Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Mar 1962

Vol. 193 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Motion by Minister for Finance.

Minister for Finance (Dr. Ryan)

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £49,336,200 be granted on account for or towards defraying the Charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for certain public services namely:—

		£
1	President's Establishment	5,000
2	Houses of the Oireachtas	115,800
3	Department of the Taoiseach	13,000
4	Central Statistics Office	70,500
5	Comptroller and Auditor General	16,000
6	Office of the Minister for Finance	172,440
7	Office of the Revenue Commissioners	896,000
8	Office of Public Works	260,000
9	Public Works and Buildings	2,000,000
10	Employment and Emergency Schemes	275,000
11	State Laboratory	11,100
12	Civil Service Commission	23,500
13	An Chomhairle Ealaíon	10,000
14	Superannuation and Retired Allowances	467,940
15	Secret Service	2,500
16	Expenses under the Electoral Act and the Juries Act	2,500
17	Agricultural Grants	1,700,000
18	Law Charges	57,200
19	Miscellaneous Expenses	8,000
20	Stationery Office	238,000
21	Valuation and Ordnance Survey	77,620
22	Rates on Government Property	25,000
23	Office of the Minister for Justice	51,500
24	Garda Síochána	2,153,000
25	Prisons	94,400
26	Courts of Justice	137,550
27	Land Registry and Registry of Deeds	47,980
28	Charitable Donations and Bequests	2,570
29	Local Government	2,254,000
30	Office of the Minister for Education	170,000
31	Primary Education	4,150,000
32	Secondary Education	600,000
33	Technical Instruction	920,000
34	Science and Art	90,000
35	Reformatory and Industrial Schools	120,000
36	Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies	40,000
37	Universities and Colleges	890,000
38	National Gallery	5,100
39	Lands	1,037,600
40	Forestry	805,000
41	Fisheries	126,900
42	Roinn na Gaeltachta	150,000
43	Agriculture	6,350,000
44	Industry and Commerce	1,030,000
45	Transport and Power	1,770,000
46	Posts and Telegraphs	4,678,000
47	Defence	2,949,000
48	Army Pensions	621,800
49	External Affairs	198,200
50	International Co-Operation	60,000
51	Office of the Minister for Social Welfare	177,500
52	Social Insurance	2,093,000
53	Social Assistance	6,396,000
54	Health	2,700,000
55	Central Mental Hospital	20,000
	TOTAL	£49,336,200

This Vote on Account is required to authorise expenditure on the Supply Services pending consideration by the Dáil of the individual Estimates for 1962/63 and the enactment later of the Appropriation Act. As it is expected that the Appropriation Act will be passed not later than the end of July, the Vote on Account is framed with a view to covering Supply Services expenditure during the first 4 months of the financial year. Accordingly, it amounts to £49.34 million or roughly one-third of the total expenditure of £148.37 million shown on the face of the Volume of Estimates.

The expenditure proposed for 1962/ 63 represents an increase of £16.66 million on the total, namely £131.72 million, of the current year's volume. £12.96 million of this increase relates to non-capital services and £3.7 million to capital items.

I should mention at the outset that £1¾ million of the apparent increase of £16.66 million will not entail an additional charge on the Exchequer. This is explained as follows. First, the additional £550,000 provided in the Vote for Posts and Telegraphs for transfer to the Broadcasting Authority on foot of net receipts from licences is, of course, offset by the additional licence fees which will be collected and paid into the Exchequer as miscellaneous non-tax revenue. Second, £600,000 of the increase in the Vote for Agricultural Grants in relief of rates arises from the transfer to the Vote of the sum formerly borne on the Central Fund; the charge on the Central Fund Services will be correspondingly reduced. Third, Supply Services expenditure is being increased by £600,000 to compensate for the proposed abolition of payments from the Local Taxation Account to local authorities and other bodies. This increase in the Supply Services will be counter-balanced by the retention in the Exchequer of the corresponding revenue which used go into the Local Taxation Account. The new arrangements with regard to the Agricultural Grant and the Local Taxation Account are in the nature of reform and simplification of the accounts. They bring no profit to the Exchequer. The legislative proposals necessary to authorise them will be submitted to the Dáil in due course.

In commenting on the Estimates for 1962-63, I do not propose to itemise the "ups" and "downs" which comprise the increases since these details have already been circulated to Deputies. It may be more helpful if, instead, I relate my comment to the broader divisions of expenditure within the Supply Services.

I might at the outset refer to the general effect on Government current expenditure of the various increases in the remuneration of State and local authority employees. The cost of these increases does not clearly emerge from the Estimates because it is spread over the various services. In fact, pay increases account altogether for £5.24 million of the additional expenditure in the coming year. This £5.24 million is made up as follows:—

	£ million
Civil Service including industrial staff	2.50
Teachers	1.21
Army	0.55
Garda Síochána	0.38
Health Authority Staffs	0.6

The amount under the heading of teachers will have to be further increased to cover awards yet to be made to secondary and vocational teachers.

If remuneration attributable to current service were extracted as a separate item, it would be seen to total approximately £51½ million. The size of this element alone clearly indicates a major difficulty in the way of efforts to restrain the growth in public expenditure. The rates of public service remuneration are largely determined, under conciliation and arbitration procedures, by the rates in outside employment. Although productivity improvements are constantly being sought through better organisation and methods, remuneration charges in the public services cannot but be affected by the general increase in wage and salary rates, unless the public services themselves were to be curtailed. Even if remuneration of State-paid personnel did not of itself cause expenditure to rise, the cost of the other elements in public expenditure would inevitably reflect wage increase in the private sector.

The figures for remuneration are, as I have said, integrated in the costs of the various public services. If the net increase in Supply Service expenditure next year of £14.9 million is examined without segregating remuneration, the position is that some ten clearly defined categories, or services, account between them for £12¾ million of the increase—

	£ million
Agriculture	3.5
Education	3.0
Social Services, includingHealth	1.4
Posts and Telegraphs	1.2
Army and Gárda Síochána	1.6
Industrial promotion	1.0
Debt Service	0.5
Tourism	0.3
Public service pensions	0.3

This £12¾ million includes only so much of the increase in remuneration as is relevant to the particular services concerned so that some of this increase remains to be carried forward against other services not specified in my list. The total cost of the services in the list is £125.5 million or 84.6 per cent. of the £148.37 million on the face of the Estimates Volume.

By far the largest category of expenditure is that comprising the social welfare and health services. These two items combined account for £36.6 million or 30 per cent. of the total of current Supply Services expenditure proposed for 1962/63. This is £1.7 million more than was originally provided for this year. The increase is partly due to the discontinuance of the former payment to the Vote for Health of £314,000 from the Local Taxation Account; partly to the incidence for a full year in 1962/63 of the extensions in social welfare benefits provided in the last budget, and partly—£1.16 million—to the heavier outlay arising from the State contribution of 50 per cent. to health services expenditure by local authorities. Half of this additional £1.16 million results from pay increase for local authority staffs and the balance from rising costs of health service generally.

State assistance for or investment in agriculture accounts for £28.5 million of the total amount provided in the Estimates Volume and expenditure under this heading ranks second only to that on social and health services. The corresponding figure this time last year was £24.4 million, but this did not include the £600,000 provided in the Central Fund Services for the Agricultural Grant. When adjustment is made for this, the increase as between the two years is reduced from £4.1 million to £3.5 million. A large element of the expenditure on agriculture is, of course, classified as capital including outlay on the land project, bovine tuberculosis eradication, farm buildings and water supplies and the phosphatic fertiliser subsidy. If the capital elements are excluded, the proposed expenditure in 1962/63 would be £2.2 million more than was originally provided this year.

The large supplementary provision for agriculture which was made by Dáil Éireann last December upsets the comparison as between the two years both on capital and current account since it provided an additional £5 million approximately under each head. As Deputies are aware, the additional current expenditure arose not merely from the heavy losses on the disposal of 1960 wheat but also from the exceptional support afforded to butter and bacon prices in the face of a combination of increased production and falling prices abroad. The extra £5 million for export payments in respect of fat cattle and carcase beef has no counterpart in this year's estimate apart from the residual £200,000 at subhead K.K.11. Taking into account the expenditure of £265,000 in 1960/61 and the further provision of £200,000 in 1962/63 to meet commitments up to the end of this year, some £5.8 million, in all, will have been provided for these guaranteed payments. I feel that the scheme can be regarded as having usefully fulfilled the purpose for which it was designed, namely, by inducing sales of reactors on the open market to facilitate and accelerate progress with bovine tuberculosis eradication.

Of the total proposed expenditure of £28.5 million on Agriculture in 1962/63, £16.8 million is directed either towards reducing farmers' costs or to stimulating production. This category includes rates relief, land and farm buildings improvement, the fertilisers subsidies and arterial drainage. These items are to receive about £1½ million more than was originally provided in 1961/62.

As another major category, I might mention the outlay on bovine tuberculosis eradication. The cost of that scheme in 1962-63, exclusive of staff costs and the fat cattle guarantee payments on which I have just commented, is estimated at a net figure of £5.8 million, an increase of £1.3 million on the sum provided this year. The increased provision being made for next year allows for the introduction of special measures in the six southern counties for the speeding up of eradication.

The next most important grouping of State expenditure I wish to mention is education for which a total provision of £19 million is made for the coming year. This is some £3 million more than the Dáil provided in 1961-62 and, excluding capital items, it represents 15 per cent. of total current expenditure. Neither year's figures include teachers' pensions: I shall take these into account later in dealing with public service pensions as a whole. In the main, the increase in the provision for education next year reflects the additional charges arising from the National Teachers' pay award, increments and allowances, and capitation grants. Increased grants are also proposed for all the constituent colleges of the National University and for Trinity College so as to enable staff salaries to be raised and teaching facilities to be improved. A capital sum of £520,000 is being provided towards the cost in 1962-63 of building the new Science Block at Belfield for U.C.D. I should, perhaps, recall that the proposed expenditure on education, large as it is, will require to be further increased in due course to provide for the pending pay awards to Secondary and Vocational Teachers.

In any comment on the Estimates, the Vote for Posts and Telegraphs must be given some prominence because it accounts in itself for nearly £13 million or 10 per cent. of current expenditure. Excluding post office pensions and the annuities to repay telephone capital advances to which I shall refer later, the proposed expenditure on the Vote becomes £10.6 million. That sum represents an increase of £1.7 million over the figure for this year but £550,000 of it is attributable to the grant to Radio Éireann on foot of licence receipts which, as I have already said, is balanced by increased receipts from these licences taken in as non-tax revenue. Even if this item is excluded there still remains, however, an increase of £1.2 million nearly all of which is attributable to increases in remuneration of the various staffs providing the postal, telephone and telegraph services. As the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs told the Dáil last week, the normal growth in post office revenue will not be sufficient to cover the increase in the cost of providing the various post office services. As these services are operated on commercial principles, consideration is being given to the increases in charges which will be necessary to restore financial balance.

Expenditure on the Army and Garda Síochána, excluding pensions, is estimated at £13.85 million or £1.6 million more than this year's original estimates. Nearly £1 million of this, however, is attributable to pay increases and approximately £400,000 extra is being provided for army stores and defensive equipment.

Grants for the promotion of industry continue to comprise a large and expanding element of expenditure. No one can reasonably cavil at this expenditure as a necessary aid to increased production and self-sustaining employment. £2.4 million was orignally provided under this head for this year and a further £600,000 was added by way of recent Supplementary Estimates. The provision which is made for the coming year, at £3.35 million, is £350,000 higher again. £½ million of the increase over this year will go to An Foras Tionscal and £50,000 to the Shannon Free Airport Development Company.

For tourism, as an industry with potentialities of rapid expansion, a vote provision of over £1 million will be available next year, representing an increase of some 50 per cent. over this year.

Public service pensions will account for £6.7 million in 1962/63. These are an analogous type of expenditure to remuneration. In fact, the increase of £300,000 which this figure represents is occasioned by higher levels of retirement pay due to salary awards.

The final item to which I should like to draw attention is debt service. Although the bulk of debt service is a Central Fund charge it will nevertheless account for some £5.8 million of Supply Services expenditure next year, or about half a million pounds more than this year. The increase will be found mainly in the State contribution to the loan charges of local authorities in respect of housing and sanitary services and also in the cost of servicing telephone capital expenditure. The extent to which Supply Services expenditure affects the growth of debt service charges is not confined to direct outlay of the type I have just mentioned; the debt service charge in respect of voted capital services is also very important. The voted capital services now account for approximately £25 million of Supply Services expenditure. To redeem the borrowing necessary to defray the cost of these services in the coming year and the supplementary sums voted for capital items this year, it will be necessary to increase the Central Fund debt services charge which will have to be borne by taxation by £1½ million under this head alone. We cannot, it is clear, expend capital moneys on the development of agriculture and industry or provide housing and transport installations and so on— desirable as such outlay may be— without facing the consequence of paying through taxation the borrowing charges which such expenditure entails.

I think that sufficient has been said to account broadly for the objects of expenditure from the Supply Services in the coming year and to explain where the increase in expenditure arises. Deputies will, of course, be furnished with a detailed comment on the individual Estimates when these come before the House later.

I would ask the Dáil, therefore, to agree to the Vote on Account.

Mr. Sweetman

When I saw the Book of Estimates last Thursday evening, I thought it inevitable that the Minister should end his speech with a few sentences somewhat different from what we have heard. Indeed, out of courtesy to him, I thought of the reply I would make to those sentences. This is the largest increase, compared with the previous year, that a Minister ever had the hardihood to present to Dáil Éireann. It shows an abysmal, abject failure by the Minister to fulfil one of the primary functions of a Minister for Finance. It shows he has completely lost control, that he has completely jettisoned the main task for which he was appointed, and I felt on that account, when I saw the staggering sum on the face of the Book of Estimates, that the Minister would have sat down, having said that he regretted he had failed in his job and that he had accordingly tendered his resignation to the Taoiseach. Had he done so, he would not merely have contributed to an easing of the difficulties we have to face but would have shown that in public life here, failure to measure up to the task entrusted to one by the public carries with it also the necessity to pay the penalty when that task is not completed.

The figures that have been put before us today by the Minister must be considered not merely on their own, as we shall have to consider individual Estimates for individual Departments in the next few months, but also in relation to the general pattern and general picture of the economy, so far as we can see it at present. The Vote on Account is the first part of the regular series of financial business for the year. I use the words "regular series" because it is obvious that a Government should consider from time to time during the year how, apart from the ordinary spring operations, it should influence the economy of the country as a whole.

In the past twelve months, since the Minister introduced his Budget, there have been very substantial changes for which the Minister and the Government must accept full responsibility. In recent weeks, the Taoiseach and other Ministers under his direction, no doubt, have been talking of the difficulties likely to be created by the increase in spending power in the community. Apparently, they have suddenly awakened to the effect of the £35 million spending power that has been thrown into the melting pot. But, of course, a Government who were not more concerned with their own popularity during the time of an election would have realised that the course of events they were shaping for themselves in the early part of last year was one certain to lead to the difficulties with which the Minister is faced in introducing this Book of Estimates.

The effect of the Government's part in that situation cannot be too lightly assessed. It was because of the Government's action, in the first instance, in going around prating all over the country that everything in the garden was beautiful—we had expanded our, national income beyond all question; everything was going ahead at full steam and at full blast— that people were deluded into the idea that the results that had been achieved here were achieved because of our own efforts and not something that largely flowed in from improvements in other parts of Europe. It is an undoubted fact that if it were not for the improvement in the British economy, it would not have been at all as easy for our exporters to sell in that market. It is an undoubted fact that we did achieve some improvement solely because of the reflection of the improvement there has been in the past 12 months in other countries in the European Economic Community, to mention only one matter.

The Government chose to ignore all those factors and to claim the credit that it was an isolated improvement in our own circumstances. Naturally, when they went around boasting in that way, painting a false, optimistic picture, they encouraged others to think there was a very much larger cake for division in the community as a whole than in fact existed. When we look at this Book of Estimates in the situation in which we are, we see that while organised labour may have been able to get a substantial reward, unorganised people have not been able to measure up to the increase in the cost of living and the further inflationary costs this Book of Estimates will inevitably bring in its train. At the same time, we see claims, which all of us must accept, by the agricultural community that they are not getting their fair share.

The whole picture arises from the fact that the Government have failed to grapple with the situation, and have failed to cease their boasts at a crucial time, a time when it is essential that we should measure up our production and our productivity to any increase in the incomes we desire to have. They are trying now, but it is too late—and the publication of this Book of Estimates shows conclusively that the Minister and the Government as a whole now have in their laps proof that it is too late—and the community as a whole have got to pay.

In that situation, this Book of Estimates involves an increase of one-eighth, that is, another 12½ per cent.; or a 10 per cent. increase, if I allow for the adjustments to which the Minister referred in his speech. Never in the history of our State has there been in any year an increase of 10 per cent. on one Book of Estimates over another. No matter whether the proportion of our national income taken in taxation last year was high or low, it is perfectly clear that we cannot possibly look with satisfaction on the fact that this year the proportion for Central Government expenditure will be increased by between 10 per cent. and 12 per cent., according to whether or not one takes into account the adjustments that have been made.

We have arrived—and we must arrive—as a result of the failure of the Government and their lack of policy, at a position in which a greater percentage of our national income will be taken for Government expenditure than would be healthy in any circumstances. It is not as if this Book of Estimates which we see now were the whole picture and the final story. The Minister made it clear in his speech that already, notwithstanding this gargantuan total, he visualises Supplementary Estimates coming up the hill. He warns us that those Estimates are there and have to be paid for. He warns us, too, in his speech of a little Budget, coming before the main Budget, in relation to post office charges—whether they be postal charges, telephone or telegram charges, we do not know. He has indicated that a little Budget is coming but it is not with the taxation end of our position that we are concerned today. It is with general Government expenditure and its impact on our economic position as a whole.

We have, as I say, a record total which one would not mind so much, but also a record percentage increase on last year far outrunning our increase in production or our increase in productivity. That is a matter which must be a cause to us of very great concern. Deputy Dr. Ryan has been Minister for Finance now for five years, and in that period, he has increased national expenditure in the Book of Estimates by between 35 and 37 per cent. The order of expenditure for the year before he took over was £97,000,000; he took out £9,000,000 in the food subsidies; and it is £123,701,698 this year. That is, in five years, an increase of between 35 and 37 per cent. on current supply services expenditure alone. Does the Minister think that is a good record?

