outside of cattle, such produce as we can gainfully export is produced on the small farm. The economy of the small farm is based mainly on the cow and the pig and, to a lesser extent, on poultry. Therefore, our problem is one of enlarging this industry for export without doing violence in regard to taxation.

When I saw this comment of the Taoiseach, I was interested in noting that in the constituency I represent, county Limerick, there are 17,500 farms approximately. When I examined these figures, I was amazed to discover that of those 17,500 over 8,114 are under 15 acres and 2,193 under 30 acres. Knowing how the economy of the farming community has been affected in the past two years by climatic conditions and by the difficulties into which the agricultural industry has run in connection with foreign markets, it is easy to see how the communities who live on the land, particularly younger people, are inclined to leave the land for what they consider to be a more secure living in industry. Unfortunately, in a great many cases they are leaving the country to go into industry abroad.

Our population has declined but it is significant that, while the number of people engaged in agricultural pursuits have decreased by about 8 per cent., there has been a relative increase in industrial employment of approximately 4 per cent. Our problem at the present time is one of trying to improve life on the land to such an extent that we can induce those people who are there to stay there and produce more. The Taoiseach pointed out that our hopes of importing necessary goods from abroad rest on our exports. While our industrial exports have been valuable, their earnings do not bear comparison with the amount of money earned by our agricultural exports.

In trying to keep people on the land, there are a number of problems in respect of which this Book of Estimates provides money. One of those problems—it concerns us very seriously in the southern counties and in my constituency, in particular—is the bovine tuberculosis scheme. I am, therefore, glad to see that increased provision is made in the Estimates for this scheme. I hope that the money provided will be expended. The amount provided up to March, 1958, was £277,000, which rose to £653,000 up to 31st March, 1959. I hope that in the coming years there will be an intensification of the efforts to solve a problem which is grave so far as the dairying counties in particular are concerned.

I think it is recognised that a successful cattle trade is largely contributed to by the manner in which the dairying industry works. Therefore, it was disappointing to find in the Book of Estimates that there is a decrease of £750,000 in the provision for subsidy on the export of butter.

In 1958, butter production declined very considerably but it was hoped that in the present year we would see a welcome increase in production. I am, therefore, somewhat at a loss to understand why the same provision at least is not made. I know the Minister covered that point by saying it was quite possible that there would be a Supplementary Estimate in connection with bovine tuberculosis. Perhaps the same could be said of extra provision by way of Supplementary Estimate, if it proved necessary, for the dairying industry.

When looking through this Book of Estimates and noting the statement which accompanied it, we are given the relevant increases and decreases on the various Votes. I notice an increased provision for housing and I cannot help remarking that in previous years the fact that provision was made in the Book of Estimates for a certain amount did not mean that such amounts were in fact spent. Anybody examining the Appropriation Accounts afterwards will notice that large amounts of money under various headings were not expended in the year for which they were voted. It is very important that as far as rural employment is concerned, housing should be maintained at a high level, even if it were only for the employment content, but above and beyond that, there is also the social need of the people. It has been said that our housing needs are tapering off and that is quite true. Every year that passes sees a decline in the number of new houses required; but equally, it sees an increase in the number who require rehousing or in the number of houses which are becoming old and need reconstruction or replacement.

In my own constituency, the local authority completed 29 rural houses last year. The housing authority has been engaged in research in regard to a priority list for houses, and I understand that approximately 49 people may expect houses to be built for them in the coming year. When I last inquired from the local authority what was the approximate need for houses in the county, I was told: "In the region of 300." I think that figure is an understatement but at our present rate of progress it will take some time to catch up with the back log, because of poor houses or no houses at all.

The provision of money for housing therefore fulfils two essential needs and in that respect I welcome the increased provision in the Estimates, but I sincerely hope that the Department responsible will see that housing is speeded up and that local authorities will be encouraged to avail of the extra money provided.

There is another aspect of rural employment to which I referred on a previous occasion and on which I have heard Parliamentary Questions asked. It concerns employment on roads. I think there was also a question recently in regard to bringing into this country heavy machinery which tends so to mechanise the work as to get rid of the human labour element. I believe that to be bad socially. I should much prefer to see men kept in employment, men with families, spending their wages in the countryside, supporting the small shops in the small villages, rather than have sizeable sums of money exported and spent on the import of machinery which does away with labour. I do not think that is good economy.

When we pay people wages at home, we are giving employment, even though our methods may not be as spectacular as if we used machinery. The work, I think, is just as reliable in the long run and it helps the economy as a whole because in a country where the wealth is produced from the land and where a large proportion of our production must be sold on the home market so as to give the farmer an adequate return, we require a large consumption, or as high a consumption as possible, of agricultural produce at home. In rural areas at least, the maintenance of a high level of employment should be aimed at as far as possible.

Forestry is another sector of our economy with a very important employment content and it is refreshing to see increased provision for it. I hope the amount provided will be expended. In previous years, sums provided for Forestry were not always spent by the end of the financial year.

Reference has been made to our trading pattern. We find ourselves trading with countries which do not buy anything like an adequate share of our products. Our main link has been with Britain and the six northern counties and the bulk of our trade is with them. By and large, there is not a great gap between what we buy from them and what we sell them. But in looking at our trade with outside countries and particularly with some of the countries remote from us, we find in some instances we are buying large amounts of goods from them, and buying materials from them which we could procure nearer home and we are not getting any adequate return for such expenditure because these countries do not buy from us.

It is to be earnestly hoped that in the coming year, in any agreements it may be possible for the Government to negotiate, a desirable trading pattern will be borne in mind because it is by reference to what we can export that we ought to import. That is something, perhaps, that is not happening. The previous speaker made reference to the import of luxury goods. I suppose if people demand the import of luxury goods and if they are prepared to pay for them, there is no reason why they should not have them. But if such purchases are to create difficulties for the economy, then it ought to be seriously considered whether we should not try to do something to discourage them.

The various Votes which go to make up this Book of Estimates show, in the main, increases over all sectors. There are a few decreases, I admit, but, in the main, they are for increased sums of money. One would wonder at this stage where economy might be made or found. Speaking here the other day, the Taoiseach indicated that the possibility was that our people would have to face the prospects of increased taxation. He felt that such sectors of the economy as recently received increases ought to be prepared to pay or contribute in some part for the agricultural community which, as everybody now admits, has been having serious difficulties.

I could not help noticing that in the Vote for the Army, increased provision is made for stores. Of course, an army to be successful must have specialised personnel in the various branches, but whether in our economy we should spend large sums of money on the purchase of weapons which we could never hope to have in large amounts or which we could not, by reason of the terrain of this country, usefully use, is something of which I am doubtful. I know the amount is not large, but when you are seeking for economy and appealing to the people as a whole to make sacrifices, then every portion of our Estimates ought to be carefully scrutinised and examined to see if we could not find even small economies over many sectors of the Estimates.

The last speaker spoke about a dual Civil Service. That does not affect this issue at the moment. I believe the people on this side of the Border have at all times given evidence of their goodwill, even to the point of making sacrifices to get rid of what the Deputy was pleased to refer to as a dual army, a dual police force and a dual Civil Service. I am quite certain everybody in the House would be prepared to agree that it would be very desirable, but merely saying it will not provide the economies which we seek. Within the Service as it stands, I often wonder that with our local authorities at present maintaining a specialised technical service in the line of engineers and otherwise, whether there is that need for the duplication of what I would call scrutiny at the technical level in Government Departments.

There is a further viewpoint which, I think, might be usefully examined. It is a viewpoint to which expression has already been given, whether meant or not, that is the need for decentralisation of Government Departments. The fact that we shifted part of a Department, or of a number of Departments or a whole Department to a rural centre would mean the injection into the local economy of a new stream of purchasing power. That would mean an increased reward for agriculture at least and for such services as such personnel would require.

Our rising pattern of expenditure is something which has been growing over the years. In part, it may be accounted for by a decrease in the value of money. Speaking here earlier, one Deputy mentioned this question of agricultural workers and workers employed in the manufacture of transportable goods. The difference between them is very large. Between the farming community, family workers and agricultural workers, both male and female, there are well over 500,000 engaged in the agricultural industry, whereas in transportable goods industries, the number engaged is somewhere in the region of 156,000. Therefore, whatever effects the agricultural community, whatever lowers their wage-earning capacity, is bound to have a very damaging effect on the economy as a whole.

It is true we have advanced quite a good deal from the days when the State was founded, but it is at this stage, with the emergence of complicated trade patterns abroad, that difficulties are arising for this young, yet old, nation—young in its new-found freedom and in its attempts to establish for itself its own type of economy. One is inevitably faced at this stage with the problem of whether because of our closeness and proximity to a country such as Great Britain, whose economy is firmly based on a long industrial tradition, and because our people have sampled such living as is available there, we are not inclined to compare our standard of living materially in that respect—whether in trying to keep pace materially with the standards of larger economies, we are not in fact creating problems for ourselves which we, sooner or later—and, I think, sooner rather than later—we shall have to face.

Our standard of living will have to be based on what we have or can earn. Therefore in this coming year, for which this large sum of money is required, there will have to be a lot of heart searching amongst the members of the Government who were responsible for the production of this Book of Estimates and who will be responsible for the imposition of such taxation as the provision of this sum of money will involve. It devolves on everybody in this House to give serious thought as to how the load which is bearing on the people at present can be lightened, and how we can increase production to such an extent that we can purchase for ourselves the standard of living which we should like to have but which we cannot have, or to such an extent that we can even maintain our present standard of living, which, to say the least of it, we are finding difficult.

There will have to be more reality and in that respect it is the duty of the Government to provide the answers to these problems. The various differences in the utterances of the Government now and when they were in Opposition may be pointed out by us and that should be something to stimulate them to the point of giving far more earnest attention to our problems to see where economies can be effected. If there has to be this increased taxation, as the Taoiseach said, they should pause before coming to this House asking for such sums of money as the people are unable to pay in present circumstances.

Besides the large sum of money which this Book represents, there is also the increasing tide of local taxation and between them, they could act as a deterrent on people who might otherwise be trying to struggle along, trying to remain here and provide a living in this country for themselves and their families. Everybody is aware that over the years the amount of local demand by way of rates has been increasing. The manager's estimate in my constituency provides for an increase of 3/2 in the rates for the coming year, which will bring them to 36/- in the £ or more and, with the increase in valuations imposed by valuers from the Valuation Office, it will mean a very great impost on the ratepayer. In that respect, I feel there are a number of sectors in both local and national revenue that ought to have the very serious attention this year of the Minister, the Government and their advisers.

Mr. Blowick

One of the most surprising features of the introduction of the Vote on Account was the Minister's short speech. It lasted exactly 15 minutes and, while brevity in speech is something to be desired at all times, the Minister could have given us a more lengthy explanation which would not have tired us. I suppose the gloom of things to come, of the increased taxes the Minister must be hatching out at present, hung over his head and perhaps helped to shorten his remarks. Another feature of the debate on this Vote on Account was the very pessimistic and gloomy speech of the Taoiseach. I was astonished at him.

For the past 18 months, an increasing number of people have been saying that this country cannot last. That is a frame of mind I always do my best to discourage because it leads to no good, but the gloomy speech of the Taoiseach, telling us there was no remedy for emigration and unemployment, referring in a very cursory way to the state of the agricultural industry, finishing up by forecasting increased taxation in the Budget due at the end of April, and asking the people to bear up cheerfully under it, has definitely damaged attempts to remove that frame of mind. Perhaps it is a fairly true expression of the state of the country at present but it certainly struck me as being a remarkably gloomy speech, and a short one also.

This year, the Government are seeking £123½ million for all Departments. That is a staggering figure and I submit it is a sum which the country cannot afford to spend on public services. While each year's Estimate creeps up slightly, the jump this year is very steep, and we must take into account that it is just exactly three short years since the Minister for Finance removed the food subsidies which, if you like, put £9 million increased taxation on the people. At that time, the figure on the cover of the Book of Estimates was in the region of £106 million. Now it is £123½ million and I am not drawing the long bow by any means when I say that added to that should be the £9 million for the food subsidies which the people have been paying for the past three years. Therefore, the figure which the people are being asked to contribute really amounts to £132½ million instead of £123½ million.

I want to state definitely that the two inter-Party Governments, particularly the last one, gave the people much better government and that the country was much more prosperous then than now. In that connection, I quote the Taoiseach's reference to agriculture at column 323, volume 180 of the Official Report, which reads:

It was, however, the effect upon agriculture of this recent increase in wages, and the implied threat of a general increase in the prices of commodities used in agriculture, which gave the Government the most concern. The fact that farmers were facing the prospect of higher costs from higher industrial wages, and were facing the obligation to pay higher wages to their own workers at a time when farm prices generally are tending downwards, could have a most discouraging effect.

Does the Taoiseach sincerely believe that that is all that is wrong with agriculture at the present time—that farm prices generally are tending downwards? Is the Taoiseach aware that there are no prices at all because most of the goods the farmers have for sale are absolutely unsaleable?

Since the Government came into office, they have been asking the farmers to increase production. The farmers have done so and what is the net result? They have 220,000 more cattle on their hands for which they cannot find a sale. They have close on 1,000,000 more sheep, with the same result, that they have no market for them. The fields down in the sheep areas in the west of Ireland are white with sheep and for all the profit they are to farmers, the fields might as well be white with snow. The turkey trade has vanished. Eggs and pigs are just things of the past and if this continues, we shall remember them only as a trade that once flourished in Ireland.

That is the position which the Minister is facing now and which the Taoiseach dismisses so lightly by saying that agricultural prices are tending downwards. They are not tending either upwards or downwards, for the simple reason that there are no prices. The sale of agricultural produce is at a standstill. We have, as I pointed out, close on 250,000 more cattle because of the good management of the former Minister for Agriculture. It is only right that we should give credit where credit is due. It is because of his good management of the agricultural industry that these cattle are there. But they are unsaleable. There are close on 1,000,000 more sheep. Turkeys were not economic last year. The Government appealed for increased wheat production. We had the finest harvest in living memory and the result is dearer bread.

The Government have steadily chiselled down on practically every activity. Unemployment was never so high as it is today. There is absolutely no work in my constituency. Up to this, it was the young boys and girls who emigrated. Now whole families are leaving. I do not blame these families for going. There is no prospect for them at home. There is no inducement for a man with a wife and family to stay here. The unemployment situation in the country is truly desperate.

Housebuilding activity has been cut down. The Minister for Local Government, in reply to a question by Deputy Corish, gave some statistics in relation to the numbers employed in the building industry. There has been a drop from 6,000 odd in 1956 to 1,700 or 1,800 this year—a drop of close on 4,000. The building industry is typical of other industries. Industries are closing down all over the country.

In forestry, roughly the same number of men are employed today on an allegedly bigger planting programme as compared with a much smaller programme some years ago. I brought home to the Minister for Lands in a recent debate the fact that the incentive bonus introduced by his predecessor has had the effect of reducing the employment potential in forestry. I should like to know what part of the £123,000,000 in the Book of Estimates will be devoted to the direct employment of ordinary working men. I tried to single out how much will be directed towards the employment of workers on arterial drainage, relief schemes, forestry and Land Commission works, such as building and so forth, and I have found that less than £3,000,000 will be devoted towards providing employment directly.

I recommend the Minister for Finance to go over the Estimates and do some pruning. Deputy McGilligan, when Minister for Finance, effected certain savings and, because of those savings in certain Departments, he was able to allow other Departments to expand and to put into operation projects which provided valuable employment. To instance just a few, the inter-Party Government implemented the Arterial Drainage Act of 1945. It was gathering dust in a pigeonhole. The inter-Party Government introduced the Land Project, afforestation on an expanded scale and the Local Authorities (Works) Act which was a very useful source of employment and was a very useful Act, despite the criticism of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. He said the Act was mismanaged and money was wasted. Perhaps that was his experience. It was not my experience either in my own county or in other counties I visited.