Some of us might have some consideration for the size of the increase, if it included certain things that have to be met. When inflation occurs, as I have already said, the first people who get the knock are the people on fixed pensions, and people on fixed income of one sort or another which cannot be varied. There is nothing in this Book of Estimates to ensure that those people will be shielded in any way from the additional costs of this inflation. Everyone knows, going through the country at the present time, that the people who are engaged in agriculture, and particularly the small farmers, find themselves in a position in which their costs are continually rising, and yet there is no evidence in this Book of Estimates of anything designed to decrease their costs, and to ensure that by that decrease they will be able more easily to meet the difficulties with which they are faced.

On the contrary: the figures included in this Estimate, in Vote 17 and Vote 59, make it clear that the Minister visualises in the coming year that the rates will be substantially increased, both because of his increases in the provision for agricultural grants and because of the increases under the 1947 Act in the State grant for health services which means there will be an equal increase in the grant for health services from the rates.

As I say, the bill we have here in relation to supply services is not the only bill, and not the only increase, with which the community will be faced. The community have already been faced with some of those increases. We have had increased bus fares and increased costs of living. We have increased supply expenditure and we will have increased rates from the Minister's Estimate contained here. I could add various others to that. In that whole picture, there appears to be no plan and no scheme to cope with the situation.

We were treated for some considerable time by the Minister, and by other members of the Government, to great eulogies of the White Paper on economics, what we commonly call the Grey Book, the Programme for Economic Expansion, which was proposed by a person, aided by other persons to whom we must not refer in this House for certain reasons. The whole keynote of that programme has now been completely and absolutely exploded, because in relation to agriculture, it was based entirely on an improvement in the numbers of cattle and stocks of cattle available on the land.

One of the things about which I personally have the greatest worry is that our balance of payments this year will be influenced for the worse, because of the fact that last year we sold too many young cattle and depleted our stocks in doing so. The guaranteed subsidy in operation last year meant a tremendous acceleration in cattle sales up to July and in the whole course of last Autumn, that acceleration was further increased and accentuated. If one turns to the Trade Journal for December, published the other day, without looking at the accentuation at all that took place after June, one sees from the June figures that there were fewer cattle on 1st June last year than there were the year before; and the most striking decrease is in the figures for one-year-old cattle and under two years old. These would be the cattle going out in the Fall of this year. Yet, it was in that particular category there was the most striking decrease in June last year.

Anyone who goes through the country knows that in the period after the census was taken in June, there was very heavy selling of cattle stocks. I venture to say that when the sample test comes of livestock enumeration, January, 1961, as compared with January, 1962, will show—it must inevitably show—that the depreciation of our cattle stocks in the past six months of last year will leave us with far fewer cattle to go out this year and, in consequence, far less to a very substantial degree to offset as exports against whatever we may have to import.

Everyone knows that the price of young cattle at present is as high as a scarcity price; it is high because there are not sufficient young cattle in the country to meet needs. If there are not now sufficient young cattle, how will we face the future? How will we face what was to be the corner stone of the whole Programme for Economic Expansion, which was related to and rested on an improvement in our agricultural industry? That programme made it clear that it saw no future for agriculture unless, as a result of the programme, we were able to increase agricultural stocks.

Instead of that increase, we have the reverse. The published figures show a decrease in stocks last year. I venture to say there will be a further decrease this year, though there may be some trifling improvement in very young cattle stocks. In relation to the types and classes of stock on which we shall have to rely for our balance of payments exports this year, we shall certainly see a decrease, a decrease it will be hard to measure up to, hard to offset by improvements in other respects, and a decrease that will itself be hard to rectify.

It has been most interesting to discover in the speeches made by the Taoiseach on the possible effect of our having outrun any increase in productivity that he has now come round to the acknowledgment and the admission of what is occurring. What occurred last year is identical with what occurred in the year 1955-56 when the Taoiseach was in Opposition. At that time, of course, he attributed to an entirely different course of events an entirely different reason for anything that happened then. He now admits that some of the symptoms and some of the reasons underlying the dangers inherent in the situation at present are exactly the same as the dangers that existed then.

I want to take this opportunity to refer to that in dealing with one aspect of the capital programme. In 1956, when a particular situation arose, it was necessary to take certain corrective measures. I think every economist will agree — certainly I am perfectly satisfied now, looking back over it— that the corrective measures taken in 1956 were the right measures. Where things went completely wrong was when the new Minister for Finance came in and acknowledged that control had been exercised, that control had been regained in relation to our balance of payments, but, for his own political purposes, deliberately depressed the capital programme to ensure that he would be able to point to the previous Government. He did not take off the controls as they should then have been taken off, he having admitted that we had achieved a balance in our international payments situation by the time he entered office.

I have heard Ministers from time to time, who have probably had the story handed on to them so that they can make the same excuse for their own mistakes, suggest — I heard the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs make the suggestion the other day— that the decreases in the capital Budget in that particular year were the effects of other decisions. The effects on our capital programme in 1958 and 1959, the first two years for which Deputy Dr. Ryan was responsible as Minister for Finance, and only Deputy Dr. Ryan as Minister for Finance was responsible, were less than the effects on the capital programme in the year 1956-57, and, if he had not further restricted the programme which I had cut to that figure of £40,000,000, we would not have had a great many of the difficulties that arose in the tailend of 1957 and in 1958. But that was done because he wanted, for political purposes, to be able to say that the previous Government had not surmounted the difficulties that arose in 1956, difficulties that we now know from no less a person than the Taoiseach himself arose from circumstances similar to those in operation in 1961; and, as the Taoiseach himself says, these circumstances will unfortunately bring retribution in their train, unless a change is made.

One of the reasons I dwell on this is that a situation in which, to put it mildly, there is so much potential inflation, is the last situation in which the Government should come to the House with such an expanded Book of Estimates, expanded particularly in an unproductive direction. I do not want anybody to be under any misapprehension when I refer to the work of civil servants as non-productive. I am not in any way insulting their work; I am not in any way suggesting that their work is not worth the moneys they are being paid; but their work does not produce wealth for the nation in the full and proper sense of productive work.

Yet, the Minister for Finance comes in here in a potentially inflationary situation and admits that he has failed miserably in reducing the number of civil servants, as he promised to do in his first Budget speech, and has rather worsened the situation than improved it. In this year alone, he admits that the Book of Estimates we are now discussing has had to contain a provision for an additional 483 civil servants as compared with the Book of Estimates last year. These 483 additional civil servants will cost the taxpayers £2,000,000 more this year as compared with last year. What is the explanation?

From my recollection—and I have not had the opportunity since the question was asked today to verify the matter—there never was a year in the history of the State in which no fewer than 483 persons were added to the deadweight machinery of the Government in that one year alone. These are permanent civil servants alone and, in addition, there are 247 temporary civil servants also brought into the machinery by the Minister, who, in 1957, when he came into office, made it his proud boast that one of the things he was determined to do was to see that the numbers and cost of the Civil Service were reduced.

The cost is covered by the inflation that has taken place under the Minister himself since then. The numbers are something over which he has the sole and complete control and now he has been forced to admit that no fewer than 730 civil servants have been added to the machinery of Government at a cost of £2¾ million.

These increases in this Book of Estimates, in respect of remuneration, and, as the Minister correctly says, remuneration is one of the largest items in it, all stem from the original policy, the high cost policy the Minister introduced in 1957 when he failed to make any effort to restrict costs at that time and was happy to allow them to jump and start a new snowball that kept moving until it reached its last great height in 1961. It is all the time following the deliberate action of the Minister in 1957 when he started out on that road by the removal of the subsidies that were keeping control of the situation at that time. One cannot turn back the clock in that respect now. He made his mistake then and we are paying for it today, just as he made a mistake on the taxation side when he changed the basis of the export incentive that we had introduced.

The Minister must now be wishing very much as he sits on that seat over there that he had left that basis as it was and had not changed it merely for the purpose of being able to say that anything we could do he could do better. The 50 per cent. remission was a perfectly adequate remission to get any increase in exports that we have got since that time. If he had left it at that, he might have brought into the national revenue some benefit from our exports for the purpose of giving some relief to the taxpayers who are left behind and who are not able to get into the business of exports as such.

I do not propose today to discuss in detail any items that are in the volume. We must compare like with like and we know from what we have seen on the face of the two volumes that the increases this year are in the nature of some £13 million for current services and some £4 million for capital account. We know the manner in which our national income has been running and we know that this, taken with local taxation, will mean that, no matter what increases we hoped for in the national income figures, and we all hope there will be an increase, the percentage drawn off from the national income for Government and local authority expenditure will be such as to put a brake on future development in the country as a whole.

These Estimates the Minister has introduced today are unrealistic in that they fail to take account of our circumstances; they are unrealistic in that they fail to show an appreciation of the difficult situation in relation to the balance of payments; and they are unsatisfactory in that they inevitably increase the cost of the Government machinery. They are unsatisfactory in that they take people from productive work and put them into the maw of the unproductive Civil Service machine which does not increase the real wealth of the community. They are unsatisfactory in that they do not show any effort by the Government to shield the people who will suffer in consequence, the widow and the old age pensioner, the person on the fixed income, the small farmer who has to bear the brunt of the higher cost all round and sees himself being squeezed more and more, so that anyone driving through the country will be astonished to see so many vacant homesteads in it today.

There was a comment quite recently in The Economist that Ireland had a lower standard of living than any country in Northern Europe and higher unemployment and higher emigration than any country in Northern Europe. That is a sad commentary on the Minister after five years sitting in that seat over there. I want to say that this Book of Estimates which the Minister has now introduced is not going to remedy but will rather aggravate that situation.

Mr. Corish

It seems to me that there is a possibility of our having the usual humdrum debate on the Vote on Account this year that we had in earlier years. In the Minister's speech, which, of course, is of necessity purely a factual statement, there do not seem to be any outstanding or startling changes. There certainly is no indication of a change of policy. I say that, while also appreciating that this is not the major financial statement of the year from the Minister for Finance and I expect that he will make his Budget speech the principal financial speech of the year. It does seem in any case, from the speech he made recently in Cork, that the Budget he proposes to introduce some time next month will not be a very bright one. Whether that is purely a piece of political strategy such as has been employed on other occasions, I do not know. It is not important in this debate, but there seems to me to be an air of unreality, or certainly will be, if we are to discuss that policy in the same way as in other discussions, in view of the fact that many of our internal problems, and maybe what we regard as our major internal problems, are to a large extent overshadowed by the possibility of our becoming members of E.E.C. or becoming members of what is known as the Common Market Group.

This is not an occasion, I suppose, to talk at length about the Common Market, but I should like to say at this stage that it is wrong for the country, for members of this House, for politicians and for public people to try to associate, as closely as they have been doing, the Common Market with the idea of our joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. In case there may be any further misrepresentation in that regard, I want to say frankly that, as far as I and the Labour Party are concerned, we appreciate the situation with regard to the application for and possibility of our consequential acceptance as members of the Common Market. Our view is much the same as the view expressed by the Leaders of various Parties in the House, including, of course, the Taoiseach himself as Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party. We regard it as inevitable that we should apply and should become members, as long as Britain applies and is successful in her application for memberhip.

Other problems outside the terms of the Treaty of Rome are totally irrelevant. Might I say this as an addendum? As far as foreign policy and defensive policy are concerned, we refuse to be committed to policies that are only now being discussed and are not yet determined by those countries that are now members of E.E.C.

In any case, whether we go into the Common Market or are forced in, or must stay out by reason of the rejection or withdrawal of the British application, there must be a great acceleration in our rate of economic progress. If we go in, it seems clear to us all that there will be much sterner competition and for that reason our rate of economic progress must be accelerated. If we do not go in, we have a situation where, again, we will be forced to compete with other countries in Europe and in the world who are not members of E.E.C. and who have shown that they are more than able to compete with Ireland as far as, say, the British market is concerned.

Let me state in the first place that the Government's programme for economic expansion has shown some results but it certainly has not been as successful as I am sure the Government themselves anticipated or believed it would be when it was announced in the year 1958. There seems to have been a different situation about this time last year and possibly up to October of last year when Government spokesmen, in the teeth of a General Election, spoke about boom, about prosperity, and used other phrases to indicate that our economy had, indeed, under Fianna Fáil, improved immensely. It now seems after the election that the Taoiseach and Ministers of the Government and various other spokesmen inside the Parliamentary Party and outside it are talking somewhat in terms of depression.

Needless to remark, the word "inflation" does not sound very sweet in the ears of the trade union movement or of any trade unionists. Not being an economist, I could not pretend to talk about inflation or to dissect its reason or its effects as effectively as other people in this House could, but it seems to me that there is always talk about inflation when workers have secured what they regard as reasonable wage standards. The only time we have a situation where inflation is not mentioned at all is where we have depressed wages and large unemployment. I do not know who wants that sort of situation. I wonder do we have inflation merely because certain people mention the word "inflation"? I think it is a word that should be seldom used in this House because it seems to have a certain ring about it which would indicate to me pay pauses, wage standstills and the like.

Apart from the programme for economic expansion, which should be coming to an end—at least, the first programme that was announced by the Government—as I have said, people are concerned with the Budget proposals, with the Book of Estimates, and, over and above all, they are concerned about the position of this country on our becoming members of E.E.C. or of the Common Market. People are frightened, apart from being confused, as to what their future and the future of this country will be if we are to be accepted into full membership of E.E.C. and if we have to act in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of Rome. Those who are engaged in industry are asking themselves what is to happen to them. We are asking, in turn, what do the Government propose to do in return to ensure that there will be the least possible disruption of industry or that close-downs in certain industries will be avoided.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce has forecast not a widespread close-down in industry or mass unemployment but he has said that as far as certain industries are concerned, the evidence was to the effect that they would not be able to compete with the other countries in the E.E.C. and would, consequently, have to close down. I do not think it is too early to ask the Government what they propose to do with respect to those people whom the Minister for Industry and Commerce says will be unemployed on our becoming members of the E.E.C.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It would be a matter for the Estimate rather than for the debate on the Vote on Account.

Mr. Corish

I do not propose to go into it in any great detail but I think I am entitled to talk in a general way about industry, agriculture, employment, productivity, and such matters. I have no intention of making any detailed comment on any of them.

I do suggest that manufacturing industry and agriculture are vital to our economy, vital to the people generally and to those engaged in them. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has told us in that speech, as we all know, that Irish industry has been built up on protection which aimed at economic self-sufficiency. I must confess that I have never objected and my Party never objected to that policy of protection for Irish industry but if we become a member of E.E.C. and have to divest ourselves of that protection in the form of quota or tariff, a great deal of damage will be done.

The tariff policy that was pursued over the years was sound enough but it seems to many of us in the trade union movement that it may have led to a certain amount of laziness, complacency and retention of old fashioned methods by some Irish industries. We are going to suffer because of that. In a new situation, should we become a member of a common trading group, the efficiency or inefficiency of Irish industrialists may not matter so much. Continental manufacturers, in a far bigger way than any Irish manufacturer, may flood this country with goods that will be relatively cheaper—should I say much cheaper? —than the commodity produced at home.

The Treaty of Rome provides against dumping but unless we ensure that the anti-dumping clause of the Treaty or regulations arising from it shall be applied drastically and strictly a great deal of damage can be done in the initial stages, in the first five to eight years, if we are a member of this common trading group.

I do not know whether the Irish farmers should be as optimistic as many of them appear to be as to what will happen in the event of our joining E.E.C. From the figures given by the Taoiseach in a White Paper issued last year it would appear that the Six are all but self-sufficient in agriculture.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

A debate on the Common Market and its effects would not be relevant on the Vote on Account but would be relevant on details arising out of the Estimates.

Mr. Corish

I do not think my remarks in respect of agriculture could be considered as detailed remarks. I am merely talking about the hopes of the Irish farmer in the event of our membership of E.E.C. I do not think there should be any objection to that. I am merely posing the question, are our hopes in respect of agriculture justified or are they based merely on additional prospects on the British Market when, as she will be required to do, Britain removes the subsidies on her agricultural produce? Even so, it would seem that we will have to compete with countries like Denmark, Holland and, in particular, France.

If you decide that I am not entitled to talk in the strain in which I have been talking in respect of agriculture may I, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, talk about agriculture in respect of the sums included in the Book of Estimates for the industry?

I do not pose as an expert on agriculture any more than I pose as an expert on industry but it seems even to a townsman who has not any intimate knowledge of agriculture that the policy in respect of agriculture must be declared to have been a failure, not for the past four or five years, but for the past 30 or 40 years. The booklet, so often quoted in this House, Economic Statistics, compiled by the Central Statistics Office, shows on page 21 the value and volume of agricultural output 1953-60. It makes sorry reading, not only for the farmers but for the country as a whole. The net output in the years from 1953 to 1960 does not show any appreciable change. One does not have to be a farmer to be forced to the conclusion that our agricultural policy must have failed, at least over those years, by the figures in black and white in this booklet. There is evidence of the failure of the agricultural policy in the flight from the land. Year after year 5,000 to 7,000 people fly from the land into towns and cities in this country or elsewhere. The land has not been attractive to the worker or the farmer over those years, evidenced, again, by the fact that there are 50,000 fewer employed in agriculture now than there were in 1955.

It does not seem to me—again I refer to Economic Statistics, page 24 —that the part of the national income that is derived from agriculture has improved at all in the six years from 1956 to 1962. Income from agriculture, forestry and fishing did not show any appreciable change in the years from 1956 to 1960. In 1960 it was less by about £3 million than in 1957.

There is one thing which puzzles me in respect of agriculture. We seem to devote increasing amounts for the assistance of the agricultural industry year after year. The Vote for Agriculture for the year 1961-62 is £26 million, apart from the amount involved in the relief of rates on agricultural land—£8 million approximately. The amounts provided in the Book of Estimates over the years have been increasing substantially. In 1953-54, the Vote for Agriculture was about £4½ million. In 1958-59 it was £11 million. This year it is £26 million. I understand that some moneys for agriculture were provided out of the Vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce about four or five years ago. That may account for some of the change but I am forced to the conclusion that the money voted for agriculture over the years, especially in recent years, has not been properly applied.

It is not true to say that all farmers are rich or prosperous. Neither is it true to say that all of them are poor. I know a number of people have benefited tremendously by engaging in the agricultural industry, but there are tens of thousands of farmers—I do not know whether they would describe themselves as small farmers or medium farmers—who have found it very difficult over the years to make ends meet. I do not know what other Deputies think of this figure of £26 million and something similar this year plus £8 million or £9 million devoted to the relief of agricultural rates. That appears to me to be a pretty substantial amount and I do not know why we do not get a return for it. I have said previously that there should be a type of means test in the application of grants towards agriculture. A farmer who has a pretty substantial holding can avail of all the grants offered, but the small farmer who has not the initial capital cannot avail of them to the same extent.