The Taoiseach, when speaking about emigration, was rather gloomy. He said at column 327 of Volume 180 of the Official Report that in time, we might "eliminate the economic causes of emigration, provided we as a nation are determined to do so, but we cannot succeed—we cannot hope to succeed—if any important element in the community is determined to remain outside the struggle, or is unwilling to concede that success in that struggle involves some sacrifices by them as well as by others." That is just so much pious humbug. It is not a practical approach by the head of the Government to such a serious problem as emigration. It is my experience, just as it is the experience of every Deputy who represents a rural constituency, that at the church gate now on Sunday, there are very few able-bodied people between the ages of 20 and 50. The congregations are composed of the old and the school-going. We are losing the cream of our youth. We are making no effort of any kind to provide employment which will keep them at home.

I want to bring home now to the Minister and to the Government the desperate plight in which agriculture is today. The Minister may not be aware of it but I can easily foresee a situation arising in which rates and taxes will not be paid next year because the farmers will not have the money to pay them. There are too many pious platitudes about farmers carrying the country on their backs, that the farmers are great men. They heard such platitudes during the economic war. The farmers were clapped on the back and told they were in the front line, that they were great men. They are in the front line again and in a situation equally bad as the situation they were in during the economic war. Businessmen or trades people can tell the Minister what they have told me, that their credit has run out, that decent people who would not sleep easy if they owed £1 to the local shopkeeper have run up bills of £60, £70 and £100 and have no hope of meeting them.

When replying to the debate, will the Minister tell us is there any hope of selling the first class agricultural produce that farmers have on hands? That is a very serious crux. It may not be more important but it certainly is as important as emigration and is contributing very seriously to emigration.

Since this Government took office three long years ago unemployment has crept up very seriously and emigration is as serious as ever. The 100,000 jobs dangled before the people by the present Taoiseach when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce and Tánaiste were merely an election trick, a rather shabby one. I shall not dwell on the promise to retain the food subsidies made by the then Taoiseach and the present Taoiseach before the election. What has happened? A feature has developed with regard to emigration that was not apparent up to the last two or three years—that whole families are locking up their houses and moving out. I have tried to get an idea of the number of families who have moved out of an area in my own constituency and if the Minister doubts what is happening I can give him the figures. In many cases where new houses have been built on small holdings through Local Government or Land Commission grants, the houses have been locked and shuttered up, the families gone and the holdings derelict. That is a matter that the Government should face.

The Minister when replying to the debate may suggest that Deputies have criticised but have not suggested a solution. I am giving the Minister a solution that we tried when we were in office, that is, to prune some of the wasteful expenditure in some Departments, expenditure on things we could do without or which could be reduced for the time being and to use the money so saved in developing the country and providing employment which would have the effect of retaining some of the 30,000 or 40,000 young people who are leaving the country all the time.

The only section of the community asked to carry every burden and to absorb every financial shock are the farmers. It may be suggested that it is good enough for them inasmuch as farmers do not stick together and are caught by every catch-cry. That is no reason why they should be played on with promises that are more of a joke than anything else, at election times. The farmers may be blamed for getting hurt by these promises but when people are in want and on the verge of destitution they cannot be blamed for believing any promise in the hope that out of ten promises, although nine may be false, one may come true.

The problems facing the Government are excessive expenditure, fierce unemployment, whole families emigrating, the high cost of living, the immense quantity of first class food that is unsaleable — food in the form of cattle, sheep, pigs, turkeys, eggs, and so on. These are matters that should be exercising the mind of the Government. If they do not solve them, I warn them that they will be faced with financial bankruptcy before the end of the present year.

Mr. Crotty

The Government have been in office for three years, a longer period than the average life of Governments in this country, namely, two years and nine months. Is it not time that we checked as to the progress made? In the debates on the Vote on Account for last year and the year before, there was the justifiable excuse that the Government had been in office only for one year or two years and had not had time to put into operation the policy adumbrated before the election. In the three years of office of the Government, can it be said that any spectacular progress has been made in the creation of employment or the provision of a higher standard of living? It may be said that we have a higher standard of living, but at what a price.

When the Minister brought in his first Budget and removed the subsidies he said that if the trade unions and labour force demanded increased pay to meet the increased cost of living brought about by the removal of the subsidies, the benefits of the removal of the subsidies and the Government policy would be taken away. Deputy Kyne asked was the Minister such a fool as to think that these people would not look for increases to compensate them for the enormous increase in the cost of living. That was bound to happen. It would be ridiculous that any Government should think that they could increase the cost of living overnight to such an extent and expect the organised workers to take it in their stride and to be prepared to cut down their living standards.

That statement of the Minister at that time was just as ridiculous as the statement made by the Taoiseach at various dinners during the time of the previous Government, at which he announced a blueprint for prosperity and suggested that it was only a matter of returning Fianna Fáil to office and 100,000 people would be put to work over five years, at the rate of 20,000 per annum. At that rate there should be 60,000 more people in employment now. The figure of 100,000 has been reached in one way. Instead of there being 60,000 more in employment, there are now 40,000 fewer in employment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance was the only Deputy who held out a ray of hope in this debate. He was an optimist. He said that all the signs were pointing to recovery. I have often heard it said by Fianna Fáil, when they were in office before, that we were around the corner. According to the Parliamentary Secretary, we have gone past the corner and all the signs are pointing to recovery. He asks does any serious-minded Deputy think we could cure unemployment overnight? Does the Parliamentary Secretary include the present Taoiseach among serious-minded Deputies?

Within the past twelve months the Taoiseach has issued invitations to all local authorities to submit suggestions relating to State investment in public projects of economic merit. Was that a last throw? Before he came into office he had a blueprint for prosperity. However, having been in office for two years, the Government having no suggestions of their own and being unable to formulate a policy themselves invited county councils, corporations, chambers of commerce, trade unions and other such bodies to come together and make suggestions so that the State could invest money in public projects of economic merit. That is about on the same par as the 100,000 jobs of the Taoiseach. He was Taoiseach at the time of which I speak. Imagine a man in the most responsible position in the Government calling all these people together in such circumstances. They had great hopes: "Here is a new Taoiseach. There will be a new outlook on Irish life. This man will bring prosperity to the country." All these bodies met and sent up their schemes for consideration but hardly one proposal was accepted by the Government.

I have been listening to this debate on and off since the Vote on Account came before the House. We have had unemployment figures and various other figures quoted, but the man in the street does not want figures quoted to him at all. He knows exactly the position the country is in. He knows the serious position in relation to emigration and unemployment and that there is very little prospect for people in any sphere.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Brennan, in the course of his speech asked what was the purpose of these relief schemes. He asked if it would not be much better, instead of having relief schemes, if we put all this money together and made a proper investment. On the other hand, he said we must have some relief schemes. Such schemes were introduced by the inter-Party Government under the Local Authorities (Works) Act which did a lot of good for the country, and at the same time provided very badly needed employment especially for county council workers in the off-season. Most employment is given by the county council in the summer time at tarring and other such works. These activities are stopped completely in the winter time and other types of work must be found.

Under the Local Authorities (Works) Act drainage work was provided in the off-season for these people who in the normal way would be out of work three or four months during the year. The Government decided to stop these schemes because, they said, some of them were not done under proper supervision or were not effective and that the money was not being used properly. I found no schemes such as that in my part of the country. In fact, that is a criticism of the officials of the Department of Local Government who have passed such schemes. I believe they were very well sieved in the Department before they were passed; they provided a great deal of useful employment during the winter period and also helped the drainage programme.

As regards housing, from my own experience I can say housing is completely closed down. There is, I grant, a certain amount of reconstruction going on. A good deal of it is reconstruction of old houses, and there is only a small employment content in that. There is no need for new drainage, water supply or any of the other items needed for new houses. It merely involves adding another room and there is no major employment given.

The Minister for Finance may not have said: "We shall not carry out any new housing schemes," but his colleague the Minister for Local Government has killed practically all housing schemes by finding fault with the plans; the Department can ask to have another survey, as to how many people are entitled to subsidised houses, how many people are in unfit dwellings. There are many ways of holding up plans for 12 or 18 months, with the result that practically no employment is given in this connection. I understand the number of workers in the building trade has been reduced to one-fifth of what it was in 1956. That is a tremendous reduction. Many of these people are tradesmen and good builders' labourers who can get any amount of employment across the water. They will not stay at home in the hope that some change in policy on the part of the Government will occur. I do not see any hope of a change in policy by this Government.