I do not think anybody could regard me as a champion of the farmers in this House, but it seems to me there is something radically wrong when we reach the stage that the farmers find it difficult to know what crop or crops they should concentrate upon. There was a time when the farmer was exhorted to grow more wheat and grow more beet. Now he is at his wits' end to get a contract for beet. Farmers come to me from time to time asking my assistance to get a contract for barley. If the farmers in general sow too much wheat, they are penalised for it.

We have read recently about the parades of an association describing itself as the National Farmers' Association. They demonstrated pretty forcibly and in great numbers throughout the country. I do not think there is any county in which they did not have a parade over the past few months. I have no objection to their congregating together and parading; I have no objection to their asking for better prices or for a guaranteed market. These are all things they have a right to do. However, there is one thing I take exception to and that is—it seems to be the line of least resistance—this campaign to ensure there will be no increase in the rates.

I wonder do they appreciate what they are doing? I wonder do they appreciate that local authorities must increase their rates in order to ensure that necessary services will be continued? It amuses me when I hear of protests about possible increases in rates, because I know that the same people, who are protesting about expenditure on health services, housing, water, roads and so on, are the very same people who, two months afterwards, when the rate is struck, come along on deputations to the various local bodies asking that a certain road, a certain sewerage scheme or a certain drainage scheme be done.

I have the greatest admiration for members of local authorities, especially of county councils. They are doing a tremendous job of work. They sacrifice themselves in putting themselves forward for these public bodies. They are there to ensure that the moneys are there to enable necessary services to be carried on. They are there by the will of the people. It is unfair that any body which did not present its nominees for election should come along now with 7,000 or 8,000 people at its back making the bald demand that there be no increase in the rates. They do not suggest where economies should be made or what services should be cut out but simply make the stupid demand that there be no increase in the rates. One could understand their attitude if they could point out where economies could be effected or where there was wastage.

For a long time, this country has been plagued with two problems: unemployment and, consequentially, emigration. We have had speeches from all Parties that industry was our best bet for having these people employed and that industry would provide a cure for emigration. It is evident that, apart from the difficulties of the farming community, there still will be a flight from the land, not alone this year but for many years to come. If the people are to be kept in this country they must be absorbed in manufacturing industry.

Despite what has been said, we still have the problem of emigration. I do not know what the actual figures were for 1961, but I know that for the year before that the emigration figure stood at about 38,000. It seems from the figures we get in respect of those leaving the country and those coming in by sea and air, we still have the problem to the extent of something like 25,000 or 30,000 per year. It is true we have made improvements as far as industrial employment is concerned. As far as the overall employment figure is concerned there has also been some improvement, but certainly not such an improvement as would absorb those who leave the land or those who register at our employment exchanges at present.

From what I can gather the overall employment figure in 1961 stood at 1,119,000 and, according to a famous economist here, there should be an increase in 1962 to 1,124,000. It does not seem to me to be a substantial increase, but in any case an increase of 5,000 or 6,000 will be welcome. The significant thing is that it shows the failure of the Government to meet the problem of providing employment over the last few years. According to the overall employment figures there were 57,000 fewer in employment in 1961 than in 1955. Therefore, I do not think anybody could say the Government has been eminently successful in coping with this problem or that their Programme for Economic Expansion was as successful as they believed.

The figures I have for overall employment embrace industry, agriculture, forestry, roads, house building and every type of employment. It is interesting to note also that, despite what has been said about the establishment of new industries and the improvement in industrial employment, the 1961 figure for industrial employment, exclusive of agriculture, forestry, roads and building, was 15,000 below the 1955 figure. So it seems to me that we have got a lot of leeway to make up, not alone to catch up on the 1955 figure but to effect improvements we thought were possible when the Programme for Economic Expansion was introduced three or four years ago.

In respect of employment in industry as well, I should like the Government to prepare and make known their plans on how they propose to absorb those at present engaged in the building industry. It is true to say we have had quite a number of houses built in the past 15 years, but it is also true to say that housing demands have not yet been met. They have been tackled with a labour force of 3,000 to 4,000, but in the building industry at the present time, we have altogether only 5,500. These are not in secure employment.

It would be right to say that a number of those in the building industry at the present time are in employment which could be described as temporary. Generous grants are given by the Government and by local authorities. Loans are given by the local authorities and by the Department of Local Government, and I am glad to say that people are availing of these and that consequently there are quite a number engaged in house repairs and in office building.

However, the time will come when that work will be finished. People cannot go on interminably repairing or reconstructing their houses. I do not believe that the office building programme on which so many workers are now engaged will last much longer. All this will mean that we shall have some thousands of unemployed persons who were formerly engaged in the building industry registering at the employment exchanges.

As far as the manufacturing industry is concerned, there has been an improvement from 1959 to 1961 to the extent of 10,700 workers. But that, over a period of two years, is not something we can boast about. It is certainly a long way from the 20,000 jobs per year that the Taoiseach on one occasion said were necessary to stem emigration and absorb the unemployed and those who were fleeing from the land at the rate of 7,000 or 8,000 over the past six years. It seems to me, as far as industry is concerned, that while the Government may boast of the progress being made, there is much more to be done and we shall not meet the problems of emigration, unemployment and the flight from the land, unless we can accelerate the establishment of new industries.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce and other members of the Government seemed to be pleased recently with the rate of progress in the establishment of new industries. They seemed to be gratified and to lack enthusiasm about accelerating the rate of progress. I welcome the idea of foreign investment in industry here but I also say it is absolutely necessary for the Government and State agencies to have some form of control in these industries. I do not advocate overall control, but if we are to put £6,000,000 into the establishment of industries this year, as we did last year, it is not unreasonable to suggest to the Minister for Finance that we should take some measure of control.

It seems ludicrous that a Frenchman, a Belgian, or a German can come in here, put down perhaps £10,000 or even £50,000 and, by way of loan or grant, get from a State agency a further sum of up to £150,000 to look after his interests. I have in mind a particular industry well known to me where the foreigner put down a sum of £40,000. We were all pleased that he came to establish a factory. There was valuable employment given. The State had advanced something like £150,000 by way of loan or grant. Then the factory went wrong. We need not go into the reasons for it, but overnight it was declared that the factory was out of production in the particular line of commodity for which it was established. No reasons were given.

That has happened in a few cases and surely we should take the precaution of saying to such foreigners: "If we are going to give you three-quarters of the amount of money required for the establishment of your industry, it is not unreasonable to ask that we should have some control." I do not know what the situation will be when we become members of the Common Market. Will those people coming in here now from the different European countries be as anxious to start factories here, so far west, as they have been? I think it would be a dreadful situation if, for some reason or another, because Britain and Ireland became members of the Common Market, those people found it no longer necessary to establish or maintain industries in these parts. That would be a calamity for us and for the workers who are employed in these factories.

A viewpoint was expressed recently that the worker in this country has not matched his wage increases by productivity. These views have been expressed from the Taoiseach down to the Parliamentary Secretaries. The workers have been told what their responsibilities to the country are. The Taoiseach spoke last week to no less a body than the Federated Union of Employers. He spoke about employer-labour relations and seemed to suggest that a number of wage demands had been made at a bad time. In the course of his speech, as reported in the Irish Press, he said:—

The eighth round, because of the size of the increases generally sought and secured, represents a departure from the previous pattern and, because it has run ahead of improvements in productivity, has brought about the upswing of prices now taking place, including the higher costs of public services administered by local authorities as well as by Government Departments.

He has spoken many times recently— he has not put it bluntly—in terms of there being either a pay pause or something akin to a wages standstill. I do not say that the Taoiseach has advocated a wages standstill or a pay pause, but all the signs are that he is coming up to something like it. He believes the workers have been indiscreet in putting their wage demands at this time and that they are not matching the wage increases with increases in productivity.

I think the figures refute what the Taoiseach has said with regard to wages and production. Between 1960 and 1961, the volume of production rose by 8½ per cent. but the number of persons engaged in that production rose by only four per cent. The output per worker therefore rose by 4½ per cent. The output per worker between 1959 and 1960 also increased by 4½ per cent. I do not know where the Taoiseach gets the evidence to support the statement he made last week to the Federated Union of Employers to the effect that workers are not matching increases in wages with increased production. Of course, if production in any case does not seem to increase, the workers are always blamed.

It is right to say, undoubtedly, that they are the primary producers. Did it ever occur to some of these people who lecture to them now and again that a worker can work only so hard? I am sure many Deputies who have gone to different factories, to different manufacturing establishments, have been amazed at the manner in which the Irish worker has worked for his eight or eight and a half hours during the day. He has come to the point where he just cannot work any harder. It is true that if the organisation in the firm were such that he could produce more, some advantage would be gained but if he is using primitive methods, if there is bad supervision, bad management, he just cannot work any harder. I know many establishments where even if the worker could work twice as hard, he just would not produce much more.

As long as there is out-of-date machinery, bad supervision and bad management, the Irish worker has no chance. As long as he is not taken into the confidence of the employer, as long as he meets the employer only on occasions when they discuss wages or hours of employment, these employers cannot expect to increase their production to such an extent as will enable us to compete when competition will be keener in the years to come.

The Irish Trade Union Congress, which represents something like half a million workers, has shown in recent years that it is prepared to co-operate with Irish industry, with Irish employers generally, in an effort to increase production. The Taoiseach and the House know they are participating in what is described as the Irish National Productivity Committee with a view to achieving the end to which we all subscribe, namely, greater production.

We do not want to see a situation I have seen in many places, a situation I have seen in my own town, in which workers work themselves out of a job, where they work so hard and produce so much that there is nothing more for them to do after a few months' employment. Of course, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions will not co-operate with the Irish National Productivity Committee unless there are to be certain safeguards for the worker in the matter of production. They will require full consultation on all matters of production, all matters of management——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely these details do not arise on the Vote on Account. They are matters for the particular Estimate.

Mr. Corish

I have just finished. They will also want guarantees in respect of redundancy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Those are matters for the Estimate, not for the Vote on Account.

Mr. Corish

That is all I have to say on the subject. We gather from Government spokesmen that there is to be introduced a new Programme for Economic Expansion as a followup to the one introduced in the Autumn of 1958. We are told that is being prepared. The last one was a pretty good one, that is, in its general objectives. However, I wonder who is preparing this new programme. I have the same respect as Deputy Sweetman has for civil servants, especially Irish civil servants, having a little experience of their ability and their general intelligence. Nevertheless, I do not think that any Programme for Economic Expansion should be prepared by the Civil Service on its own.

I would ask the Minister through the Parliamentary Secretary if there have been any consultations in the preparation of this Programme for Economic Expansion with any other bodies, say, the organisation that represents the farming community? Have Macra na Feirme or the National Farmers Association been consulted? Have the Federated Union of Employers been consulted in regard to the preparation of this programme? Above all, as far as my Party is concerned, has the trade union movement been consulted? Even the Conservative Party in Britain—I am sure the Fianna Fáil Party would not like to be described as being conservative—in their preparation of a programme recently, have consulted the trade union movement.

If a new Programme for Economic Expansion is to have the goodwill of the people, if it is to be pursued with enthusiasm by the people and thus be successful, it is necessary that every section of the community should participate in its preparation. It is not sufficient, as was said the last time, that the Taoiseach or the Minister for Finance should say: “There is the programme now. You can talk to us about it, if you like.” Organisations can talk until they are black in the face but no changes will be effected, because the Government will have, so to speak, burned their boats. They will have been committed to it and they will not change it for the trade union movement, the National Farmers Association or the Federated Union of Employers. Apart from what these organisations will have to contribute in the preparation of such a document, the fact that they have participated in the formulation of such a programme would give them an added incentive and give them greater enthusiasm to ensure that such a programme would work. Consultation afterwards is just too late.

You have told me, Sir, that I may not talk at all about the Common Market which was the last topic to which I wished to refer. However, in regard to the possibility of being accepted as members of the Common Market, may I urge again upon the Government to take all steps to provide against the disemployment that undoubtedly will arise in respect of such industries. As has been said to us recently by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, none of us wants to see mass unemployment or unemployment, but wherever it is or wherever the Government believe it can occur—they are now engaged in surveying industries all over the country—they should make their plans to ensure that these people will not be rendered unemployed and, being unemployed, be forced to emigrate to the Ruhr, to Italy, France or Great Britain.

The Government should also take steps to assist the more established industries which for some reason or another do not have loans and grants made available to them or the same attention paid to them as new industries. There are many industries which might not survive in the Common Market and under the terms of the Treaty of Rome. These should be protected. They should be protected by getting up-to-date machinery and any other necessary facilities.

In Cork recently, as I said, the Minister for Finance made a very gloomy forecast with regard to the Budget he will introduce next month. We have been told our national income has increased. We have been told also that every section of the community should enjoy part of that increase. I want to conclude by urging the Minister to ensure, in framing his Budget proposals, that one section in particular will get some benefit from the increased national income— if such there has been—over the past 12 months but for the past two or three years in any case. They are people dependent on social services, social assistance and on pensions. I know the Minister did not mean it in that way, but I thought it rather pointed when he said, as if complaining—maybe it was not—that the biggest item of expenditure was in respect of social welfare and health. Surely we should be prepared to look after people dependent on social welfare, on local authorities and on the State for the provision of health services? They have been shabbily treated through the years and if, as Fianna Fáil spokesmen say, the country has improved and that our national income has increased each year by 3½ per cent. or 4 per cent., may I suggest that the Minister in framing his Budget will see that those classes will be adequately provided for.

Mr. Blowick

The Minister has brought in an appalling bill for running the country this year. When the Book of Estimates was published last week and the people got to know that they would have to foot a bill for £148? million, it cast a pall of gloom over the country, even among Fianna Fáil supporters. It do not know where that huge sum is to come from. I believe this will only add to the flight from the country which is already bad enough but which will now have added impetus.

The most urgent problems facing the country at present are three. First there is lack of employment; secondly there is the cost of living and the third is primarily caused by the other two, the flight of people from the country.

Deputy Corish seemed to be puzzled because agriculture was not showing increased production and I take it he spoke in good faith when he said he did not understand why agriculture was showing little increase in production since 1955 I think he said. I answer that by asking a simple question—who, at present, is left to work at agriculture in the country? At least in the West of Ireland I can assure Deputy Corish that there is nobody left but a handful of old people, women, and whatever children are there. In other words, our principal industry is depleted of brains and brawn. They have gone because the income from the average or even the medium-size holding is not sufficient to induce them to stay at home. The cost of living, the cost of every item required for production on the land is increasing steadily year by year while the value of agricultural produce is shrinking or, at best, remaining static. Farmers were getting the same prices in 1948 for cattle, sheep and pigs as they are getting now. In the case of sheep, in fact, they were much dearer in 1948. Yet, we wonder why there is a flight from the land and no increase in production.

I want to ask any Deputy who takes the matter seriouly what industry could be run by old people, school children and women, let alone an industry such as agriculture that demands great stamina, skill and brains? Farmers must be mechanics, part veterinary surgeons, good judges of weather, especially in summer and harvest time, judges of seeds and soils and of artificial fertilisers. They are people who work seven days a week and 14 hours a day for six days of the week. They also work on Sundays because of the nature of their business. They are going from the country because the prices for their output are insufficient and fathers of families, one after the other, are closing the doors and taking their wives and families to England or the United States where there is some hope for them.

I say that not in any criticism of Deputy Corish but merely to let him know the answer to his question. I have said before, and it is worth repeating, that if the Government are sincere in their effort to keep the middle class and small farmers at home the day has come to come to their rescue with some monetary help. The recent protest parades about rates were not intended to deny money or lessen the amount of money available for social services provided by local authorities. They were a natural expression of fear that increased rates would be too heavy a burden for the people to bear. In my own county of Mayo the demand is for 57/10½d. in the £ and if that rate is struck I fear, in fact I know, that half the rates in the county will not be paid. There has always been a great tradition among farmers that, when they are able to pay, they never complain. We never had any protests in days gone by. The farmers took great pride in paying the shopkeepers, the rates and annuities and having a clean sheet. Many of these small farmers benefit from the health services provided by the local authority but they feel they are facing something they cannot cope with. That is the position as regards the big majority.

It is no harm to bring to the Minister's notice, as I feel sure it applies also in other western counties and, perhaps, in midland and eastern ones also, that the population of Mayo is approximately 130,000 people but that somewhere, scattered all over the globe, are 230,000 Mayo-born people. In other words, over 100,000 people born in Mayo have emigrated in the past 40 years—forced out of the country. There is not a parish in the west at present that has not at least 40 good substantial slated houses closed up since Fianna Fáil came into office. That is the record of Fianna Fáil.

I have often asked myself why it is particularly the small farmer who has been denied employment. Why is it that it is particularly the small farmers who have been made the target in the recent drive by the Minister for Social Welfare to cut them off the dole, to deny them stamp money, and many such benefits? The whole thing points very clearly to one factor, that is, that the people on that side of the House, the Fianna Fáil Party, have made up their minds that the sooner the small farmer is banished from the country, the better. Apparently they have made up their minds that we would have a glorious country if we end up with ten, 12 or 15 ranchers in each parish and all the small farmers banished, and that we would never see a poor day again.

Actions speak louder than words. These things do not happen as accidents and any Deputy who thinks that Fianna Fáil policy is an accident is very foolish. The Minister knows— and if he does not know, it is the duty of members of his Party from the West to tell him—that the small farmers whose average income on a small holding is £75 a year must get some help in the shape of employment —but there is none—or in the shape of a subsidy per acre, or in the shape of fixed prices. The farmer is not being paid properly for his labour and for the food he sells. Because the gap is so great between income and outlay many small farmers are flying from the land and clearing off to England or some other country.

People of over 70 years of age are getting the princely pension of 30/- a week. I want to speak on behalf of the old age pensioners, particularly in the towns, who have no other income or means. Do the Government think that an old age pensioner, having arrived at the age of 70 years, can subsist on 30/- a week? I know cases of people who have reached the age of 76 or 77 years who are definitely undernourished because they have nothing to depend on except the old age pension. They cannot make ends meet, particularly in the towns where they have to pay for practically everything. The farmer with a small holding has some little income to help him, that is, if he is lucky enough to get the full 30/-. In the towns the pensioners have to buy potatoes, cabbage and milk. They have to pay for electric light and they probably have to pay a special town rate for water and other things which are free in the country.

One of the badges of a civilised nation is that it takes special care of the old, the young and the helpless. We are not treating the old age pensioners fairly. The cost of living has gone up. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that, when the food subsidies were taken away, that was balanced by an increase in pensions, but it was no such thing and the Minister must know that quite well.

I cannot understand why the Vote for the Department of Agriculture is down from £26 million to £19 million. Last year it was £26,445,000 odd, and this year it is £19,073,000 odd, although this year in the Appropriations-in-Aid—that is moneys coming in to the Department—we have £5,000,000 as against £2,000,000 last year—and agriculture is the principal industry of the country. I want to take this opportunity to tell the Minister and the Government that first and foremost some industry and some employment will have to be provided in the small towns in the West of Ireland if we are to hold on to the remnants of the population now left there. Farmers' rates will have to be lightened and in my opinion the Exchequer will have to meet two items, that is, roads and health services. They have reached the point where they cannot pay for them. The farmers are not in a position to pay for them and because of the fact that the load on the farmers' back is increased year after year, we find that more and more small farmers are emigrating to other countries.

I was glancing through an English paper and in an out-of-the-way corner of the paper I saw that seven county councils close to London have struck rates. The lowest rate was 14/10d. in the £ and the highest, believe it or not, was 16/3d. in the £. They have better health services, better roads, heavier costs than we have here, and yet seven county councils——

Mr. Lenihan

And higher valuations.

Mr. Blowick

I do not think so but if the Parliamentary Secretary wants to go into that——

An Ceann Comhairle

This is a discussion on expenditure, not on taxation.

Mr. Lenihan

Do you want to double the valuations?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Have you that under consideration?

Mr. Blowick

This Estimate is about one-third of the main Estimates to tide the Government over for a few months before we deal with the individual Estimates. I want to take this opportunity to tell the Minister if there is not a complete change of attitude we will arrive at the stage where the rural parts of Ireland will be completely depopulated and the small towns will have grass growing on the streets, because when the people who live in the rural parts of the country are hard hit and vanish from the country, that is instantly reflected on the town.

The Government's record with regard to the establishment of industries and the bringing of employment and work of a productive kind to the small towns in the West of Ireland is a hopeless failure. There is a policy of cutting down employment, increasing the rates, increasing the cost of living, with no increase in the income from the land due to the fact that the farmers themselves are not organised and not able to make the same demands as other organised bodies. The fact that the agricultural community are not organised should not be seized on by the Government for their own advantage and to make easier the job of the Minister for Finance. For every farmer he loses, for every able-bodied person he loses, he is losing a worker and a taxpayer and forcing out people who are entitled to live in their own country. The Government should face up to the problem and help those farmers whether or not they are organised.

The Minister for Agriculture told us on many occasions that agriculture is the foundation stone of the economy of this country. So it is and very few need to be reminded of that fact. If it is the foundation stone of our economy it has been undermined down through the years by Fianna Fáil. The Fianna Fáil Party seem to have a grudge against the farmers. We have heard the same thing echoed from members of another Party who seem to be completely opposed to the rights of private ownership. They lose no opportunity of heaping odium on the heads of those who are doing a very difficult job under intolerable conditions.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands (Mr. Lenihan)

We have heard from Deputy Sweetman, on behalf of the Fine Gael Party, what might be called a destructive and reactionary speech in which all the old phrases that have been trotted out for the past four or five years in this annual debate were again trotted out. He pointed out—and it is an undoubted fact—that there is an increase of £13,000,000 on last year in the non-capital services, but he declined to give any analysis of that increase. Now an analysis shows that the total increase can be divided into three categories. There is, first of all, an increase of £5.24 millions in respect of increases in wages and salaries of public servants, the Garda Síochána, the Army, and so on. These increases follow on what has been described as the eighth round increase. These increases were arrived at after going through the proper conciliation and arbitration channels and I think nobody in this House would criticise these increases as being too much. These increases account for practically half the total increase of £13,000,000.

The next category is social services. There is an increase for social services of £1.4 million. Again, I do not think anybody in this House, particularly anybody who values his political future, would criticise that increase in any respect. A large part of that increase is for old age pensioners and widows and orphans.

The third category is one over which any Government can stand. It covers increases designed to improve the total productivity of the country. I refer to the increase of £3.5 millions for agriculture, the increase of £1,000,000 for industrial promotion, and the increase of £.3 million for tourism. These three items may be regarded as the most productive fields of endeavour in our economy at the moment and this Government, or indeed any Government, can stand over increases in that direction.

Despite what was said by the leader of the Clann na Talmhan Party some moments ago, there is an increase of £3.5 millions as compared with the provision last year for agriculture. Deputy Blowick ignored the fact that there was a Supplementary Estimate during the year to preserve the cattle trade and that a sum of £5,000,000 was spent in subsidising the export of fat cattle and the export of carcase beef over the past few months. That had the effect of preserving an excellent price level in the cattle trade.

The net point is that there is this increase of £3.5 millions in relation to agriculture. That increase can be related to items in which agriculture is exporting: the export subsidy on bacon is part of it and so is the dairy produce export subsidy. In addition, we have in that £3.5 millions, increases under two very important heads. There is an increase from £3,000,000 to £3.5 millions in the subsidy for lime and fertilisers. That is a scheme that has worked very well in recent years. It is one of the most ideally productive that can be devised. The Government can certainly stand over the increase of £500,000 under that head.

The Government can equally well stand over the increase in respect of the Agricultural Institute. The Institute has got an increase of £200,000 in the current Estimates.

Under the other two productive heads, industrial promotion has got another £1,000,000. That is fully justified. As Deputy Corish pointed out, we will have to get more people into industrial employment if we are to make a real impact on emigration. Progress has been made in that direction in the past two or three years. Industrial employment has risen at the rate of 7,000 per year. We all hope that that will be maintained in the next 12 months. I am not complacent with the rate of increase but it does at least absorb those who are leaving the land. The rate will have to be doubled to 14,000 a year if we wish to make a real impression. We have got over the slack in our economy some years ago. Surely, it is only logical then that a further £1,000,000 should be spent on industrial promotion to encourage increased capital investment by private enterprise. Progress has been made in that respect. We have the grants and loans available to encourage industrial investment. This sum is designed to expand the activities of the I.D.A. and An Foras Tionscal, which is the grant-giving body.

When this increase of £13,000,000 in non-capital services is closely analysed, and when one analyses the increase of roughly £3.7 millions on capital services, the only conclusion to which one can come is that the increase on the capital side and the increase on the non-capital side are both related, if not to the recent pay increases, if not to social welfare, then strictly to increasing productivity in the key fields of national endeavour.

I need not elaborate on the third, tourism. There is an increase of £.3 million. Considerable success has attended the efforts of An Bord Fáilte.

There is one aspect of Deputy Sweetman's speech to which Deputy Corish properly referred. That is the resurrection by Deputy Sweetman of this talk of inflation. He ought to be very familiar with that particular bogey. He spoke of corrective measures which should be taken to curb inflation. When he spoke of the corrective measure he took in the year 1956, I thought that "corrective measures" might be a euphemism for mass unemployment, the mass unemployment that followed on his policy as Minister for Finance in 1956. In regard to that situation, we are certainly now having wage increases in the context of an economy in which industrial production rose at the rate of 8.5 per cent. last year and where the national income and overall national production is improving at the rate of 5 per cent. per year. The total increase in the national income over the past three years was 15 per cent.

We can certainly look forward with much more confidence in the context of that situation than we could in the context of the situation in 1955, 1956 and 1957 when the national income was rising at the rate of 1 per cent. per year. Introducing corrective measures to curb inflation in an economy improving at the rate of 1 per cent. per year led to the mass unemployment which resulted in 84,000 people being out of work in March, 1957. The current figure is 49,000. The improvement in the national economy following the initiation of the programme for economic expansion has resulted in a situation in which in March, 1962, there are 25,000 fewer people unemployed as compared with March, 1957. That situation, coupled with increasing national production, shows that there is no danger of the economy getting into the condition it did in 1956 when Deputy Sweetman felt obliged to apply his corrective measures.

The other point made by the previous speaker concerning agriculture is one on which some people in this country appear to be under considerable misapprehension at the moment. It has been propagated abroad that the Fianna Fáil Government are not concerned with agriculture but the amount provided in the Book of Estimates for agriculture can be taken out and any Deputy can see the chart which shows expenditure in that direction over the past four or five years. In 1956/57, the last year of the Coalition administration, the expenditure by the Department of Agriculture was in the order of £8 million. In the past year, 1961/62, the expenditure by the Department of Agriculture as set out in that Book of Estimates was £26½ million, an increase of over 200 per cent. in five years. It has been more than doubled.

If you go down through the list under no other heading, is there any increase comparable with the increase shown in the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture? I agree that it is very rightly so. Those cold figures should convince people that statements being made that the Fianna Fáil Government are not interested in or concerned about agriculture are not true. And that does not take into account a further £6 million given by the Minister for Finance to local authorities to relieve agricultural land from rates.

That emphasises the fact that this Government are concerned about increasing agricultural production, that they are concerned about giving the farmers the necessary incentives to improve production from the land and that they are concerned about ensuring that he has a market for his output abroad. The expenditure on subsidies to dairy and bacon exports and carcase beef and cattle exports is ample evidence of the Government's advanced view in that direction.

Deputy Corish made the point that the Government are not taking into their confidence some people in the Labour movement in the preparation of future economic programmes. In fact, the Congress of Irish Trade Unions is represented on the Committee of Industrial Organisation which is carrying out surveys of all aspects of Irish industry, with a view to seeing how these industries can compete in the Common Market. They are also represented on the National Council of Productivity and it is hoped that, by the joint co-operation of the employers and the trade unions, we can evolve here for the future a saner wages policy. That is one objective which is desired by all right-thinking people in the country. The trade unions are represented on these two organisations at the moment, these two organisations which are preparing for the proper utilisation of industry and for the improvement of the relation between productivity and wage increases.

Deputy Corish's remarks about the necessity for management to improve its techniques are also apposite. Along with Labour showing an increased interest in productivity, it is also up to management to improve its techniques in that respect and to show increased efficiency.

The economy of the country has shown a steady improvement over the past three years, an improvement that is in excess of what was expected in the Programme for Economic Expansion. That programme at first set a target of a two per cent. per annum increase in the rate of national productivity in 1958 and at that stage it appeared to be a reasonable target as, up to then, the rate of increase had been only one per cent. Over the past three years, far from its being two per cent. as envisaged in the programme, it has been of the order of five per cent. per annum. In those circumstances, the Government can make a further plan for economic expansion based on the knowledge gained over the past three years, a plan which can be geared to the expanding markets which we hope to have in the European Economic Community.

There is one point connected with the negative criticisms of budgetary expenditure increases. There is nothing wrong with increased expenditure, so long as we have, at the same time, increased productivity. The two go hand in hand. What is wrong is where you have increased expenditure without any corresponding increase in productivity. The expenditure in successive Budgets for the past two or three years has increased, but these increases can be related to the improvement in the same period in the overall economic position of the country. Side by side with increases in recent budgetary expenditure, there have been increases in the overall rate of national productivity. As long as they go hand in hand, there need be no uneasiness whatever as regards the increase sought in the Minister's Vote on Account. That increase can be related directly either to increased wages or to methods being taken to improve productivity in the coming 12 months.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Fianna Fáil Deputies will never convince this House that people are better off to-day than they were 12 months or three years ago. The real test of Fianna Fáil policy was revealed in the general election of 4th October last when they failed to secure the overall majority that was sought and when they came into this House having lost the overall confidence of the people. One would have expected that the results of that election would have taught them a lesson. If that lesson had been brought home to them, they would now be coming into this House with something new, something progressive, something that would be for the benefit of all the members of the community.

The facts revealed in the last general election showed a marked swing away from Fianna Fáil and showed a considerable confidence in the Fine Gael Party in the vastly increased number of votes obtained by that Party and its considerably increased representation in this House. Probably one of the main factors in the success of Fine Gael in the last general election was the fact that laid down in their policy placed before the people and calmly considered by the electors was the section dealing with finance, which declared that, under a Fine Gael Government, there would be no further taxation of the necessities of life. One would imagine that the results of that election would have given the Fianna Fáil Party at least food for thought, would have induced them to collect their senses, collect their sense of responsibility to the people, and remove some of the cobwebs and dust from the oldtime brains of the Government so that they could frame something that would meet with the approval of our people and improve the general standard of living.

When I hear speeches such as we have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands and the Minister for Finance, and speeches which we will hear before night fades away from Fianna Fáil, trying to convince the people that they are better off now than they were, I know that, in fact, all sections of the community are worse off today than they were this time twelve months and considerably worse off than this time three years. We have in this speech of the Minister for Finance today no question of serious Government thought on unemployment, emigration or the cost of living. I respectfully suggest to the House that it is the duty of a Government, particularly a Government suffering after a rebuff from the people, to hold a post mortem into their own conduct and to ask why there was such an extraordinary fall off in Fianna Fáil support in the general election. The answer is as clear as crystal. They have no policy in relation to agriculture, unemployment and emigration. They have made no effort whatever to curb prices or to prevent the cost of living from going up by leaps and bounds.

In regard to emigration, it is quite true to say that never before in the history of this country were so many people fleeing from rural Ireland. One Deputy has described the position of numerous holdings in the West of Ireland. It is clearly evident today that there is a new form of emigration and there is no provision in the Vote on Account or indication as to what this Government is going to do to stem the tide. In the midlands, in parts of the south and throughout the West of Ireland the small farmer has galvanised his windows, put a padlock on his door, collected his family and all have emigrated. I often wondered why some responsible Government Ministers, instead of delivering jolly-folly speeches to a group of well-off chosen citizens, would not go to the trouble of investigating the various portions of rural Ireland from which there is wholesale family emigration.

Again, we find that one of the main reasons why in the Vote on Account there is higher expenditure sought for social welfare is because there is a greater call in the provincial towns for unemployment benefits, due to the fact that you have longer queues, greater numbers signing on in the various labour exchanges, concerns going on half time or short time, and various concerns closing down completely. The farmer cannot afford to pay labour because he is crushed out of existence with heavy overhead charges, rates and taxes. Everything he produces from his land he must put on the market at reduced prices.

I would like to know from the Minister for Finance how he can claim that the farmers of Ireland are better off today than they were previously. I venture to put this on record. When we see and compare prices with those of 1954 to which reference has been made by the Parliamentary Secretary, there is very little difference between the state of agriculture at the moment and its condition in the dark and gloomy days of the economic war. The farmer in 1954 received for his wheat 80/- a barrel. Last year he got 69/- which is a reduction of 14 per cent. The price of oats per stone was 3/1d. in 1954 and 2/8d. in 1960. Here there is a reduction of 13 per cent. Malting barley, which was 65/- a barrel in 1954, was 53/10d. last year, a reduction of 17 per cent. Feeding barley in 1954 was 48/2d. a barrel and last year 38/4d., a reduction of 21 per cent. Then we are told that the agricultural community are better off.

Potatoes were sold by the farmer in 1954 for £25 11s. a ton and last year for £25 17s. That shows an increase of one per cent.; but, when we see the retail prices, we find that, if he had to buy a stone of potatoes in 1953, the price was 2/3½d. and last year it was 2/5d., which is an increase of five per cent.

In relation to agriculture in general, this Government has failed miserably to bear in mind, first and foremost, that there is no other industry in this country and there can be no other. No matter how Fianna Fáil may try to industrialise this country, they cannot work it against the way this country was ordained and created by God to work. It is an agricultural country and if the thousands and thousands of pounds that were pumped in other directions were pumped into the land and into agriculture it would be better for this country and for all sections of our people.

This Vote on Account does not show any real injection into agriculture. Wool prices this year are 16 per cent. less than in 1954. In the case of bacon pigs deadweight from 1954 to last year, there was a reduction of 11 per cent. In 1954, the price of a dozen eggs was 3/5d.; last year, the farmer could get only 2/11 a dozen—a reduction of almost 17 per cent. There were reductions of 17 per cent. in chickens and two per cent. in ducks. There was a reduction of 12 per cent. in turkeys on the Christmas market last year. In face of all that, we are told the farmers have more money to spend and are more prosperous.

I fail to understand the lack of realisation on the part of this Government that it is high time to deal with taxation in general. The Minister for Finance and other members of the Government have referred to the fact that the State was top heavy with civil servants. It was a part of the declared Fianna Fáil policy to cut down the Civil Service in order to reduce expenditure. We grew tired of listening to that from Fianna Fáil. Whenever a Fianna Fáil Deputy addresses a cumann meeting, he introduces his remarks by saying that it is the policy and the programme of Fianna Fáil to reduce the Civil Service and the meeting will spend the remainder of the night ballyragging and criticising the Civil Service.

Results are the best test of policy. Have Fianna Fáil reduced the Civil Service? The position is that there are almost 1,000 more civil servants today than there were 12 months ago. That does not correspond with what Fianna Fáil said they would do during the election campaign. I want to place on record my view that the country cannot do without civil servants and that, as other Deputies have said, we probably have the best civil servants in the world, well trained, very efficient, hardworking, conscientious, and, very often, hindered in the discharge of their duties. Why should any Party pretend to the taxpayers that they would reduce the Civil Service? In fact, there has been an increase in the Civil Service resulting in increased expenditure and increased demands on the taxpayer.

Taxation, local and national, has reached the peak and gone beyond the limit. Reference has been made to the fact that all sections of the community are protesting against increases in rates. In the Book of Estimates, there is no indication that the Government intend to do anything to relieve local or central taxation. The Government in their sane moments, few as they may be, must realise that when farmers and ratepayers come together to express disapproval of overtaxation, examination is called for. Local authorities are finding it impossible to discharge their duties because of lack of support and co-operation from the Central Fund. I venture to say that the Government are deliberately shirking their responsibilities by endeavouring to relieve the national Exchequer of various commitments by piling them on to local authorities who are thus compelled to impose taxation.

With rate demands and taxation so heavy that the people cannot meet them, incomes drastically reduced, workers unemployed, on half-time and short time, business people throughout the length and breadth of Ireland today complain of lack of business in their shops. The reason most provincial towns are at a standstill is that money is not in circulation. Farmers have not got it. Fewer goods are being sold over the shop counters; more goods are remaining longer on the shelves and in the windows. Less business is being done in every town and village. If the people have not got cash to spend, that is reflected in business.

Have Fianna Fáil completely forgotten the undertaking they gave and which, I understand, is still a part of the policy yet to be revealed in practice, to provide 20,000 jobs per year? We on this side of the House are tired from trying to extract information from the Government as to what happened to prevent them putting the plan they had for the provision of 20,000 jobs a year. Perhaps the Minister for Finance may give us a ray of hope and may make a speech on this matter at some future date.

Deputies cannot allow to pass without very severe censure the fact that the present economic position of the country is due to bad management, ill-advised tactics on the part of the Government, the turning of the blind eye and the deaf ear to agriculture and the deliberate creation of unemployment as a result of Government policy. When we speak of the cost of living, we must always remember that Fianna Fáil endeavoured to cast reflections on the trade unions and the workers for seeking proper wages. Since they commented, as the Taoiseach did, about workers not working hard enough or producing enough, we may well ask, "Who started the race?" Did Fianna Fáil not start the race when they attacked every wage-earner and when they unnecessarily slashed and withdrew the food subsidies?