We have had the Programme for Economic Expansion. It is very good in its own way but have we men of sufficient ability to put that into force? I remember the Minister in his Budget statement telling us with great enthusiasm that £250,000 was being provided to set up a marketing board. This board has been set up and proposals and recommendations have been submitted to the Government. However, the Government have not seen fit to examine one of these proposals. Three years ago we thought that at least by this time we would have developed these improved marketing conditions but nothing has been done about that.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Brennan, pointed out that even with increased production off the land employment on the land was falling. I suppose that is only natural with the use of machinery, but if the Government fostered production from the land along lines which would provide good labour content there would not be so much unemployment on the land. On the yardstick that a Government proves whether it has been successful or not by the number of happy homes and the number of people put into good employment since they came into office, this Government would fail lamentably. The Government not alone have lost the confidence of the people but the confidence of the Deputies of their own Party.

Mr. Beirne

I was glad to be present last week when the Taoiseach made his speech. Gloomy and all as it was, there was a spirit of honesty in that speech. There is no doubt that he painted a picture which has caused despondency, despair and frustration but when I say there was honesty in that speech, I mean the Taoiseach gave us a picture of what is to come and what has happened over the last three years since Fianna Fáil took office.

The Taoiseach's speech was honest in so far as it displayed that the Fianna Fáil Party is an absolute and complete failure. The Fianna Fáil policy has been a complete failure over the past three years, or rather over the past 20 years. Look at the conditions in the country. What a spectacle they present to anyone who has been absent for a few years and who sees now on returning the queues of unemployed, the derelict houses, the countryside denuded of its population, the doors locked in the houses of the small farmers who, with their wives and families, have left the country.

I am not painting a really bad picture, as bad perhaps as I should paint, but I know something about what is happening, particularly west of the Shannon. I am not going to speak of what is happening in Dublin and the big centres of population, as I know very little about them, but I know what is happening where once upon a time we had the backbone of the country, the rural areas, in which the people stood by us through thick and thin, through wars of all descriptions, and produced the food and the wealth of this country.

Those people, I must say, have left us and it is with regret that I have to come in here and say these lamentable things about the country. The Taoiseach has openly admitted that Fianna Fáil have been a failure and his picture for the future is the gloomiest ever presented. The comments on his speech down the country are extraordinary. People cannot believe that the Taoiseach would express himself in such a way or make such a despondent and hopeless speech in this House. Instead of inspiring hope in the people and telling them that the future holds something good for them, he threatened all sorts of drastic measures by way of taxation in the coming Budget. There is not even one ray of hope in his statement.

The people are commenting on it and wondering what is to happen. They do not expect anything. They do not expect any relief in the coming Budget. Very little, they say, will be done for agriculture. Some people are prophesying that he may give an increase of one penny a gallon for milk, that he may subsidise pig production, or that he may subsidise egg production. That may be all right but I wonder how his relief measures will improve conditions west of the Shannon, or in my county, Roscommon. Ours is not really a creamery area — there are no creameries west of the Shannon — but I welcome an increase in the price of milk. I think it is good for the overall economy of the country and good for the producers.

I should like to know if the Taoiseach has any measures in mind to improve conditions west of the Shannon where we have no creameries, very little pig production and where we can rely only on the production of store cattle. That has been our economy down through the years and it will remain our economy.

I should prefer to be able to congratulate the Taoiseach and his Government on having achieved something during the past three years, or at least having to some extent fulfilled some of the promises they made in the last election. Those promises were dishonest; there was not a bit of sincerity in them. The Taoiseach told the people in Clery's Restaurant, at some function before the last election, that he would find jobs for 100,000 men and that husbands would be coming back to reside with their wives and families and I am surprised that he made those statements. There was a hint that taxation would get an overhaul, with the possibility of perhaps reducing taxation by £10 million. Can anyone tell me those statements were honest? I say emphatically that they were not honest, that there was no such intention, and that no plans were put forward by which these things could be achieved.

Now the Taoiseach has come out in his true colours and has told the people: "You had better tighten your belts". That in reality is what the Taoiseach told them, that there are hard times ahead and that there will be increased taxation in the Budget. If there is, I hope the people will take it well. These are the words one hears. Now that the Taoiseach is in office, it is different, of course. When you are in Government, you are more or less on the offensive and you make a different kind of speech when you are on the offensive. During election times, I suppose we are all more or less on the offensive. The Taoiseach was on the offensive when he made those foolish statements before the last election.

I want to say that in my experience, the past year has been the worst in living memory, at least in my memory. I know that both from the agricultural angle and from the business angle, and the people know it, too. We all know that in my part of the country, as I said before, we rely mostly on store cattle for export to Britain. That was one of the main items in our economy. Deputies from west of the Shannon must know that at fairs today, which I attend frequently, the people are as silent as dead men. The position at the fairs in the west of Ireland at present is that you could hear a pin dropping. There is no rustle; there is no bargaining or the old-time slapping of hands when one bid £2 or £10, as the case might be. None of that is happening in the fairs down the country and the people are standing there, as someone once said, as mute as mice and cannot turn their goods into cash.

The same thing happened in the sheep trade last season. Good Roscommon lambs were sold at £2 in my constituency and turkeys were absolutely thrown away. These are the things on which we have to rely. We are not relying on crops or on milk production. We are relying on those three items, store cattle, sheep and perhaps turkeys thrown in, and a few pigs. The price of pigs, however, was so uneconomic we had to abandon their production in the west of Ireland and it would be very hard to bring back that production again in any dimensions at all.

As I said, I do not want to exaggerate. It would be much more pleasant for me to come in here and congratulate the Minister and the Government for having achieved the many things which they promised the people. That would be more of a pleasure to me. I am not a very harsh critic in most cases. I give the Taoiseach this much credit: I know that he is making an effort to do things but I also know that he is not able, that it is impossible for him and that the country has gone to the lowest depths. It would take this Taoiseach and the several other Taoisigh who will follow him, to bring the country back to normality or to anything in the nature of a successful and progressive condition. His intentions are good but he cannot realise them and he will not realise them in his time.

While the Taoiseach goes around a lot in his own part of the country, Dublin, and he may go to foreign countries — I do not blame him for that; I think it is a good thing and an education to see conditions in other countries — I would strongly advise him to visit some towns in the west of Ireland and in Roscommon to see what is happening. In my younger days, I remember the time when, on a fair day, all doors were locked in the countryside and every individual in the family travelled to the fair to enjoy himself. Now the doors are locked. Nobody can live there. They are gone and the door is locked.

If a farmer's wife goes into a town, she finds the farmer there with a doleful look on his face because he cannot dispose of his stock. If he goes into a business place in the town, a public-house, a draper's shop, or any other type of business house, he will find the proprietor and the assistants sleeping over the counter. He will find a tale of woe every place he goes. That is a positive fact and I know it myself. Things are as bad as that.

Mr. Fanning

I am surprised to hear the Deputy making such a statement.

Mr. Beirne

If Deputy Fanning gets to his feet, I shall listen to him patiently and I shall not interrupt him. I assure him of that. I think he has yet to make his maiden speech and I should like to hear him tonight.

(Interruptions).

Mr. Beirne

That is what is happening now. We have ghost towns where you could hear a pin drop on market days and fair days. That really is what is happening. I am not exaggerating or painting the picture any worse than it is. As a matter of fact, I am restraining myself from exaggerating. I said before and I say again, that the Taoiseach may have good intentions, but with the best intentions in the world, he cannot succeed.

In my opinion, the poorer sections of the community are not properly catered for. Any little pittance the Government may have given to the widows, orphans and old age pensioners is entirely insufficient to cope with the increase in the cost of living. It would be a very charitable and laudable thing if in the coming Budget those people got a little more attention.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Those matters would require legislation and, therefore, are not relevant.

Mr. Beirne

I shall leave it at that. The question of unemployment has got a lot of airing in this House. I shall not say very much about it, but it is one of the things that should receive the serious and careful attention of any Government. I do not think anything in the line of a solution is even in sight, or that there is any attempt being made to solve the problem. Perhaps when I say that, I shall be asked: "Let us have your suggestions. How would you solve it?" There are many ways. I shall make just a few small suggestions that might help to relieve the problem as it stands at the moment. The Land Rehabilitation Scheme was introduced by the previous Government and Section B of that scheme was dropped by this Government. That section should never have been dropped.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely that matter would be relevant to the main Estimate.