Mr. Booth

Talk sense, if you can.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Everybody knows it was unnecessary. It caused severe hardship to the working class people. Because of dearer food and the higher cost of living the workers were obliged to seek increases in their wages in order to purchase the food necessary to keep body and soul together. If anybody else can put the position clearer than that. I would like to hear it.

Mr. Booth

We will get a chance.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I would like to hear it. When a Government increases the price of flour, bread and butter for working class people is it not to be expected that the trade unions and organised workers will not take such an increase lying down? Why should they? If Fianna Fáil wanted to comment on wage demands, they should have thought of that at the time of the food subsidies.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is going back very far. It is not within the ambit of this motion.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Within the ambit of this motion I respectfully submit, Sir, that there is in this Vote on Account a very substantial sum for increasing the salaries of about 20 lazy, unworked, unproductive judges. They are going to get increases in thousands. Is that not a queer headline for the trade unions who are asked not to look for increases for their members? When the worker seeks an increase in pay in return for his labour and skill, it is pointed out he is doing an injustice to the country, but when you have a lazy, non-productive citizen——

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think such references should be made to any public servant.

Mr. Booth

No.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

That is a matter for the Chair to decide.

An Ceann Comhairle

And I am ruling that it is not a correct remark to make in regard to any body of public servants.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

When we have non-productive citizens who work about four or five hours a day without having to stand up and who produce nothing——

Mr. Timmons

Nonsense.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

——but only draw spiders in cobwebs with green pencils and red pencils——

An Ceann Comhairle

We are not discussing the activities of any body of workers. It is expenditure we are talking about.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I want to protest against this expenditure.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may protest against it, but not in the fashion he is doing it now.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

For a Government to criticise trade unions for looking after the interests of their members and then bring in an unnecessarily large sum for such an increase is, in my opinion, an unnecessary strain on the taxpayers. We see ratepayers being bled to death with their incomes slashed, and yet we see wild extravagance by Fianna Fáil. It is my opinion that, instead of spending money on television and jet planes, it would have been far better to spend it in an effort to increase production by helping those sections of our people who are very badly off to-day.

There is nothing in this Vote on Account to show that the lot of the old age pensioners, the widows and orphans and the Old I.R.A. is going to be improved. They are being driven into every county home in Ireland today because of the lack of proper consideration by the Government. These are matters to which the Minister should direct very serious attention. That section of our people described as the middle class seem to be feeling the pinch more severely than any other section of the community. I should like to hear from the Minister, when replying, what he proposes to do to assist the retired civil servants and to assist those whose pensions have not increased despite the various increases in the cost of living. I should like to hear what provision is being made to assist all those in receipt of State pensions whose pensions have not been increased. I should like to know what provision is being made to assist those remaining in the Gaeltacht. The Gaeltacht appears to be dwindling more and more every year. I should like to hear from the Minister what steps he proposes to take to prevent it from vanishing completely.

The Minister may refer generally to the fact that there are those who are not pulling their weight, so far as production is concerned. If that be so, would he not consider bringing about a substantial reduction in taxation, both national and local, by making an approach to the banking institutions and see to it that the bank rate of interest is brought to a sane level and that the vast amount collected in rates and taxes which must now go to the banking concerns in interest, is no longer allowed to be a very severe pinch on the general taxpayers? That is something I feel calls for examination.

I want to ask a question on the lines of one asked by the Leader of the Labour Party. I hope that when the Minister for Finance is replying, he will make reference to that section of our people on the land who still endeavour to eke out an existence and who cannot obtain contracts for the growing of barley, beet, wheat or peas. They represent a very large proportion of our taxpaying community and they are worthy of some Government action in this respect.

Generally speaking, this Government have failed miserably in their efforts to bring about a sound balanced economy. The time has now come when our people realise that it is wrong to allow a Government to remain in office for as long as Fianna Fáil have been in office. I feel that we are now having the last term of Fianna Fáil government and we can only hope and trust that the general taxpayer will realise that if there is to be a measure of relief from the burden of national and local taxation, it can be brought about only by wise spending and prudent planning in clearly designed schemes. I venture to say that now as never before the people are beginning to open their eyes.

Concerning our balance of payments and our external trade, where would we be in this country, were it not for the export of cattle? Where would we be today, were it not for the British market, and is it not true that Fianna Fáil have devoted all their energies in the past, and some of them even at present, to decrying the British market? The British market is our best outlet, Britain our nearest neighbour and our best friend. Thank God, we can all rejoice in the fact that the wild-cat, daft, mad dreams of Fianna Fáil are coming to an end and that they now realise, after wasting so many valuable years, that England is our valued friend. For the good of our economy, therefore, the more we openly declare that Britain is our friend and that our economy is vitally linked with hers, the better for us and for our people.

That is a doctrine with which many in Fianna Fáil have disagreed, have rebelled and protested against, but they now have reached the stage of seeing the error of their ways in the past and of realising the value of Britain to this country and the value of the United States also. If we want to improve conditions in this country for our farmers, workers, businessmen, traders and professional men, we can do it only through close co-operation with Britain and the United States in all our activities.

It is the only way in which we can attempt to bring about a greater measure of prosperity and a greater degree of security in our planning for the future welfare of the country. May I say that in recent years, a good deal of valuable and useful efforts have been made towards closer co-operation between ourselves and Britain and, if I may be excused for saying it at this time, I feel that one of the greatest advances to the benefit of this country is the fact that we have seen the Lord Mayor of London so courteously received in this country? I feel that is a real contribution to the greater prosperity of our people.

An Ceann Comhairle

And quite irrelevant.

Mr. Booth

I can find it in my heart to be sympathetic with the Opposition on this occasion because they find themselves in a most unenviable position. It has been made perfectly clear to this House and I hope in due course will be made clear to the public, that the members of the Opposition who have spoken, if they are representative, have shown that the task of criticising Government expenditure is quite beyond them. First of all, we had Deputy Sweetman, who is a lawyer, an advocate, who knows perfectly well that it is quite impossible to convince anyone, unless you have convinced yourself. It was perfectly clear from his speech this afternoon that he had failed in the initial task of convincing himself.

He tried to create an atmosphere of horror at the percentage increase in Government expenditure as provided for in the Estimates in the Vote on Account now as compared with the previous year. He tried to wax eloquent on the fact that this was the greatest increase in any one year. That does not appear to me to be a matter of any great importance—one year is bound to be the greatest—but then he went on to try to accuse the Government of introducing this Vote on Account as an admission of their own failure.

Quite to the contrary, it is obviously only to be expected that when the economy generally is in a state of buoyancy, Government expenditure will also be rising, whereas, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands has said, the question is what will happen to the money— is it to be thrown down the drain or profitably invested? On our record so far, and from the information set out in the Book of Estimates, it is clear that the emphasis is on profitable investment all the time.

Deputy Sweetman tried to impress the House with his contention that the improvement in our economy was solely due to an improvement in the economy of the United Kingdom and the conditions prevailing in the European Economic Community. In view of the fact that the economy of the United Kingdom shows no sign of buoyancy whatever, and of the fact that our economic relations with the six countries who are signatories to the Treaty of Rome are almost negligible, this contention obviously falls to the ground.

He also commented on the recent eighth round of wage increases for which he blamed the Government again, stating that the Government had allowed these wage increases and had almost incited them. He gave no evidence to support the accusation of incitement by the Government, but he definitely did give us the impression that he did not approve of the eighth round of wage increases. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that he is in favour of a wage pause or a wage freeze.

Deputy Sweetman is, I have always felt, a responsible member of his Party and one who normally speaks in a representative capacity. If Fine Gael have decided that this is the time for a wage pause or freeze, they should come out into the open and say so. They have practically done so through the mouth of Deputy Sweetman to-day; in fact, to all intents and purposes, they have done it. However, if this does not represent the policy of Fine Gael, I should be glad if someone with even greater authority than Deputy Sweetman would say so. If Fine Gael do not approve this eighth round wage increase, I think we should all be glad if they would tell us what action they would have taken when the movement towards a wage increase began.

Deputy Sweetman commented adversely on the fact that Government expenditure has risen by 35 to 37 per cent. in five years. Why should it not? Surely the result of that expenditure is now plain for everyone to see. He went on to complain that the whole foundation of the Programme for Economic Expansion was the increase in our cattle stocks. If he expected anyone to believe that, I should be very much surprised. Granted it was a very important part of that section of the programme which dealt with agriculture generally and particularly with the livestock position.

It is a pity that the present cattle stocks are not larger but what are the Government to do about it? Are they to suspend the eradication of T.B. reactors so that we shall keep up our total number of cattle, whether infected or not? I hope I am right in saying Fine Gael would not approve of that policy, even though they made such a mess of the early stages of the programme for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

You will agree Fine Gael started it?

Mr. Booth

I certainly would not agree. They started talking about it and spent an enormous amount of money in having cattle tested, leaving the reactors to mix with the cattle that were free of the disease, and a greater waste of public money I can hardly imagine. The actual grappling with the problem of the elimination of T.B. reactors is to our credit and our credit alone.

Mr. Donegan

The Deputy has seen a cow? He would know one if he saw one?

Mr. Booth

I am almost certain I would.

Mr. S. Collins

I am not.

Mr. Booth

The ignorance of some members on that side of the House passes description. When it comes to the question of eliminating reactors, that necessarily means a certain rate of mortality. Cattle are killed and that inevitably reduces cattle stocks to some extent. That is not by any means the whole reason. A high proportion of the cattle have been sold either dead or alive. What is Fine Gael's suggestion on that point? Are they suggesting that we should have restricted the farmers and said to the farmers: "You may sell only so many cattle this year, regardless of price?"

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Deputy is being haunted by the slaughter of calves.

Mr. Booth

No; it does not come between me and my sleep.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

The Deputy was on this side then. He was secretary of a Fianna Fáil Club.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The slaughter of calves worries Deputy O'Brien.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, táim i gcoinne leas-ainm a thúirt orm. Ba chóir go nglaofaí orm do réir an ainm in ar h-ainmníodh mé chun na Dála.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Sílim gur thugas an t-ainm ceart ar an Teachta Ó Briain. Cad is ainm don Teachta?

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Tá m'ainm ceart le feiscint i gceart ar liosta na Dála.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I mBéarla, "Deputy O'Brien".

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is é "an Teachta Ó Briain" an t-ainm ceart.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Cad é sin as Béarla?

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Níl aon Bhéarla air.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Níl aon ainm agat.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Booth, on the Vote on Account.

Mr. Booth

I am still at a loss to understand what policy Fine Gael would have adopted to restrict the farmers in their right to sell their cattle. We have never believed in that restriction and we have not restricted them. The encouraging thing is that the number of cattle is now beginning to go up again, but the idea that the whole Programme for Economic Expansion crashes to the ground simply because our rate of expansion of cattle numbers is not higher is sheer nonsense. I am inclined to believe Deputy Sweetman realised it was, but he went even more into the realms of fantasy when he stated that the symptoms of the present day were almost the same as in 1956. Then, in a suitably vague way, he alleged that the Taoiseach had agreed with that. That is quite divorced from the facts.

What the Taoiseach said recently, according to my own recollection, is that unless there was some greater restraint shown a situation similar to that of 1956 might arise, but it certainly has not arisen yet and I think there is sufficient restraint being shown to ensure that it will not arise.

Deputy Sweetman went on to say that in an inflationary situation, the Government should reduce their own expenditure. That may be good economics, but in this connection it is assuming that we are dealing with an inflationary situation. Even if we were, what economies would the Fine Gael Party suggest, because all their criticisms are to the effect that we are not spending enough on agriculture, that we are not spending enough here or there; pensions are too low; everything is too low but we must not spend any money? It is a sort of stupidity which could only come from a Party like that and the greatest hope is that they would not be entrusted with government at any stage, where their own inherent weaknesses might be shown up even worse.

The Deputy went on to hint that the Government were responsible for low farm incomes whereas in fact the Government are the only Party who have contributed in any way towards the raising of farm incomes. It must be clearly recalled that it was the Fianna Fáil Party and the Government composed from it who decided that because the farmers had not got a proper increase in their income, the price of milk must be increased. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture spoke very strongly on the point, stating that whereas workers in industry were able to have the full support of a strong trade union movement and that even industrial employers had their own strong organisation to help them and to look after their interests, the farmers were in a much weaker position and had suffered for that reason. When we brought in a proposal that the price of milk should be increased in order to raise the farmer's income, it was the Fine Gael Party who opposed that increase across the floor of the House and in the division lobbies. Deputy Flanagan has supported that again today by complaining of Government policy which increased the price of butter. If you can reduce the price of butter without reducing the price of milk to the farmer, you are more than a magician, but one ordinarily——

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

We did it when in office.

Mr. Booth

You did not.

Mr. Donegan

That is Fianna Fáil economics.

Mr. Booth

You did it by ringing the changes and getting the money in a different way.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The person buying butter paid less for it.

Mr. Booth

A certain amount of money has to be paid to the farmer. If you want to reduce the price of butter, either you pay the farmer less for his milk or you get the money into the farmer's pocket in some other way from some other source. It comes to the same thing in the end. Let the Deputy clearly understand it was the Fine Gael Party who opposed the increase in the price of milk to the farmers and voted against it.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

How? When?

Mr. Booth

By walking through the Division Lobbies.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Refresh our memories. We do not remember it. Perhaps the Deputy would give us more details?

Mr. Booth

It might embarrass you to remember.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps Deputy Flanagan would allow Deputy Booth to make his speech. Deputy Flanagan has already spoken at length.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I cannot recall participating in a division and voting against giving an increase in the price of milk to the farmers.

Mr. Booth

No. It is a most inconvenient memory.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Can the Deputy give the reference?

Mr. Booth

Deputy Flanagan may have run out at the time, not wishing to vote against the farmers, but I can assure him that his Party voted against the increase.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Will the Deputy quote the reference?

Mr. Booth

I am not going to quote the reference.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Oh, well.

Mr. Booth

It is no use throwing up your hands. The records will show it. You opposed it because you wanted the price of butter to be kept down for the honest working man. That was your game then.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The milk producer is honest and hardworking also.

Mr. Booth

Deputy Corish made a quieter contribution, although not very constructive. He became rather involved with the question of the European Economic Community which was ultimately ruled out of order. He complained that the amount of money spent on agriculture was insufficient and that it was being spent badly. He claimed that the flight from the land showed the failure of Fianna Fáil policy. No member of the Opposition, in fact, nobody anywhere, can find any country where there is not a flight from the land. It is not purely an Irish problem but one which is being faced in the United States and all over Europe also. It is simply a fact that the number of men required on the land to keep up the present production rate is becoming less and less with better means of production, but to say that those people flying from the land are proof of the failure of agricultural policy is absolutely nonsense.

He went on to say that the farmers should be told what to grow. My experience of farmers is that they are not very keen about being instructed at all. I sympathise with them because, being a city man born and bred, I feel it would be the last thing I would want myself. It would scare the living daylights out of me to find I was relying on a farm for the upkeep of myself and family. It is an extraordinarily tough job. The farmers I know are certainly independent and do not readily take instructions as to what they are to grow or how to grow it. They may accept advice or assistance with marketing problems and so on, but once you tell a farmer what he is to grow, you will have him up in opposition straight away.

Deputy Corish criticised the Government for their lack of an employment policy and said that the number employed in industry was 15,000 fewer now than in 1955. He did not go into the question of how that arose, but it was not unconnected with the balance of payments crisis in 1956, when a tremendous number of people were disemployed in industry. It took a long time to get industry going after the fearsome blow it received then.

He criticised our Ministers for being pleased with progress to date and said he thought this showed complacency. There is nothing wrong in being pleased with progress, but I agree with Deputy Corish that there is no ground for complacency. I would not say there is the slightest ground for accusing the Government of complacency. There has not been the slightest sign of it—quite the contrary. From the Taoiseach down, the country has been told, day in and day out, that further tremendous efforts will be needed if we are to achieve anything like the standard of living appropriate.

From Deputy Flanagan, we had a certain amount of irrelevance until he was restrained by the Chair. We had a tremendous amount of hot air which clearly got him nowhere and eventually he descended to very vulgar personal abuse, for which again he had to be reproved by the Chair. It is clear that the Deputy is quite incapable of producing any reasoned criticism of Government policy or expenditure. When he got into a short discourse on the bank rate and what he would do if he were in charge of it, I was sorry for him because he so quickly became embarrassed by his own ignorance that he shut up rather suddenly.

Mr. Donegan

Is that not rather personal abuse also?

Mr. Booth

It is only a question of fact.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Booth was referring to remarks made by Deputy Flanagan. He was not being personal.

Mr. Donegan

He referred to Deputy Flanagan's ignorance, and as a colleague of Deputy Flanagan's, I will not have him do that. I ask for your ruling, Sir.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

That is a compliment coming from Deputy Booth. I do not mind that.

Mr. Booth

I shall leave the House to judge as to Deputy Flanagan's ability or ignorance, and I am sure they will agree with me. It may be said that I am prejudiced in favour of the Government's economic policy. The other side of the House may say that and I feel it is no harm to look for comments on the general state of the country from outside sources because we have to try to see whether Government policy is going in the right direction, and whether it is leading us directly towards a state of higher economy. Comments on that, for instance, in banking circles are always of interest and of great value, because bankers are not people who are easily swayed by sentiment, nor are they normally under the control of political Parties.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

They are living on the fat of the land.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Monetary reform !

Mr. Booth

To think that bankers are living on the fat of the land is, of course, an illusion, and if Deputy Flanagan—I shall not mention the word "ignorance" again—were slightly better informed, he would probably amend his comment.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Or if he had stuck to monetary reform.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Has the Deputy ever seen a poor banker?

Mr. Booth

Bankers are people who are holding the savings of the community and advancing money to those who can put up a reasonable case for advances. They keep a very careful eye on the economy generally and on Government expenditure. The Governor of the Bank of Ireland can hardly be suspect of being under the influence of Fianna Fáil or in their employment, and yet in his annual report, he states that during a period of 12 months, that is, 1961:

... economic conditions in the Republic of Ireland continued to be buoyant.

That is in spite of the absolute disaster which Deputy Flanagan has seen all around him. The report continues:

The estimates of national income in 1960 suggested that it had risen, in real terms, by the considerable proportion of five per cent., and it seems that this impetus of growth was maintained during 1961.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

From what is the Deputy quoting?

Mr. Booth

From the Report of the Governor of the Bank of Ireland for the financial year 1961.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Who is he, by the way?

Mr. Booth

I do not think it is of any great relevance but his name is Gerald W. Wilson.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I never heard of him.

Mr. Booth

I doubt whether the Deputy would have made his acquaintance.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

They are not the type of people I associate with.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not necessary to comment on every statement made by Deputy Booth.