Mr. Beirne

I want to connect it with the unemployment problem.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It does not arise. Such details are not relevant. The Deputy will have an opportunity of raising it on the main Estimate.

Mr. Beirne

I am making a suggestion to the Government as to how unemployment might be relieved. Another very useful Act which has been shelved, or suspended, by the Government, which, if put into operation, would give employment of a very productive nature and which had been giving employment of a very productive nature, is the Local Authorities (Works) Act.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The matter does not arise on the Vote on Account.

General MacEoin

It is not included, but we could argue that it should be.

Mr. Beirne

No measure has been mentioned more often in this House, on this Vote, than the Local Authorities (Works) Act.

General MacEoin

The Fianna Fáil Árd Fheis passed a resolution——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is a matter for the relevant Estimate.

Dr. Ryan

It might be in order at the Árd Fheis but it is not in order here.

General MacEoin

Democracy does not count.

Mr. Beirne

Not only are the people overburdened by central taxation but the burden of rates is also a very serious matter. It is taxation too. Let no one imagine that this £123½ million which appears on the cover of the Book of Estimates is the whole figure. Taxation would probably be better represented by a figure of something in the neighbourhood of £170,000,000. The problem we have to face is a very grave one.

I do not think the Government have produced any plan. They have mentioned plans, and they said they had a plan many years ago, but that plan has never been carried into effect. I should like to know from the Minister if he really has a plan which he wishes to put into operation. If he can tell us that he can put more people into employment within the next 12 months or two years, if he can tell us that he is bringing the people back, having the old homes reopened, and putting the small farmer back into his homestead with his wife and children, I shall be quite happy, but I must content myself at the moment with saying that I shall wait and see.

Minister for Finance (Dr. Ryan)

I should like first of all, to take the figure on the Book of Estimates in 1957/58 when we took over the Government, and compare it with the figure in the Book of Estimates for the present year, because various sums have been mentioned by Opposition speakers, some of them very much out of line with what is the true figure. For that reason, it is no harm to give the real figure as it appears. On the cover of the Book of Estimates, 1957/58, was a sum of £112.570 as compared with £123,460 this year, that is to say, £10.9 million or £10,900,000 higher this year than it was in 1957/58. Dividing these figures into capital and non-capital, we find that capital expenditure this year is higher by £7,000,000 than it was in 1957/58. Therefore the current expenditure set out in the Book of Estimates this year is only £3,800,000 higher than in 1957/58.

If any Deputy goes through the Book of Estimates with an open mind — maybe that is too much to expect but there are Deputies who have spoken who tried to give the impression that they have open minds — I do not think he will come back to me and say there is something we should strike out. Let us take a few items. For instance, the figure for arterial drainage is higher in the Estimates this year by £¼ million than it was in 1957/58, and stores and equipment for arterial drainage are higher by another £¼ million. That is £½ million. I do not know any Deputy on either side of the House who would say these figures should be cut down because I am quite sure every Deputy, whatever he may think privately, would not say publicly, that we are going too quickly or too far in arterial drainage.

As I am on that point, that is £½ million up, and if a sum of £400,000 has been cut out in respect of works under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, there is £½ million there put against it. We believe that is the best way to do the job, to start with arterial drainage, cut up the big arteries, and then do the tributaries when we come to them.

There has been a lot of talk that housing grants have been reduced. As far as Government expenditure goes, if you look at the Estimate for 1957-58 you will find that under the heading "Grants" there was a provision of £2,000,000. This year the provision is £2,095,000. Any neutral person coming here, and listening to the Fine Gael speakers, would come to the conclusion, if he believed them, that the Coalition Government had done a great deal for housing and that we had not. If you look at the Estimate for the last year prepared by the Coalition Government, the Estimate for 1957-58, and compare it with that for this year, you will find that £95,000 more is provided this year for housing grants than in 1957-58. I shall say more about housing later on.

Deputy Blowick said we were not doing as much as we should for Forestry. On the capital side, we are providing £400,000 more than the Estimate for 1957-58. Under Agriculture, there are two big headings. The first is the eradication of bovine tuberculosis and under it almost £3½ million is provided this year. It was nil in 1957-58 because the amount of money spent on the eradication of bovine tuberculosis that year came from the Grant Counterpart Fund. It was a comparatively small amount, in any case, something under £1 million. However, as far as the Estimates go, this provision is £3½ million higher than in 1957-58.

I must take the Land Project and fertilisers together because in 1957-58 they were bulked together — the Land Project and the Subsidy on Phosphate. If we take these two together, they are £1,300,000 higher this year than they were in 1957-58. Therefore, if you take arterial drainage, the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, and the Land Project and fertilisers you will see that over £5,000,000 there comes out of the £7,000,000 by which our Estimate is higher than in 1957-58. The other £2,000,000 is made up in this way.

I am sure no Deputy will say we should cut down on the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, the Land Project, fertilisers, arterial drainage, or any of these other matters. There is £2,000,000, then, in respect of which some Deputies would say we should cut down and some would not. It is made up of £1,000,000 for Industrial Grants and Tourist Grants and £1,000,000 for Airports. Some Deputies may say we are spending too much on airports. They are quite welcome to that opinion. That is where the other £2,000,000 is in excess of 1957-58.

Take the current side, then. On current expenditure, we are a little bit under £4,000,000 higher than in 1957-58. Take Education. I suppose every Deputy will say we should spend more on Education. I am quite sure no Deputy will say we are spending too much on Education. If my memory serves me right, we had to provide £400,000 which the last Government promised to give the secondary teachers but made no provision for. We also had to restore certain capitation grants they took from them. Then we had to restore a cut to the technical committees which they also took from them. Between all these things, and extra expenditure because there are more pupils and teachers in the schools, we are this year providing £2,800,000 more than in 1957-58.

Under Social Assistance and Social Insurance we are providing £3,400,000 more than in 1957-58. In Health we are providing £600,000 more. I said already we were providing £400,000 more on the capital side of Forestry. On the current side of Forestry we are providing a further £200,000. Anybody listening to Deputy Blowick and some other Deputies would think that they were great advocates of forestry and that we were doing nothing. In fact, we are now spending £600,000 more and we are taking nothing off Forestry at all. We are spending a further £200,000 on Fisheries.

If you take the current side now, as I have just given it to you, you will get over £7,000,000 against the £4,000,000 extra we are spending. Then we have the big spending Departments where, really, the expenditure is on salaries, wages, and so on — the Post Office, Army and Garda. There is an increase of over £3,000,000 for these three Departments. There is not only enough in that total of £10¾ million on the current side to cover the £4,000,000 extra in the Estimates on the current side but there is also enough to cover what we gain by doing away with the food subsidies.

If we want to debate this matter in an intelligent way and in an attempt to do something better for the country, I submit you will not do anything better for the country by falsifying figures and misrepresenting what Fianna Fáil are doing. You must be on the basis of truth before you can do anything to better this country. If Opposition Deputies have any desire to try to help this country, let them get the facts first, then talk on the facts and suggest what we should do. If you think the Estimate is too high, I have given you the items that have made the difference on the capital side and also on the current side. I do not know if any Deputy will suggest that we should cut down on any one of those items. There will be opportunities later, on the Estimates, to discuss those points.

I want to say a word about the food subsidies. I know some Deputy may say: "But, did you not get a very big windfall, in the way of expenditure, by cutting the food subsidies? If you save £5,000,000 expenditure you have it for something else." That is true. First of all, Opposition Deputies were never very particular about the figures they give. If one Deputy gives a figure, another Deputy will add a bit to it and accuse Fianna Fáil of doing away with £8,000,000, £9,000,000, £10,000,000; it does not matter at all about the figure. They will accuse Fianna Fáil of doing away with so many millions.

The estimate for food subsidies for 1957-58 was £7,100,000, not £9,000,000. The Fine Gael figure is £9,000,000. I am giving the official figures. I am trying to get people to accept the official figures and not the Fine Gael statistics because I can tell you that they are unreliable. Against that £7,100,000, we provided £1,590,000 for increased social benefits. Therefore, the net increase or benefit to the Exchequer was just £5½ million, not £9,000,000.

I always marvel at the Fine Gael Party and the way they can so lightly accuse us of doing away with the food subsidies — as if they would not have done it. Practically every time I have spoken on the subject since 1957, I have asked if they would give me any explanation of the fact that, as Deputy Sweetman and Deputy J.A. Costello announced at a Government meeting of 2nd November, 1956, it was decided by the then Coalition Government that the Book of Estimates would be reduced to £96½ million.

As I said before and I say again, I came in, took over this office and I cut the food subsidies. I provided a certain amount for social welfare to make up for that amount — £9½ million, the very figure the Coalition Government decided on 2nd November, 1956, they would adopt if they came back after the election. The men in the back benches do not know this. I am sure they were never told by Ministers what they had in mind. Also they should know that the Minister for Finance had the report of the Commission on capital formation which recommended the abolition of the food subsidies. One would think, when it has become part of the policy of Fine Gael not to do away with the food subsidies now that they are out of office, if they had the same policy when they were in office, that they would have published that report and said they were not adopting it. Surely Deputy Sweetman who was Minister at the time had some fear that Fianna Fáil might come in and do away with the food subsidies. If he had that fear, why did he not serve the people by publishing the report and saying he did not agree with it?

We all know that the Government had decided in November, 1956, to cut expenditure by something like £5,600,000, which fitted in exactly with doing away with the food subsidies. The report was ready in his drawer to hand out that the food subsidies should be done away with. Everythings was ready. The first day I went to the Department of Finance, these figures were all ready. I know that when this debate comes up again next week or the week after, every member of the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party will say that the Government did away with the food subsidies, as if they would not have done it. They have a cheek. We shall leave it at that.

General MacEoin

We would be right.

Dr. Ryan

Most of the speeches from the other side in this debate during the past three or four days were devoted to an attempt to explain to the people why they were so disastrously defeated in 1957. Every speaker talked about the promises made. One would imagine that the people were very gullible and that they listened to these promises and turned practically 100 per cent. over to Fianna Fáil because they made certain promises. I shall make this bet with any Deputy. If he looks at the local papers for county Wexford, he will certainly see that I made no promises and neither did any of my colleagues. I remember distinctly, when asked would I do so-and-so, saying that I could not promise anything because this country was in such a mess that I did not know what the situation would be. We made no promises and it was the first time that we got three seats in county Wexford. We made no promises. The people were anxious to get rid of the Coalition Government.

When we talk about raising taxation, there is one thing that has often puzzled us. This is not against the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party or anybody else. I am always puzzled to know what is meant by increasing taxation. Does it mean collecting more on given taxes or increasing certain taxes above the level they are at at the moment? I do not think we could possibly find fault with any Government or any Minister for Finance accepting the increased yield from taxes because inevitably increased expenditures have to be met every year.

We have, for instance, over the past three or four years, borrowed something like £40 million or £44 million. That is a debt that must be serviced. It means, in fact, that we are adding on every year about £2½ million to meet the necessary interest and sinking fund on that amount. Then, of course, from time to time, as we had recently, we have increased pay. That must be met, too. Every year, certain new services are added on. There is pressure from here and there, usually with the approval of the whole House. These must be met. Therefore, when we talk about increased taxation, do we mean increased yield from the taxes there? Certainly some of the newspapers mean that. Some of the newspapers, when they see the bill and see more money coming in, talk about increased taxation. If we talk about increased taxation as increases in taxes already there or on inland revenue, that is a different matter.

Even taking it that way, since we came in, we increased taxes on certain things. They were not very big increases. We reduced taxes on certain things. We reduced income tax. I think that if one thing is taken with another, the amount of increase is very small indeed. There is no doubt that the income to the Exchequer has gone up very considerably over the past three or four years. That is a different matter.

Deputy Sweetman found fault with quite a lot of things. He found fault with our farming operations and where he could not find fault, he said it was due to Deputy Dillon. First of all, he said that there was not enough wheat grown last year. We should try to be a little sensible about these things. The year 1958 was the worst year in living memory. Many farmers grew wheat. He would want to be a fairly brave man who would grow wheat the following year as a result of the scourge we got in 1958. As a matter of fact, they did grow more wheat in 1959, not exactly enough but a fair amount. I am sure enough will be grown in 1960, if not too much.

With regard to beet, the beet factories refused a certain amount of beet. We had four factories working to full capacity last year. They cannot do more than that. The factories cannot start until they get beet. There is a bit of a tussle between the factories and the farmers to try to get beet to come in earlier. It is very hard to get it in around 1st October. It drags on a week or two before it comes in. After Christmas, the sugar content goes down rather rapidly. They want to finish up as quickly as they can. The factories worked to full capacity last year, and they are aiming at full capacity next year.

The numbers of cattle and sheep are up. Deputy Sweetman said that was due to Deputy Dillon. Deputy Sweetman also drew attention to the reduction in the provision in the Estimates for dairy produce. I think now that provision is a little low. I did not think so last October. These Estimates are made around about October or November. I want to make it perfectly clear, so that there will be no misunderstanding, that there was a certain amount collected last year by way of levy. It is in the fund. The Exchequer is under an obligation to pay £2 into the fund for every £1 by way of levy. When all these are there, it comes to £1 million. We did not think we would spend £1,000,000 on subsidies this year but even now, although the output of butter is small, it is still bigger than last year, and there seems to be a tendency towards increased production. When you take the census of the cattle in the country that also would point towards increased production. It may be necessary to provide more, but by the time the Budget comes along we should be in a better position to see what the amount should be.

The Taoiseach indicated in this debate that as a result of the recent increases in wages and so on, it would probably be necessary to do something for agriculture. First, he is accused by some of the Labour Members of saying that the workers were unpatriotic because they got an increase. I listened to the Taoiseach and I did not hear him say one uncomplimentary word about the workers for getting that increase. He did say that it was the first time that an increase was given which did not entirely depend on the cost of living; that there was an element in this increase which went to improve the standard of living of the workers as well as covering their cost of living.

He said further, that an increase like that in wages must come from somewhere. It can very often be covered by increased productivity but in many instances it cannot. We have already had the example of C.I.E. They cannot cover it by increased production. Neither can the Civil Service. There are cases such as those where somebody must bear the increase, whether the travelling public, the consumers, the taxpayers or some other class. Because the Taoiseach discussed the matter in an open way, and pointed out what the repercussions might be, he has been accused of charging the workers with doing something wrong. Secondly, he has been accused of being very pessimistic in his outlook because he said the increase given may involve increased prices in certain directions.

That sort of comment on the Taoiseach's speech makes it difficult to be frank with the Dail and give an opinion. Why cannot he give his opinion frankly and let it be accepted? Say he is wrong if you like, but why accuse him of attacking the workers? Why accuse him of making the most pessimistic speech ever made in this House? It was by no means pessimistic, in my opinion.

I am going back to the Estimates. They were framed around last October-November. They may have to be looked at again when the Budget comes along. That is a different matter. The Taoiseach said he felt that the farmers required consideration, that if they had to give increased wages in the same way as everybody else — and after all the agricultural workers need the increase as much as anybody else—the farmers' position would have to be examined to see if they could afford to give the increase. That was a very sensible approach and a frank way of looking at it but because he was frank, he is attacked for being unfriendly to the workers. That will not get the Labour Party anywhere. If they think they are going to deal with the workers by making false accusations of that type they will not get very far. These matters are under consideration, I can tell the House. Giving, as far as it is in the Government power to do so, an increase in prices means that the increase must, of course, be taken from somebody, either the consumer or the taxpayer. The taxpayer and the consumer are the same person and therefore the people must pay. For that reason, it requires very close consideration but I hope we shall reach a conclusion before too long.