Mr. Booth

I am sure the Governor of the Bank of Ireland would agree with Deputy Flanagan, and is probably just as happy that he is not acquainted with him, either. He is speaking in the name of the Bank and he goes on, dealing with bovine tuberculosis, to state:

The measure to eliminate Bovine Tuberculosis continues to be applied by the Department of Agriculture with energy and ability. Much progress has been made, and though much remains to be done, it is a credit to those responsible for these measures that so large a number of attested cattle was exported in the year.

In that way, this man, who is a leading member of the financial community, has seen quite clearly the worth of the Government's progress to date in eliminating bovine tuberculosis, and it is perfectly clear that the amount of money which will be spent on that in future is money which will be well worth spending. In spite of Deputy Flanagan's gloom and despondency, which must be more depressing to him than to anyone else, the fact remains that morale generally in the country is high.

I quote again from the Report of the Governor of the Bank of Ireland:

In industry, it is encouraging to note the number of producers who do not regard the admission of the Republic to the Common Market with dismay.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

May I ask who is the Taoiseach? Is it this Mr. Wilson or Deputy Lemass? Who is laying down Government policy?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Deputy Booth is proceeding to quote what was said by a Mr. Wilson——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Booth is in order and Deputy Flanagan may not repeat his speech. He has already spoken.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I am asking the Chair a question. The Deputy is proceeding to dwell on Government policy but he is not quoting from the Taoiseach, but from this Mr. Wilson.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Booth is in order.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

What is the rate of interest the bank is charging?

Mr. Booth

The point I was going on to make was that morale generally in the country is high and that we are facing the future with confidence.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

That is what Mr. Wilson thinks.

Mr. Booth

I was quoting, but it is incidental to what I think also.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Deputy and Mr. Wilson can think that but the people do not.

Mr. Booth

In actual fact, the people do, apart from Deputy Flanagan. The fact remains that we have done a tremendous amount to restore the morale of the country which was at its lowest ebb in 1957, when we took office. Government expenditure has already produced very good results and this expenditure proved to be productive.

Nothing can show that more clearly than another statement by the Chairman of another bank, the Provincial Bank of Ireland, which is not a subsidiary of Fianna Fáil, either. In his report the Chairman states:

Some anxiety was felt during the early autumn——

That was the autumn of 1961

——as to the effect of high money rates on further borrowing by the Government for the implementation of its capital programme.... When one watched the situation here month by month against such an adverse background, one could not but be impressed by the remarkable steadiness of prices. Very wisely it was decided to proceed with the borrowing programme in the ordinary way.... The whole operation was a complete success and the cash issue was considerably over-subscribed. All this goes to show the continued growth in investment confidence in Ireland which is also seen in other sections of the Stock Exchange....

If we had this atmosphere of utter gloom and despondency which Deputy Flanagan gets some amusement from quoting, we would not have Government loans over-subscribed, and we would not have banks showing their delight that they did not have to honour their under-writing of such loans.

The Governor of the Provincial Bank of Ireland also referred to the increase in imports and exports and pointed out that the increase in imports is, to a great extent, due to the increased import of capital goods. These are the sort of comments which show that there is confidence in the country on the subject of Government policy.

Only two days ago, the Central Statistics Office issued provisional statistics for 1961. They have already been quoted in whole or in part this afternoon. Those statistics show an increase in production by manufacturing industries of 9 per cent. The number employed has increased by three per cent. Earnings are up by nine per cent. Earnings are up by much more than the increase in the numbers employed. That shows that wages generally have gone up. While we as employers may not welcome wage increases with shouts of delight, we must admit that some of these increases have done a tremendous amount of good. There is no doubt that some industries were operating on an uneconomic basis. When wage rates went up, there were only two alternatives: to raise prices or to improve efficiency. To raise prices would in many cases have put industrialists out of business. Willy-nilly, the industrialist had to increase efficiency.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

And reduce his staff.

Mr. Booth

There was no necessity to reduce his staff.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Oh, yes, there was.

Mr. Booth

In actual fact, there is no sign that any reduction occurred.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

But it happened—it happened all round.

Mr. Booth

If it did, the net result would be a rise in unemployment and emigration. Contrary to what Deputy Flanagan has said, emigration is down.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Is that more of Mr. Wilson's material again?

Mr. Booth

No. I am referring to the Central Statistics Office which, according to the Opposition, is apparently an agent of the Fianna Fáil Party when Fianna Fáil are in power. I believe the Central Statistics Office deals purely with facts and figures. They show quite clearly that unemployment figures are down.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Is that the number of people unemployed or the number of people in employment?

Mr. Booth

The number unemployed is down.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

What about the number in employment?

Mr. Booth

The number in employment is up. Deputy O.J. Flanagan must have been using his imagination. He does not seem to read the report we get each week. If he reads it, he will see the unemployment figure is down. If he reads the returns of the net movement of people in and out of the country, he will see there has been a substantial reduction in the rate of emigration.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Nonsense.

Mr. Booth

It is very easy to say "Nonsense". The facts and figures support me.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Could the Deputy say what is included in the net movement figures?

Mr. Booth

The number of people going out and the number of people coming in.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Taoiseach says these figures are unreliable.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

They always were.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Is it not late in the day the Deputy is admitting it?

Donnchadh Ó Briain

They were the Deputy's method and now the the Deputy and his Party are being paid back in their own coin.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Deputy should not be speaking against his colleague.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would Deputies please allow Deputy Booth to make his speech? Other Deputies will have an ample opportunity of speaking later.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

We like to keep Deputy Booth right.

Mr. Booth

If I followed Deputy Flanagan, I would be wrong. I will contradict him and then I will know that I am right. Over a short period, a comparison of passenger movements is unreliable, but, over a long period, the average works out, according to people like Mr. Garrett Fitzgerald. He is a statistician and an economist. He says that the rate of emigration has been greatly reduced. If increased efficiency in Irish industry had led to substantial disemployment, that would have shown itself somewhere. It has not shown itself. Therefore, I am right and Deputy Flanagan is wrong.

Mr. S. Collins

It has shown itself in Manchester, Birmingham and London.

Mr. Booth

If they emigrated, they would have to be recorded.

Mr. S. Collins

Not necessarily.

Mr. Booth

Unless the Deputy has something more constructive to say, it would be as well for him to go down to the bar, or somewhere else.

Mr. Donegan

It is the wrong day for it.

Mr. S. Collins

He would not know that.

Mr. Booth

One of the principal signs of a buoyant economy is savings. The amount in savings has been steadily increasing over the past three years at least, if not over the past four years. The amount invested in Prize Bonds is going up steadily; Post Office savings are going up very steadily. From the Opposition point of view, that is most unfortunate. Yet, I believe that in their heart of hearts they are as delighted as we are because savings indicate a healthy economy.

There are many obvious signs of activity. The one which shows the greatest buoyancy is the building industry. Deputy Corish referred to the activity in that industry; he felt it would not go on very long. I hope he is wrong in that. The number employed in the building industry at the moment is very high. It is difficult for builders now to get the labour they require. Activity in building is always an indication of economic wellbeing.

I come now to the E.S.B. Today the E.S.B. have announced a new loan to cover an expansion of 50 per cent. over five years. When we took over in 1957, the E.S.B. was unable to go on with its plans for increased production.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Deputy knows that that is not right. It is not true.

Mr. Booth

I do not know any such thing.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

It is perfectly true.

Mr. Booth

The rate of expansion initially planned was quite clearly not required and the fact that it was not required indicated a certain sickness in our economy. Today, the rate of expansion is going ahead rapidly. The consumption of electricity growth. In five years, the daily consumption has risen from 6,000,000 units per day to 10,000,000 units per day. That shows the work that is going on; it is not a matter of everybody leaving on his electric light.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Deputy will agree that it was Fine Gael who started the E.S.B.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The white elephant!

Mr. Booth

I do not see anybody on the Fine Gael benches at the moment who was responsible for starting the E.S.B.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Did Deputy McGilligan not start it?

Mr. Booth

He is not here at the moment. I do not see anybody on the Opposition benches at the moment who had anything to do with starting the E.S.B.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

But the Deputy does agree it was Cumann na nGaedheal started it.

Mr. Booth

That is a relationship which always defeats me.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Now, say "Yes" and admit it. Fianna Fáil were not here at the time.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

They did raise their voice to call it a "white elephant."

Mr. Booth

The fact remains that, whoever started it, we now have to increase its rate of building so that it can increase production. That in itself shows that the economy is buoyant, that we are moving in the right direction and that the Government's encouragement to productive enterprise is paying dividends in money, in the rate of employment and in the decrease in the rate of emigration. What we have got to do is to make sure that this rate of progress will continue. We have every confidence that it will, provided the approval of the House is given to the rate of expenditure set out in the Estimates.

On this side of the House, we are not suffering from complacency but we are full of confidence that the progress at present being made will not only be maintained but will be increased and that the policy which has proved so successful so far will be even more successful in future.

Mr. S. Collins

We take annually the Vote on Account as an opportunity to stocktake on Government effort. It is rather interesting to listen to the slick and naïve manner in which Deputy Booth uses his legal training to try to twist the facts and misquote reality. The big difficulty in this country at the moment is that there is mounting discontent about growing Government intervention in every section of the community. I am not going to paint pictures of gloom. I would far rather come to grips with the realities that are bedevilling the economy of the country. There is no doubt that we get away from realities very quickly in this House when we start talking about the buoyancy of economy.

The difficulty that has been created in agriculture is that there has undoubtedly been a rise in prices but that the cost of production is not keeping pace with that rise in prices. No one tries to work out what is the end profit to the small farmer for the produce of his land and efforts. No one will deny that there has been a vast uncertainty and great irregularity in cattle prices in the past 12 months but the problem that besets the area I represent is that of pig production.

When I hear people coming in here and talking about industrial increases, I feel that it would be better if somebody got back to putting the pig industry into proper production. It is high time that the Department of Agriculture should be able to give directions to the Irish farmer as to the type of pig he should produce to get himself properly geared up. It is time that somebody in Government should get down to the problem of ensuring that that very valuable contributor to our bacon industry, the cottier producer, gets his feeding stuffs at prices which are within his capacity to pay so as to make his pig profitable. I sometimes wonder if the Government ever give any consideration to these people, if they ever consider that some effort should be made to get the basic ration to these people at a price similar to that in the rest of the country, instead of making them pay all kinds of transport charges in the two way carrying of the feeding stuffs to the animals and the animals to the factory for slaughter.

I want to tell the Government in a deliberate way that there is gross unrest and uncertainty in our agricultural community. Farmers will stop you to ask in what direction they are to gear their economy. There is no use in blinding ourselves to the fact that the impact of rates and other charges is very severe on the farming community generally. No matter how we may talk about buoyancy there is not that profit level in agriculture that would encourage any great confidence. We know well that the economy of this country should not be that of the wheat rancher. It should be the economy of the small farmer who is feeding in the cattle for finishing to the midlands. It is for that main section of our economy that we are bound to provide first of all because it is on that type of farmer that we depend for the whole prosperity of our cattle and bacon industry.

I should like to see some change of direction in Government policy so as to give the farmer an indication of what kind of worthwhile market research has been done on his behalf. We are all perfectly aware that the time has now come when alternative markets for milk must be found. I should like to see some efforts being made to find these alternative markets. We have enough Government agencies flying around the world doing God knows what. Is it not really time that we had some responsible lead from the Department of Agriculture as to what direction this outlet for our milk products would take so that the farmers could gear themselves for that diversion of our products?

It is sheer madness to talk with any complacency about Irish agriculture at the moment. That fact is clear to any representative in this House of a small farming community. He has only to walk through his own constituency and meet the ordinary decent hardworking farmers to find out that they are very agitated about the problems that confront them. These small farmers are anxious to know the direction that their animal husbandry should take. We know that, instead of having wheat debacles such as we had last year, we ought to have a greater impetus on the growing of coarse grains and on establishing a complete balanced ration for our own areas.

There is no use in blinding ourselves to the fact that all is not well with our agriculture. I do not care who comes into this House and quotes figures about this or that industry, as far as I am concerned I feel that, unless our basic inlustry is all right, we cannot hope to maintain artificial industries in this country. Much of our industry here is of a completely artificial nature where we are only processing raw materials we bring in and sending it out to export markets. We all know that that particular type of economy may be fraught with difficulties if there is an ultimate integration of this country into a larger economic area.

A very plain test of the efficiency or otherwise of this Government can be found in the fishing industry. Sometimes possibly this is regarded as something I have a phobia about, because I feel it is extraordinary that the amazing harvest of fish gathered into their trawlers by virtually every nation of Europe in and around the Fastnet and Bantry area cannot be gathered for the benefit of the Irish economy. We have only to look at the situation that arose in the Fishery Section and An Bord Iascaigh Mhara and go around the country to find huge monuments dedicated to their glorious inefficiency. Our fishing industry has made no real advance. There is no stability of price, no permanency of landings, no proper home marketing system, and no effort at all to do anything in the line of research on exports or on the possibilities of that industry.

It is these kind of things that agitate my mind when I get up to talk in relation to Government policy. We have all kinds of wildcat schemes for finding imaginery markets in countries all over the world, but we cannot get down to the basic actuality of catching and processing our own fish and sending it out to the world. We can stand on a sunny day on the shores of Bantry Bay and watch the trawlers of Norway, Belgium, Sweden, Spain and all the countries of Europe hauling and trawling and taking from the area the harvest they subsequently are able to market; and many of them send the very fish they catch there back in various types of cans into this country.

I would never oppose expenditure, no matter how great it is, where it has a particular value for the country, but I am absolutely convinced that much of the Government's spending is directed into channels that are not giving any return commensurate with the expenditure. In the main the cause of that is that there is too much of this money made available for various investigations or various efforts soaked up by administrative costs and too little ever gets down to the basic problem that it has to deal with.

I heard the Minister for Agriculture saying that there is no slowing up in land reclamation. I invite him freely and openly to come into my constituency with me any day he likes and I will blind him with the slowup in land reclamation in West Cork. My colleague, Deputy Cotter, who has just gone out of the House, could also tell the Minister for Agriculture the plaintive pleas we are getting from all over that area, where every acre of land going into production is a valuable contribution to the little holding they have to work, and where every acre won back into production will be worked and goods produced from it with the traditional skill and fortitude and hard work of the people down there. But it is heartbreaking to see machinery rusting and in the Beara Peninsula, where the pig industry is in jeopardy, to see the land reclamation office closed and the officer taken out of the area, and then to be told here by the Minister for Agriculture that there is no slowing down in the land reclamation scheme.

This Government, as I said the night they were elected, stinks of mediocrity, lack of initiative, and lack of purpose. There is growing throughout the length and breadth of the country a feeling of uncertainty and a feeling that God knows how we are going to get rid of them. Their dead hand is beginning to poke into every locker and into every walk of life. We have to admit, if we are in any way frank with ourselves, that the nauseating reality is that the youth in the main have lost confidence in our institutions and have very little interest in our political efforts.

I cannot understand how any Government can stand here or a Deputy get up as Deputy Booth did and glibly quote this banker or another banker and his pompous statements about the state of the country. I am quite sure that the gentlemen who were pontificating about the rapid improvement in the eradication of bovine tuberculosis would find great difficulty in distinguishing cows from bullocks or heifers when they glibly talked on some figure produced by a Government Department. The Government must wake up to the fact that the test of a Government and a Government's policy must in the final analysis be in the response of the people and the effort of the people. I have seldom experienced more general apathy and more hopelessness on the basis of constructive effort than we have under the present Government.

I would in no way oppose, as I have said before, expenditure no matter how big, where it is directed to basic worthwhile projects aimed at the improvement of our land, the draining of our rivers, the rehabilitation of land and the improvement of the type of crops we grow. I would encourage any Government fearlessly to use our resources for such purposes, but the real basic industry is not getting the direction, the technical advice and the help it should. It is because of that I am making a protest against this Vote on Account.

I am trying to urge the Government to see this simple point of view, to come down out of the clouds of economic communities and everything else to the problem of the small farmer with rising costs of production, rising rates, rising charges for everything he has to eat in the home, and at the same time uncertainty in his prices, and so come down to one of the basic problems and one of the real difficulties that must be faced before we go airy-fairy into any other larger community, because there is no doubt at all about it that, no matter what statisticians may say or what theorists or brilliant trained economists may give as their opinion, the fact remains that it is the small and middle sized farmer and, in the ultimate analysis, the big farmer who are carrying the economy of the country on his back. When you have analysed all export figures and got down to the reality of the improved export situation, you will find that it is the green grass of Ireland and the stock fed thereon that have given you 90 per cent. of any increase you have got anywhere. It is by the toil, sweat and effort of these people, who are much maligned and seldom helped, that the economy of this country has been maintained throughout the years.

There is no use in talking about buoyancy in the economy, if that is not reflected in the lives and homes of the people who are making the greatest contribution to our economic survival. I say, in a most deliberate way, that never in my experience since I first came into public life in 1948, has there been such uncertainty and unrest in small holdings as there is today. I am staggered to find that the rate of progress in the Land Commission in the division of land has gone from stop to full-stop. They are getting slower and slower as the days go by.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would be a matter for the Estimate for the Department of Lands.

Mr. S. Collins

With respect, I submit that I may talk generally about the Department, without coming to specific problems in the Department. It is laid down in Standing Orders that on the Vote on Account we can criticise Government policy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy would listen to me for a moment. The Deputy was about to discuss the division of land and the Land Commission.

Mr. S. Collins

With respect, I was not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I pointed out to him that the division of land does not arise on the Vote on Account.

Mr. S. Collins

With respect, if the Leas-Cheann Comhairle had listened to what the Deputy was about to say, he would have found that the Deputy was quite aware of the limits of this debate and was not going into anything specific in regard to the Department. I am entitled to criticise the overall policy of the Government and I am dealing with the Land Commission only in so far as the Minister responsible for it is part of the Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I hope the Deputy is not lecturing the Chair.

Mr. S. Collins

I should not dream of doing that. With respect, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I feel the Chair is quite competent to look after itself.

There are lands throughout Ireland that should be in the ownership of small farmers who would work them by good husbandry but which are let in conacre from year to year. There is local uncertainty and unrest until such time as the land is divided. So long as that type of sore thumb remains, how can Government policy be described as having initiative or drive? There is no one as proud or as hard working as the small farmer who is reaping the benefits of the various Land Acts and who is paying his annuity to the Land Commission. I like to see such a man getting the extra acre through land reclamation or as an addition. I want the Government to speed up land reclamation and division. I want to see everything possible done in these vital years to get agriculture soundly and firmly placed on its feet. I exult in the fact that the Irish farmer, given the opportunity, given the right type of animal husbandry, the right type of encouragement in regard to the cereals and coarse grains he has to grow, can compete with anybody in any market in any part of the world. I want to see the Government impetus to ensure that that rocklike basis of our whole economy will get all the help and encouragement it needs.