Deputy Casey went on to say that not only did the workers deserve that increase in wages — nobody has denied that — but he added, he was not satisfied with it. He said that profits of companies are going up inordinately. He said that he had examined, I think, the accounts of 93 companies and that their profits had gone up 40 per cent. I have not examined the accounts of any companies but the Revenue Commissioners come along about this time every year and tell the Minister for Finance what they expect to get in the coming year. They have examined individually or collectively up to 1000 companies, not 93, and their conversation would lead me to believe that there will be not more than 10 to 15 per cent. increase in profits. Deputy Casey must have examined some very favoured companies in order to get that 40 per cent. increase; if not, he was making the case that if there was a contribution to productivity, it should be made by the employers and not by the workers.

Deputy Casey said that as long as productivity could afford it, that was all right, but the benefit should be passed on to the workers by an increase in wages. I would not go that far. If we are going to compete — and we will have to compete in the foreign market — I think we shall have to give our industries a little bit more. They are finding it very hard to compete at the moment and they need a little bit more in their favour. If there is a saving by way of increased productivity, it should be shared between the workers and others concerned but part of it at least should go towards efficiency, in other words, lower prices, and so give industries an opportunity of competing in the foreign market.

Deputy Casey talked about the man who had to emigrate because of increased productivity — he had lost his job. The Deputy said it was no consolation to that man to know that he had made it easier for other workers to carry on. If we can increase the efficiency of factories now going into the export market, it will mean more and more workers will be employed and those who give a hand, whether workers, salary-earners, or people on the dividend side, if they all contribute to that, will have done something to increase employment.

I want to return as I said to housing. Deputy Sweetman charged the Government with responsibility for a decline in housing and other capital expenditure. He said it was a productivity decline. Let us look at the facts. Sometimes it is hard to say that is absolutely wrong because so many factors come into a matter like this. I must approach it another way and give the figure afterwards. I think if we approach it in another way we shall see that Deputy Sweetman's accusation against the Government is not sustainable.

When we came into office in 1957, it was quite obvious that local authority housing was coming towards an end — not finished by any means but coming towards an end. We learned that in many centres there was no application from the local authority for any further help for housing. There was, of course, a very big job yet to be done in Dublin and Cork and a certain amount in other towns. Even though we foresaw that less money would be required for local authority housing, we thought that we might at least try to keep capital expenditure up where it was designed to provide employment and opportunity for employment in other ways.

This year, for instance, our estimate on capital account is £45,000,000. It is too early to say whether all that £45,000,000 will be spent or not, but I do not think we shall be very far short of it. It is very hard, especially on the capital side, to spend exactly the amount provided because it is given out in fairly large sums and there may be certain amounts here and there not spent at the end of the year. But the fact that £45,000,000 was provided is certainly no evidence of a deliberate progressive decline.

As a matter of fact, in the year 1957-58 — the last year Deputy Sweetman prepared these Estimates — he had £41,000,000 down. I want to correct that figure. In fairness, we must add to that what was provided for bovine tuberculosis eradication and grants for industry. That would add another £1,000,000 to it. They are now on the capital side. As I explained already, at that time, the money for bovine T.B. came from the Grant Counterpart Fund and when it came to be provided by the Exchequer, it went on the capital side.

Mr. Sweetman

Not all of it, I think, to be accurate. I think there was a sum of £884,000 involved.

Dr. Ryan

I think all was in that particular year. I shall not be positive.

Mr. Sweetman

We shall not quarrel about that.

Dr. Ryan

Admittedly, there is less for local authority housing but there is more on the industrial credit side, more grants for agriculture, principally under the headings of agricultural credit, bovine tuberculosis and fertiliser subsidy, and various other items which Deputies can no doubt recall, even though I do not mention them.

It is not right to say, either, that the last Coalition Government did more for housing than anybody else. If you go back, you find that the peak was reached in 1952-53. In that year, over 14,000 new houses were built with State aid. As I said, the demand for new houses has been declining and with that decline in the past three years, we have been doing more for private housebuilding and reconstruction and repair. As Deputies will recollect, we also provided, for the first time, for loans from the Local Loans Fund for the repair or reconstruction of existing houses, so that there has been a sharp revival of activity under these headings. It is estimated, for instance, that 13,000 grants for reconstruction or repair will have been allocated in the 12 months ended 31st March and that compares with 9,000 grants in 1956-57 and 8,500 in 1957-58.

Mr. Sweetman

Is the Minister talking of reconstruction only or reconstruction and new houses?

Dr. Ryan

Reconstruction only.

Mr. Sweetman

Has he got the dual figure?

Dr. Ryan

There is a good deal of talk about employment in building generally. Unfortunately, I asked for the figures only this afternoon. I have the figures for the past four years for unemployment. I could not get the figures for employment, but perhaps we shall have it the next time. In February, 1957, there were 10,820 unemployed in the building trade; in 1958, 9,765; in 1959, 8,539; and in 1960, 6,505. I wonder what a neutral person would have thought listening to the debate here——

Mr. O'Sullivan

What does that prove?

Dr. Ryan

It proves there were 4,000 fewer unemployed.

Mr. O'Sullivan

It proves they are working in England.

Dr. Ryan

If the figure had gone up by 4,000, what would it have proved? Because it came down 4,000, it does not prove anything. It probably proves that the Coalition Government, in their wisdom, had provided for all this and that now the figure is down by 4,000.

Mr. Sweetman

You are very stuck for an argument.

Dr. Ryan

I have a lot of arguments you have not heard at all yet. I am stuck for an argument because we heard this ullagoning from the Fine Gael Party. I wonder do they really feel things are as bad as they say. Life must be miserable, if they think that, when they go around and see the suffering of the people. They talk about unemployment. Deputy Beirne came in and said he never saw unemployment so bad before, and several other Deputies said the same; but when I say that unemployment in the building industry is down by 4,000, Deputy O'Sullivan asks: "What does that prove?" It proves you were all wrong. That is all. Every one of you was wrong.

The Taoiseach is accused of being pessimistic. I shall read a whole lot of optimistic figures for the House. I would ask Fine Gael to listen to these figures and to ask themselves: "I wonder are we right or are we wrong in this view we are taking of the country?" If the Taoiseach had remained here for two days listening to this debate, he would certainly have made a more pessimistic speech. He would have been in despair listening to Fine Gael.

Let us take industrial production, first of all. In the December quarter of 1956 — the last quarter this country had the privilege of being under a Coalition Government — industrial production stood at 100.1. In the March quarter of 1957, it was 93.9. It was on the downward grade. In the December quarter of 1959, it was 119.9. When we produced our Programme for Economic Expansion, we had a long debate as to what increase in production we should calculate could take place in the country over the years. Eventually, we said two per cent. We wanted to be on the safe side. As a matter of fact, over the past three years, industrial production is up six per cent., not two per cent. These are the official figures, not the Fine Gael figures.

We come now to employment in industries producing transportable goods. This is not unemployment; this is employment in industry. Now, will Deputy O'Sullivan tell me what does this prove?

Mr. Sweetman

I shall tell the Minister what it proves before he starts. It proves it has gone up 4,000 and the Taoiseach said agriculture and fisheries have gone down 9,000. That is minus 5,000. That is what it proves.

Dr. Ryan

If the Deputy is wrong in the first figure, we may presume he is wrong in the second, too. The figures for employment in industry were: December quarter, 1956, 150,632; March, 1957, 146,581 and now December, 1959, 157,351.

Mr. Sweetman

Compare December, 1959, with December, 1958.

Dr. Ryan

It is 9,000 higher than at the time when we came into office. The Deputy said 4,000.

Mr. Sweetman

4,000 from December, 1958, to December, 1959.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is entitled to make his speech.

Dr. Ryan

It is twice as good as the Deputy states.

Mr. Sweetman

Would the Minister like to compare like with like?

Dr. Ryan

I listen to the queerest figures from over there.

Mr. Sweetman

Very well; I have got the opportunity of the Second Stage of the Central Fund Bill tonight.

Dr. Ryan

Then we had the live register figure for mid-February, 1957, at 93,099 and now it is 73,214, 21,000 down in three years, though Deputy O'Sullivan says that does not prove anything. Practically every speaker on the Fine Gael side said they never saw such unemployment as at present. Of course, they did not see it before when they were in office. They were blind and they could not see it, though now they say it was never as bad before. Why do they not try to face facts? They make suggestions but why do they base their opinions on figures and statements that are not facts at all?