I am not the type of person who criticises for the sake of criticism. This is an opportunity to get a point of view across. The point of view I am trying to get across is a sincere one. It is the responsibility of every member of this House, irrespective of party politics, to try to get down to the main problems that aggravate the national economy. We cannot be complacent. If we casually stop a person and ask for his comment, the comment almost amounts to: "A plague on both your houses." That is due to the fact that there is a spiral of expenditure and a spiral of emigration and there is no explanation available to the people as to why that state of affairs should continue.

Deputy Booth tried to use a statement made by Deputy Sweetman to suggest that Fine Gael were against the eighth round increase in wages. Being the adroit lawyer he sometimes is, he used the half-truth to make a completely wrong deduction. Fine Gael's boast is that, had they been in office, they would have been able to deal with the problem of essential costs and the spiral of the cost of living in such a way that it would not be necessary for wages to start chasing rising prices again. The sooner we realise that these rounds of wage increases are the inevitable dog chasing tail, the better. There is a spiralling cost of living and in our present system, it is absolutely essential that the worker should be given the opportunity to protect himself against the inroads on his earning capacity that increases in the cost of living can make.

The amazing thing about it is that where the cost of living was kept stable for a few years, we did not have wage increase after wage increase. The position at the moment, which must be faced in a realistic way, is that because the Government chose to abandon a certain method of keeping down the cost of essential foodstuffs, the price of these commodities has increased. For instance, bread has been the subject of no less than six or seven increases in price. Where the impact of that is felt in the home of the decent tradesman, factory worker, general worker, it is only reasonable that, in order to offset it he must secure a greater income. That can be done only by further wage demands.

In that situation, until such time as somebody firmly takes hold of the problem of the rising cost of living, there will be continuous rounds as the spiral increases. That is not a good feature in the economy. It is essential for the Government not to try to find legislation to have either wage pauses or wage freezes but to find some way of controlling or maintaining at a level the essential commodities in the cost of living table. If they do that, I have not the least hesitation in saying they will get the co-operation of all sections of the community in preventing the spiral of wage increases from recurring.

Today, we in this country are on the brink of major developments economically and, apparently, politically. We shall be given a limited time in which to get ready to face all the complex problems, marketing and otherwise, which will arise. I want to see a little bit of initiative, courage and direction given to the Irish people to show them that the Government are really interested in them, that they know something about some of their problems and are prepared to do something to help. I want to see that type of co-operation growing up here to ensure that we shall not stand idly by and waste valuable time and opportunities when we should be devising a policy to enable us face the future with complete confidence.

I am convinced that if the Government would give a direction to the Irish farmer and inform him what has to be done, responsible co-operation would be forthcoming. But while we continue to have uncertainty in regard to farm prices, the continued increased impact on the farmer's cost of living through rising rates and continued uncertainty in regard to the profit limit, we cannot get from the farmer that maximum effort we shall require to continue to maintain our present economy or to expand it, if we are ever to expand it.

I am prepared to say that many industries here have made a worthwhile contribution to our economy. We rejoice in the fact that they are worthwhile industries and that they give worthwhile employment. But I want to direct the Government's mind deliberately to the fact that the day our agricultural economy goes burst, not all the industries here will keep us together. We have to face that reality, not in a spirit of gloom or tragedy but rather in a spirit of effort to do something about it, to do something about marketing research, marketing development, adequate arrangement for transport facilities or any of the other matters that may arise in the course of new marketing plans. If we do not do it now, we may find ourselves in the position of not having the time to do it when we wake up to it.

There is no question of trying to cod ourselves, because we certainly cannot cod the Irish people that all is well in the matter of emigration and employment. I know perfectly well that Deputy MacCarthy, sitting opposite me, has the same experience as I have of people going on our Inisfallen day after day to find employment elsewhere. Some of the factors contributing to that may be increased mechanisation on the land or improved methods of husbandry; but that still does not alter the fact that as far as employment is concerned we have to export that irreplacable unit of production, our young boys and girls, and give the benefit of their initiative and energy to other countries.

I am quite confident that we can find a way of keeping them at home as units of production in their own country. I know it cannot be done overnight. I know the impact of two world wars in one generation may have created a tremendous amount of unrest in rural Ireland because some families may have gone away, while others remained. That does not alter the fact that, if we can find something for them to do, we should be able to repatriate those in Birmingham, Coventry, Manchester and London, trained and skilled operatives in all types of industry, and bring them home as assets to our own industry here.

I do not see any forthright thinking or any future planning in any Government document to give us any hope that that immense pool of potential wealth will ever be repatriated. These are the kind of things the people want to know something about. They want to know the certainty of the future. Above all, throughout the length and breadth of a constituency such as mine, the calf producer, the small cattle producer and the pig producer want to know from the Government what direction their animal husbandry is to take and what direction their farming outlook is to take. With a little bit of effort and encouragement, they will do their best, but in this Book of Estimates, one can only see, as I said before, the dead, inept hand of mediocrity.

Mr. Gallagher

I was rather surprised to hear from the benches opposite many suggestions for spending but no suggestion to reduce taxation and no suggestion on how to develop our economy. This comes shortly after a general election in which we had an Opposition campaign in which I searched vainly for some policy that would put this country on the road to prosperity—the prosperity they said we did not have.

Their memory must be very short indeed, but I shall bring them back to that calamitous year of 1956-57 and make a comparison with this year. Let them then look at their facts and figures. Let them look around them in their own counties and their own towns and come back here and say truthfully whether this country is poorer or whether it has advanced. I have been listening to the Opposition for five months advocating the spending of more but the raising of less from taxation. According to them, this is the age of wonders. I often feel that I should be able to see on the Opposition benches some magician, some Mandrake, who can do wonderful things.

Deputy Flanagan spoke this evening about the wonderful success his Party had in the recent General Election. Was he serious when he spoke in terms of victory? He and his Party should examine some of the points in their 21-point programme and then keep their mouths shut. I have been trying to discover what the Fine Gael programme was and put against it the successes of the Government since 1957. Fianna Fáil took on the job of government early that year and immediately there was stability in the nation. The country felt the presence of stable Government and got down to the job of producing. The Government, of course, got down to the job of leading them and the result was that, by 1962, we have an ever-increasing gross national output, a buoyancy in our economy and an ever-increasing standard of living. All this is self-evident in both town and country.

That is the real progress for which Fianna Fáil are responsible. Agriculture is progressing because of the farmers' confidence in the Government whose policy it is to support and help the farmers. The farmers know that and the figures of the output from the land indicate the farmers' trust in the Government's ability to support them. Therefore, to say that the farmer has not been getting support from the Government is simply untrue. This Government will continue to the maximum capacity of the country to support the small farmer because it recognises his importance in the life of the nation. At this stage I would emphasise that the small farmer is the backbone of agriculture and that some secondary employment must be found for his children.

Again, Fianna Fáil has set an admirable headline in the job of encouraging industry. The Estimates this year provide £1,000,000 more for this purpose. I wish our economy could stand more expenditure to push and encourage industry because, when one realises the amount of capital necessary to put one man to work, one will recognise the fact that £1,000,000 will not do a lot in this direction.

The national rate of employment has been progressing by an average of 7,000 a year. While that is desirable, we are not at all happy or pleased about it. Improving the situation will require a tremendous amount of support and encouragement from individuals and groups of both workers and employers. To find new jobs for 7,000 people each year would require a figure of between £17,000,000 and £21,000,000 by way of capital investment in sources of permanent employment. Accordingly, the task facing the Government will be fully realised. All these efforts do not indicate any apathetic view on the part of the Government or of the state of the country.

We know that since 1957, and particularly over the past four years, there has been an increase of five per cent. in the gross national output. This is commendable and is what I would describe as a measure of success, but it is not all we would desire. Only last night, I read about the position in other countries and learned that in one Far East nation the aim was an increase of nine per cent. in the gross national output. Ours is far below that but by comparison with European standards we have achieved a very commendable figure.

Deputy Corish said that the workers of this country are making a fine contribution to the economy. I agree the workers here are as good as elsewhere, that they are loyal, patriotic and faithful, but I am afraid that Deputy Corish's figures as between our increase in productivity and the increased numbers in employment do not leave much of a margin. I would ask Deputy Corish for his co-operation in narrowing the margin between productivity and the increase in the number of jobs. I know that the Government has the full support of the workers but from time to time we find in this country influences, hypocritical in most cases, which would attempt to retard the efforts of our people to get together with the object of raising our standards of production.

I would appeal to those people to take the interests of the country to heart, lay aside political interests and get ahead with the task of pushing the country's economy forward. Our people demand a higher standard of living and they have a right to it. They are second to none when it comes to doing a job of work. I can say that frankly and confidently from my own experience. However, there is a kind of womanish attitude adopted sometimes which frustrates the worker's efforts to do what he would like to do.

This country must equip itself for the battle that lies ahead. There is reference to the plight of the farmer. We have been listening to complaints and arguments over the years that agricultural output and income have been falling. From speaking to farmers in my own constituency, I can say they seem to be reasonably satisfied. That is as good an answer as you will ever get from a farmer, short of complaining that he has not got enough. However, I am not satisfied the farmer is getting all he should get. It is the duty of this Government to give him more encouragement and I am confident this Government will give it to him in the years that lie ahead.

There are some items in the Estimates on which I should like to see more money expended. Forestry should be developed further. The rate of planting is up to 25,000 acres per year now. That is a commendable effort. Forestry is something this generation can leave to future generations. It is a magnificent form of investment.

Tourism is another industry on which the Government should spend to the limit of their resources. Tourism gives a fillip to home production. This industry should be fostered, even to the extent of encouraging people in the farmhouses in the region of seaside resorts or in any type of tourist centre, be it a lake, river or valley, to cater for tourists. Such people should be encouraged to open up their homes and provide accommodation for tourists. By spending more and more money in this direction, the Government will be providing greater employment and increasing the consumption of the goods we produce at home.

This calls for the improvement of amenities. There should be an improvement in the roads and laneways leading to lakes or other beauty spots, an improvement in the piers or jetties at seaside resorts. In my own constituency of Sligo, these items have been neglected for many years. More money should be spent on seaside resorts like Enniscrone, Strandhill and Rosses Point, to mention a few. In Rosses Point, a sea festival is held each year and I would ask the Department responsible to provide a jetty there. It has also been mentioned here today that improvements should be carried out in Sligo, Leitrim and Donegal.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not go into detail on the Vote on Account. Such detail should be reserved for the Estimate.

Mr. Gallagher

Deputy Corish mentioned fears that housebuilding would come to an end some day. I do not think Deputy Corish need have any fears along those lines. House building will not come to an end, unless, as happened in 1956 or 1957, the money to finance it runs out. We have also investment building going on in Dublin city and many other parts of the country, a great sign of confidence in our economy. When people—I think, for the first time in the history of this State—put money into building of that nature and when one considers how conservative these investors are, one can take it that all is well with the country.

Deputy Corish should bear in mind that with a buoyant, vigorous economy, more people are buying their own homes not only in Dublin where the suburbs are always expanding, but generally. At present there is a shortage of building sites so that Deputy Corish need not worry on that score. There will be only one limit to national development here, a weakening of confidence at home and abroad in our economy when people would again, as they did in 1956 and 1957, leave the country. Thank God, this Government, by its leadership, stability and general policy, have arrested the deterioration and set the country on the road to planned progress in the years ahead.

Deputy Collins uses some very strong language and if he were Leader of the Opposition, we would probably take some notice of it. I wonder how he, a Deputy from West Cork, finds life there. Apparently, he finds things in a very bad state, but, speaking to people outside and to other Deputies from West Cork, I find they do not corroborate Deputy Collins's views. If the bulk of the people of Ireland were to listen to Deputy Collins, they would clear out of the country immediately, but thank God we can claim our people have good, solid common sense and are not easily swayed by eloquence of the kind we had from Deputy Collins.

The Deputy also attempted—and it was the second time I heard it today— to suggest that we in Fianna Fáil might be expected to do something to cause some sort of wage pause. Certainly, I have never supported such an idea, nor will I ever support it. We have a free economy in which our people may bargain for their rights and act in a responsible way. I am sure that is how the Government will continue to act in the future. One gathered from Opposition speeches a desire to direct or compel farmers into doing something. Do they forget this is a democracy? During the war, it was necessary to direct farmers to some extent and it was Fine Gael who, as it were, removed the inspectors from the land. Now, we find this tendency for Fine Gael to tell farmers what to do and what not to do. It is a dangerous tendency with which we in Fianna Fáil will have nothing to do. We accept that the Irish farmer will answer the call of the country, as and when it comes.

Generally, the farmer cannot complain about how he is dealt with by the Fianna Fáil Government, bearing in mind the limits imposed by circumstances on the Government. The Estimates show that more than £30 million was spent in 1961-62 on farming or agricultural aids, and not only in money but by grants for houses. Farmers cannot deny that this Government have a real interest in their welfare and are doing, and will continue to do, everything possible to support them in the years ahead.

Mr. Donegan

The trend of this debate prompts me to compare it with the first Vote on Account of the inter-Party Government in the 1954-57 period and the debate on the Budget which followed. On that occasion, when there was in fact a small reduction in taxation and at the same time a reduction in the number of civil servants, I remember the present Taoiseach saying it was a "Sweet Fanny Adams Budget". At a time of rising costs— as that was—with difficulties around the corner—as they were, and not of any Government's making — to say that such a performance was a "Sweet Fanny Adams" performance was a misrepresentation. Now we have the first half of this Budget performance and we see that there are almost 1,000 more civil servants, with a Vote of almost £300,000 for extra remuneration for the Revenue Commissioners and, at the same time that the capital side of this Vote on Account —which is the side that will bring more employment to the country, which will bring this country's standard of living nearer to the standard we all desire—is relatively very small, while the cost of the Supply Services is relatively very big. It seems to me that the two performances are not comparable at all.

Another trend in this debate—the main trend, I think—was the suggestion that we in Fine Gael were opposed to the eighth round wage increases, that we begrudged people who got their rises and were cushioned against the increased cost of living which the rest of the community must suffer, and that we should be criticised for being so opposed. We are not opposed to that. We believe that people are entitled to whatever they can get, that the system of arbitration and conciliation operated for the Civil Service, the Garda and other Government employees is the right line. But here is where we differ from the Government: we say that this development having occurred, it then devolves on the Minister for Finance and the Government to see to the rest of the community, to ensure they, too, are cushioned against the natural increases in costs that will follow, to see that their standard of living and opportunities of employment and so on are preserved.

This Vote on Account is defective when we find that the other section of the community is not being cushioned but being thrown to the wolves. Let us consider, for instance, the small shopkeeper. Like Poujadists in France, they are quite numerous and powerful but they have no political power. They lack the negotiating machinery other people have. They now have to pay extra costs that will arise from all these increases. Take, for instance, the self-employed person in a small way of business. He is in exactly the same position. Take pensioners. The Budget may give some increases in certain cases in pensions and social services but there are many more people who get pensions from the business to which they contributed all their lives through insurance contributions who now find those pensions decimated by the fall in the value of money occasioned by the increased prices resulting largely from Government action.

We do not begrudge the people who got these increases the benefits they obtained. We like to see them get increases and a better standard of living, but we say to the Minister that this Vote on Account has done nothing for the other section of the community. Let us see what is the size of that other section. In the latest issue of the Statistical Abstract we find that, of the employed people, 699,000 are in non-agricultural occupations and within that the number in “Other Economic Activities”, is 178,000 and outside it, in agriculture, 413,000.

When we take some portion of that "Other Economic Activities" figure and the agricultural figure, we find that more than half the people employed in this country and their dependants have got no increase to compensate them for the rise in the cost of living which has been occasioned by Government policy, and will be occasioned by the present state of affairs. These people have, in fact, been thrown to the wolves. The situation then appears to be that we will have a slightly higher standard of living for fewer and fewer, and a lower standard for more and more of our population.

What strikes me about the whole affair is that day by day a division of the entire population can be seen. The farmer has had no increase in his agricultural prices since 1953, and his worker and himself have no hope at all of cushioning themselves against the other increases. I shall quote a few figures which I think were given before today. In 1954, the farmer got 80/- a barrel for wheat. That price is down by 14 per cent. today. The price of oats is down by 13 per cent.; barley, malting, down by 17 per cent.; feeding barley, down by 21 per cent.; wool, down by 16 per cent.; pigs, down by 12 per cent.; farm butter, down by 17 per cent. Those are a few of the figures which have resulted in the farmers marching all over the country, and have resulted also in an agricultural community who are completely dissatisfied.

Dr. Ryan

Well organised.

Mr. Donegan

If the Minister feels he can convince the farmers that they are all right——

Dr. Ryan

I said they were well organised.

Mr. Donegan

I am sorry; I thought the Minister said they were all right.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The Minister agrees they are not all right?

Mr. Donegan

Some were deliberately disorganised. The Minister is well aware of that I am sure. He should be. The position is that we have this sharp division, and that is what will bring this country down. If we get a rural bias one way and an urban bias the other way, with the two sections pulling against each other, there is no doubt that we cannot face the challenge of the Common Market. I believe that industry inside or outside the Common Market cannot do without the purchasing power of a strong and virile agricultural community. Similarly, I believe the agricultural community cannot do without industry to provide for it a good strong market at home, and which can produce the increased exports which are so important.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands and other Government speakers made very strong play with the amount of money being devoted to agriculture in the Vote on Account, and generally by the Government. I want to state categorically that I sincerely believe—and I think I can prove it on this Vote—that there is no such thing as an agricultural subsidy. What the farmers are getting at the moment are, in fact, payments to bring their produce up from the world dumped prices at which they must sell in the markets where world dumped prices rule to somewhere between the real amount of the cost of production to the community and the world dumped prices I mentioned.

If you go right through the range of agricultural prices, you will find that the British policy is to give the industrial worker cheap food and, therefore, to give prices related to cheap food to the country that sends the food and, at the same time, to give subsidies to their own farmers and a price related to the cost of his production. We here do not enjoy that, except in one instance entirely related to the 1948 Trade Agreement.