Unemployment among insured persons in mid-February, 1957, was 56,059, and in mid-February, 1959, it was 39,110, a decrease of 25 per cent. With regard to figures of emigration, I want to warn the Dáil that these are only estimates and, what is more, very doubtful estimates, but they are being quoted from both sides of the House and Deputies might as well have them. In 1957, emigration was very high. It went as high as 53,000. In 1958, it came down to 32,000, and all we have heard about 1959 is that it is higher than 1958 by a few thousand. Though they show a good improvement from the time that we came into office, as I said, the Statistics Office do not claim that they are accurate. They are only, if you like, an opinion of the trend and we shall get the true emigration figures only when the census is taken next year.

With regard to the cost of living index, in mid-February, 1957, it was 135; August, 1957, 143, and in mid-February, 1960, it was 144. There was a good lot of talk about the recent increase in wages to civil servants and so on and I think Deputy Sweetman said, when I brought in the Estimates to cover that, that it was our fault. In other words, we put up the cost of living, but as a matter of fact there was no increase in the cost of living in the past two years, and the recent increase in wages to a great extent was a great increase in the standard of living for workers and was not due wholly to the cost of living.

Mr. Davern

Let us go through the whole field.

Dr. Ryan

Exports in 1956 were £104 million; in 1957, £126 million — £127 million, as a matter of fact — in 1958, £126.6 million; and in 1959, £125,7 million. They were down £900,000 in 1959 but they were practically constant over the past three years and were considerably higher than they were in 1956. As everybody knows, 1959 was affected to a great extent by the hold-back of cattle exports.

With regard to Budgets, there was a deficit of £5.946 million in the 1956-57 Budget. In 1957-58, there was a deficit of £5.88 million. Last year, 1958-59, there was a surplus of £160,000 and as far as I can see this year, I am now fairly certain that the Budget will again be balanced and, if we can forecast everything possible to forecast, we shall balance the Budget for the coming year. Because the Taoiseach, referring to that point, said this might not be possible without extra taxation, he was accused of trying to deceive the people — by making the story bad at this stage and making it good later on and in that way getting some credit for something we did not deserve. If the Taoiseach comes in here and is candid with the Dáil in saying that we intend to balance the Budget, and saying that at this stage he cannot say whether it will be possible to do that without extra taxation, he is attacked without any regard whatsoever for the facts.

I think he was quite justified and as far as my calculation goes at the moment, I would say there was necessity for extra taxation but the last fortnight of the financial year is very difficult to predict. There is usually a very good influx of revenue. Usually a Minister for Finance has to base one year's Budget on the previous year's figures, with perhaps certain improvements in certain directions. Therefore, I could not possibly give a firm forecast at the present time, but, as far as my opinion goes, I think it will be very difficult to make ends meet in the coming year.

Bank advances at mid-April 1956 were £152.8 million; in mid-February 1957, they were £160 million; and now they stand at £181 million, so that all these indices point to improved conditions in employment, in unemployment, in output, in exports and in many other ways and these are the indices we must go by if we are looking at the economic situation. We surely should not listen to the impressions of Deputy Blowick and Deputy Beirne of the villages beside them.

Mr. Blowick

The Minister might pay a visit to them and see if what we say is true.

Dr. Ryan

During the course of the debate, I was asked what had become of the Civil Service reorganisation. Last year, I said I had hoped to have some form of reorganisation in the Civil Service, the object being to cut out a number of grades and to have — if one could use the term — a more streamlined pattern in the Civil Service. Discussions have taken place on that and every Deputy will recognise that in a matter like that, we have to discuss such things with the recognised organisations in the Civil Service. If we did not do that, we should only be running into trouble. They in turn take a long time to consider these matters and to report back on them. They did report back and, after they had all reported back, there was a good lot of co-ordination necessary and I think that has now practically been completed. A joint committee of the Civil Service General Council has been set up to determine to what extent agreement has been reached. Good progress has been made and I am hopeful that in the immediate future a very definite beginning will be made on the contraction of grades. I cannot say anything more on that at the moment but I am sure that by this time next year, we shall be able to show something concrete in the matter of reorganisation.

Deputy Sweetman referred also to some items which he said we were carrying on what he referred to as the "never-never" basis. We are, admittedly — I think we have referred to this on more than one occasion, and to the reason for it — now carrying certain items on the capital side which heretofore were carried on the current side of the account. The biggest item involved is the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. I do not want to be too positive about this, but my impression is that before we came along, practically all of that expenditure was carried by the Grant Counterpart Fund — Deputy Sweetman says his recollection is different — and a comparatively small amount on the Vote. When it looked as if the amount would become very big, we decided we would have to put it over to the capital side. This year, we are providing £4,429,000. That is because an attempt is being made now to deal with the eradication of bovine tuberculosis in the shortest possible period. In a matter of this kind, where we are expected to provide large sums annually over a comparatively short period and where there is a capital gain ultimately from the expenditure, as of course there will be here, I think we are justified in putting the expenditure on the capital side. If bovine tuberculosis is eradicated and we find ourselves with a healthy herd, we shall naturally have a much more valuable herd and to that extent, we shall have a capital appreciation.

With regard to industrial grants, these grants are provided for the purpose of helping to start industries. Undoubtedly, there will be a capital gain as a result of these grants. Deputy Corish made one reference in particular. He said at column 130 of Volume 180 of the Official Report:

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.

That is not absolutely correct. Deputy Corish also referred to the Programme for Economic Expansion. Deputy Corish was not exactly right in saying that no provision was made either in that programme or under existing legislation for existing industries. In the Programme for Economic Expansion published in November, 1958, it was clearly stated that the Government were determined to ensure that no soundly-based industrial project would be allowed to fail solely through lack of capital. In January, 1959, the Industrial Credit Company set up a new hire purchase department for the precise object the Deputy has in mind, namely, the provision of new plant and machinery on attractive terms to established industries. Up to 75 per cent. of the purchase price will be made available. To date, I believe about £300,000 has been spent on this service.

Apart from hire purchase facilities, companies can get assistance by way of loans and guarantees on the taking up of various forms of share capital. In addition to that, under the Industrial Grants Act, 1959, existing industries wishing to expand in a major fashion are recognised and the bar on the giving of grants was removed under that Act. Grants up to one-third of the cost of the plant and machinery can now be given; previously grants were confined to buildings. It is not true, therefore, to say that existing industries are neglected. They have the loan facilities; they get grants under certain conditions. There are various sources from which help can be obtained.

I referred to the number of people in employment. I have a more recent figure, but it does not differ from the figure already given. The number engaged in insurable employment in October, 1959, had increased by 17,000. I should mention that from 1956 up to that date, we did not get back to the end-1956 or beginning-1957 figure. Now we have got back. In fact, we have got something better in this figure for October, 1959.

Mr. Corish

There is a reason for part of that increase.

Dr. Ryan

That is so. The Central Statistics Office say that 6,000 of that figure is due to the class between £600 and £800 being brought into insurance. Taking those 6,000 out of the figure already given, we still have an increase of 11,000 over and above 1958.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 51.

Tá

• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carty, Michael.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Clohessy, Patrick.
• Collins, James J.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cummins, Patrick J.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Mick.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Donegan, Batt.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fanning, John.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Flanagan, Seán.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Galvin, John.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Johnston, Henry M.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lynch, Celia.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moher, John W.
• Moloney, Daniel J.
• Mooney, Patrick.
• Moran, Michael.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• Ormonde, John.
• O'Toole, James.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Sheldon, William A.W.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.

Níl

• Barry, Richard.
• Beirne, John.
• Belton, Jack.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Browne, Noel C.
• Burke, James.
• Byrne, Patrick.
• Byrne, Tom.
• Carew, John.
• Casey, Seán.
• Coburn, George.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Costello, Declan D.
• Lindsay, Patrick.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• McQuillan, John.
• Manley, Timothy.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Murphy, William.
• Norton, William.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Dillon, James M.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Hogan, Bridget.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kenny, Henry.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, Denis.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Denis J.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Rogers, Patrick J.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Russell, George E.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Tierney, Patrick.
• Wycherley, Florence.

Tellers:— Tá; Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl: Deputies O'Sullivan and M.P. Murphy.

Vote reported and agreed to.

Questions declared carried.