We are giving our farmers payments to bring their prices up from the world dumped export prices to somewhere between a price related to the real cost of production plus profit, and world dumped prices. Therefore, I submit that there is no such thing, in March, 1962, as an agricultural subsidy. To say that the figure is now £35,000,000 and that when we were in office, it was £5,000,000 or any other figure that comes into one's head has no relation at all to the wish or the will of the policy of the Government in relation to Irish agriculture. The real position is that as these prices go up and down, willy-nilly, in order to achieve some level of production, the Government must make these payments. They are payments to bring the price up to something at which the farmer will produce, sometimes at a loss. Therefore, I want to make it quite clear that this Vote on Account does nothing for half the population. It throws them to the wolves. It throws them aside while not doing very much for the other half.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands remarked, as indeed did Deputy Booth, that in the past three years, we have had a five per cent. increase in production. I want to tell both those learned members of the Fianna Fáil Party that that is the lowest figure in Europe. Every country in Europe has a greater——

Dr. Ryan

It is the third highest.

Mr. Donegan

It is the lowest.

Dr. Ryan

It is not the lowest; it is the third highest. The Deputy is not speaking at a Fine Gael Ard Fheis now.

Mr. Donegan

My figures show that it is the lowest in Europe.

Dr. Ryan

It is not, or anything like it—not at all. The Deputy should not talk nonsense.

Mr. Donegan

Deputy Booth said Deputy Sweetman had stated that any buoyancy and any improvement that was here, was in part a result of buoyancy in Britain and an overflow of British prosperity. Deputy Booth said there was no such thing as British prosperity. That is wrong. Britain today has over-prosperity, so far as Governmental spending and control are concerned. In fact, Britain's Governmental trouble and financial trouble in regard to spending is that they have burst through their britches. In fact, over-consumption has brought them any difficulty they might have, but there is no doubt that there is buoyancy in Britain, and that they are doing well. Any improvement here has been in part, as Deputy Sweetman has said, due to an overflow from Britain.

Dr. Ryan

Would the Deputy like to hear the figure? It is the third best in Europe.

Mr. Donegan

I have other figures.

Dr. Ryan

It is beaten only by Italy and Germany.

Mr. Donegan

I have other figures.

Dr. Ryan

This is the official figure.

Mr. Donegan

That is the Minister's official figure, but other countries have other official figures, too.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy spoke of Europe.

Mr. Donegan

Other countries in Europe have other official figures. I was interested in Deputy Booth's remarks about local authority housing and, in fact, about all housing. He said there was a great improvement, that more people were employed, that things were on the up and up, and that never was there such buoyancy and such employment. I suppose if you keep on saying a thing often enough, someone will believe you.

Dr. Ryan

That is what the Deputy is trying.

Mr. Donegan

Since we like official figures, the Statistical Abstract 1961 gives us the total number of men employed on local authority housing schemes. The figure, for 1957, was 3,563, and in 1960, after three years of this Government's administration— and I am sure it has not improved a great deal since then—it was 1,662. I merely quote these two figures to point to the fact that if you say a thing often enough, you will come to belive it.

Mr. Colley

The Deputy should consult Deputy Sherwin about that. He gave the answer in this House some time ago.

Mr. Donegan

Those are the figures. Deputy Gallagher said that the Irish farmer would resent being told by Fine Gael what to do: Fine Gael had suggested that the Irish farmer should be compelled almost to do this, that and the other. Deputy Gallagher's advent into politics must be of fairly recent date. Had he been earlier in the political arena, he would know that the record of compulsion relates to Fianna Fáil and that the policy of Fine Gael in relation to this very important facet of our economy has been one of never seeking to compel anybody. I do not want to produce quotations to support that statement. They have become so hackneyed over the years that Deputies can get them from behind their own ears. The fact is nothing could be further from the truth. Fine Gael have never sought to compel anybody.

He said something then which threw my mind back to something I have heard so often from Fianna Fáil. "The Irish farmer, when he is asked, always rallies to the call of his country." Wrap the Green Flag round me, boys! Forget about the money. I believe Fianna Fáil will not succeed in codding the farmer all the time. They have done it pretty successfully now and again. If anybody examines the agricultural situation, he will find there is now no initiative, no incentive, no effort being made to bring the farmer out of the difficult situation in which he finds himself. I would not mind if the Government admitted that they are in an extremely difficult situation; that Britain is trying to buy a lot of our food at dumped prices; that there are quotas on the Continent and until we get into the Common Market, we cannot send our agricultural produce there in large quantities.

The Irish farmer is in a bad way. But that is not what the Government say. They say the farmer was never so well off. Deputy Gallagher said that Deputy Collins must not know his own constituency because he pleaded the case for the small farmer. I should prefer the Government to admit that the farmer is not doing so well. We could then get down to the job. Perhaps they will admit they cannot pay the vast sums required to bring his prices up to the level which would give him a fair profit, plus his costs of production, but they could at least lead him by pushing ahead with pig progeny testing and the work of the Agricultural Institute, with the investigation of markets and the seeking of new markets, with pilot schemes in Britain to which we still have access, preparing them for the Common Market. Vast sums of money are paid towards that end in the industrial nations of Europe.

Every time we table a question, the Minister for Agriculture refers us to a committee or a board. It is quite obvious that the only things likely to be worn out in seeking something for the Irish farmer are the seats of a great many people's trousers on committees, on commissions, and on boards, which have done absolutely nothing. A question was asked today about the £250,000 voted five years ago for agricultural marketing. How much was spent? In five years, £23,000 was spent. Some Government Deputies could drink that if they got down to it.

Dr. Ryan

They could, and so could some Fine Gael Deputies.

Mr. Donegan

The Government say the farmers are all right, they are pretty well off. This business of marching in the towns was organised by politicians who wanted to embarrass the Government. The Government say the farmers are being well looked after, that they have cared for them, that they have given them £35,000,000. My objection is that the Government do not admit that things are bad. My objection is that they will not say they will do this or that to improve the farmers' lot. I think my objection is a valid one.

There are other facets of this Vote on Account that require consideration. Is it calculated to bring about more capital formation and capital investment so that more people will be employed? I believe the capital side should be very much larger. If it were, national loans would fill. It seems to me the Minister and the Government are fumbling through. They have a big bill on the Supply Services side. They decide to face that. At the same time, they decide they cannot face capital formation and the investment necessary in agriculture and industry in order to face the challenge of the Common Market.

There is no use in saying one thing and thinking something else. An increase of £3.5 million on the capital side is not a large increase. Deputy Gallagher referred to the amount required to put a man into work. Year by year, the figure increases by almost £1,000. We have not faced up to that. We have failed also— Deputy Sweetman adverted to this— to put more stock on the land. The Government Programme for Economic Expansion stressed the point that the land could carry a great deal more stock and produce a profit which would ensure our balance of payments would never be in danger again and give our farmers a better standard of living. We have failed to achieve that. The Minister may validly argue that the running down of our cattle stocks was due to the high prices last year; that that was a natural evolution; that you cannot produce a balance sheet to tell the whole story because the years do not end with the calendar year. The number of in-calf heifers has dropped. The future depends entirely on the number of heifers turned into cows to produce milk and breed. The number has declined catastrophically. Judged on that alone, the Government have failed dismally. We shall have to do something about that. We have had no indication from the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Agriculture as to what it is proposed to do to remedy the situation. That is yet another objection I have. There is no clear indication of what the target is at which we are aiming.

Again, on the capital side, is there anything to indicate that there will be an increase in industrial activity? Is there any indication in this first important speech of the series of speeches the Minister will deliver in the next couple of months that there will be a proper relationship between productivity and rewards, and there, I include both management and worker? There is no suggestion of a pay pause in that. There is no suggestion that Fine Gael are opposed to the eighth round increases. I do not believe for one moment that 60 or 70 per cent. of our industries will be in trouble if we go into the Common Market. Is it then not common sense to relate reward and remuneration on the management side, the investment side, and the workers' side to productivity and profits? From that point onwards then, we should try to expand. If we do that, money will be forthcoming for investment in our industries.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands said there had been a 5 per cent. increase every year over the past three years, making a total of 15 per cent. Deputy Booth said this did not reach the increase in remuneration. If the increase in productivity then is not equal to the increase in rewards and remuneration taken out, we are going the wrong way, and the cost of our products will be greater relatively as the years go by. The Minister should take the opportunity when he comes to reply to deal with that particular line of thought. His counterpart, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Britain, took a tough line over the past 12 months. His line was that there should be a pay pause and that all increases should be related to an increase in productivity, not for any particular industry but for all industries. That did not succeed as much as it might have succeeded because of the fact that it started off with a pay pause.

We have had our pay increases. Everybody has been fixed up and there is no question of another demand immediately. If we could find a formula in which labour, management and the Government could co-operate to get increases related to increased productivity we would be getting somewhere. Those figures presented by the Minister give no information of what part he proposes to play in this most important matter. There is no indication of his policy although he must have a policy in this matter. We will have to fight for our place in the Common Market and now is the time for economic planning in that regard. In neither the agricultural nor the industrial section has the Minister given any indication of what are our economic plans. We have no indication of his approach to the Common Market problem. The Opposition have a duty to tell the Minister what he should tell us and what he is not telling us.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I do not propose to detain the House very long on this Vote on Account but there are just a few points I want to make. I think it is important that these points should be made and it is particularly important for some of the Deputies on the Government benches that they should be invited to put things into perspective. I want Deputies on the Government benches to put the Vote on Account into perspective in view of the fact that the present leader of the Fianna Fáil Party some years ago was telling the country of Fianna Fáil plans and proposals to create 100,000 new jobs in this country. I want to urge them to remember that Fianna Fáil spokesmen, not so many years ago, during the years of the last inter-Party Government, were shedding verbal tears about the rise in the cost of living, about high prices and about high taxation.

Five or six years have gone by since we first heard of these Fianna Fáil proposals. I understand that they are fairly sensitive about calling them plans. They claimed that they were not plans but that they were simply proposals for 100,000 new jobs. I think we are entitled, now that Fianna Fáil have for the second time since these proposals were made formed a Government in this country, to invite the Minister for Finance, as the Fianna Fáil spokesman in this debate, to say what has become of these proposals for 100,000 new jobs. The excuse was made during the period of the last Government that these were proposals which require time to put into effect. They have now had the best part of half a decade to implement their proposals which, if I remember correctly, were intended to be implemented over a five year period.

What is the position at the end of the five years? Instead of having 100,000 new jobs in the country, we find that there are fewer people in employment than there were in 1956 or 1957 when the Fianna Fáil Party was elected as a Government. I do not think it is unfair to Fianna Fáil to ask them to give the House and the country some explanation of the mystery of what has become of that famous proposal.

What about the question of prices? Remember how in times of extreme difficulty the predecessors of the Fianna Fáil Government in 1956 and 1957 were criticised by Fianna Fáil spokesmen up and down the country because they said the cost of living was too high and that prices were too high. We were told that there was too much taxation, that local rates were too high. What has happened since? The Minister will correct me if I am wrong but I think I am correct in saying that if we compare the book of Estimates for the year 1956-57 with the one now produced by the Minister for Finance there is an increase somewhere in the nature of £40,000,000 to be borne by the people of this country and put on by a Government that was crying out in 1955, 1956 and 1957 about the height of Government expenditure. It has been put on by a Party the Leader of which, when he was on these benches in 1955, read out solemnly the determination of the Fianna Fáil Party and the fact that decisions had been made at a Fianna Fáil cabinet meeting in a previous Government that taxation was not going to increase beyond the level at that time. In the space of five years an additional £40,000,000 is going to be put on the backs of the taxpayers of this country by the Fianna Fáil Party.

That is dealing with Government taxation alone and it does not take into account the fact that over the same period there has been a very substantial increase in local rates. As between 1957 and 1959 the increase in local rates has been something in the nature of £2½ millions to £3 millions. That must be added to the increase which the people must bear as reflected in the Book of Estimates. This was the Party that was crying out about too much Government expenditure and about giving good example and stating that this country would only be run properly when there was a Government in office strong enough to tackle the question of Government expenditure. What effort has been made by the present Government Party in any one of the last five years to tackle the question of Government expenditure? What evidence is there in the present Book of Estimates that they are doing that?

I remember, as a Deputy sitting behind the inter-Party Government on those benches, hearing the Tánaiste lecturing the then Government from these benches as to how the Government should deal with the Civil Service and the way in which the Civil Service were to be cut down. I should like to hear from the Minister how much of the increase shown in the Book of Estimates over the past five years is to be accounted for by (a) increases in the numbers employed in the Civil Service and (b) the increases in wages or salaries paid to the civil servants.

I do not want to be misunderstood in this. I believe that we have a very fine Civil Service and that they should be properly paid, that they are just as much entitled as any other section of the people to be compensated for increases in the cost of living brought about by the policy of the Fianna Fáil Government, but it is necessary to remember that it is the present Government Party who used to lecture from these benches and to talk up and down the country about the necessity for economising in the numbers and the money spent on the Civil Service. I would like the Minister when replying to give us some explanation as to why that particular portion of the Fianna Fáil policy has been jettisoned and why their proposal for 100,000 new jobs has been jettisoned. The present Government Party, as I say, shed many a tear from these benches, and you would nearly require an umbrella if you were to stand underneath any Fianna Fáil speaker from a public platform a few years ago when they were talking about the cost of living with all the amount of tears they were shedding.

What has happened to the cost of living since then? Has not practically every item gone up in price, and substantially so? Many of those increases were brought about by deliberate positive action of the Fianna Fáil Party as a Government and by deliberate Government action in legislating in this House when food subsidies were removed, and by deliberate action of the Government the cost of living is reflected in the price of food so pushed up and up and up. Many other items were increased by the actions of individual Minister as, for example, when postal and telephone charges were increased or when a Minister sits back and allows car insurance to be increased, or allows bus fares, rail fares and freight charges to be increased, when bread, sugar, butter and nearly everything we can think of has been increased since the Fianna Fáil Party were elected as the Government in 1957—partly by deliberate positive action of the Government and partly by Government policy in not exercising price control or a restraint when prices were increased.

Of course, when prices were pushed up, particularly when they were pushed up by positive action of the Government, it was necessary to compensate people, to make some effort to put people, particularly the weaker sections, into a position to withstand those rising costs. This was the Party that criticised their predecessors because of the cost of commodities and the heightening of the cost of living. Remember that at the time their predecessors were in office this country, due to no matter over which the then Government could have control, was facing a situation where it was necessary to take strong and stern action in order to preserve our national solvency; and because they were courageous enough to do it and to disregard the political consequences at the time, the Government of the day did take the action that was necessary. At least the present Taoiseach has been open enough to have it on record in a speech he made in this House when he said that the action taken by the then Government did solve the difficulties associated with the balance of payments at the time. But it was necessary to take those steps. The steps were taken and the Fianna Fáil Party found it was all grist to their political mill. They certainly made the best of it at the time.

What is their best since? Will the Minister when replying give some explanation as to why the Fianna Fáil policy, as reflected in their speeches of those days in their criticism of the then Government, has also been jettisoned? As I reckon it, Fianna Fáil have jettisoned their policy in relation to 100,000 new jobs, in relation to the cost of living, in relation to Government expenditure and cutting down taxation. What is left for them? We are told now by Fianna Fáil speakers during this debate who remind me of small boys whistling to keep up their courage when passing a graveyard: "Well, the people of this country have confidence. That is what we have given the people. Never mind the cost of living, never mind emigration, never mind the question of unemployment, we have given the people confidence."

I do not know whether Fianna Fáil Deputies make a habit of keeping their heads in the clouds, but I think many of them will find that the people have confidence in the country but very little confidence in the Government of the country. Whatever measure of confidence there may be is because the people feel that despite the political differences between the political parties in this assembly, by and large, each side is prepared to do its best, and even though some Parties may fail, and fail as miserably as the Fianna Fáil Party have failed when their performance is stood side by side with their talk, nevertheless, the people feel that by and large the country is sound and solid and their confidence is in the country and in its future.

That is a factor which possibly helps Fianna Fáil Deputies when they speak in a debate like this but it is something for which—I have said this in the House before and I do not apologise for saying it again—every Deputy in this House and every political party in the country owes a measure of gratitude to the former Taoiseach of the inter-Party Government, Mr. John A. Costello, who in the darkest days preached a message of hope and confidence in the future of this country and who struck a note which was responded to by the people.

Deputy Booth referred to the question of house building over the past 12 months or so. I think he was referring particularly to the period since Fianna Fáil were re-elected with a very much reduced majority at the last general election. There is no reason why there should be any conflict, doubt or debate about the number of houses built over the last period of five years or the numbers of people employed in building houses. There is no reason why any of us should doubt the accuracy of the figures quoted in the Statistical Abstract which has been circulated to Deputies. The figures in relation to local authority houses show that in the year 1957, the last year before Fianna Fáil were re-elected to office, there were 4,784 local authority houses built, while, in the year 1960, there were 2,414 houses built, a decrease in that period of 2,370. So far as the employment figures in local authority house building are concerned, in the year 1957, according to the Statistical Abstract, there were 3,563 persons employed, whereas, in 1960, there were 1,662 persons employed, a decrease of 1,901.

The total of new houses built with State assistance—call them State-aided houses—again according to the Statistical Abstract, shows that in the year 1957, there were 10,969 and in the year 1961, there were 5,798, a decrease of 5,171.

If Deputy Booth or any other Deputy in the Fianna Fáil Party feels that there is anything to be proud of or anything to be complacent about in those figures, I give him a present of his pride and complacency. I cannot see that there is any argument to be built in favour of the Fianna Fáil policy as operated in the years between 1957 and 1960 in those figures.

There is no point in putting up the argument that the people do not need houses, that our housing needs have been absorbed. Again, a glance at the Statistical Abstract and at the percentage of persons in the State living in one or two rooms will give an adequate answer to the argument that we are reaching saturation point. I do not believe that is the case. I think we still require to do a lot of house building, whether it is done by local authorities, whether it is done by private individuals; that there is a lot of house building which requires to be done and which must be encouraged by the State and by Government policy.

There are a number of other things which I might say but they are matters more of detail which it would be more proper to say on individual Estimates. By and large, Fianna Fáil, since October last, when they were re-elected as Government, have done little, if anything, to add to the confidence of the people. The general reaction after the meeting of the Dáil which re-elected a Fianna Fáil Government, coupled with their activity or inactivity—whatever way you want to look at it—since then, is that we have the same old faces with the same old policy and that there does not seem to be any hope of any great improvement in the immediate future.

Mr. Tully

Listening to the debate, one would get the impression that some of the people who have been taking part in it are not very much in touch with what is happening throughout the country. I refer particularly to the people who have talked about the eighth round wage increase as being responsible for rising prices and who suggested that everybody has now got an increase. Let me make this very clear—the reason for the eighth round wage increase was rising prices. The increase in the price of practically every commodity resulted in a very just demand by wage and salary earners for the wherewithal to close the gap which had been created.

While some people seem to think that the only items which matter are those which are referred to in the Price Index, anyone who goes to the trouble of finding out can very easily see that the prices of commodities which are not taken into account in the Price Index have increased, mainly, of course, because the complete price-control machinery was dismantled by the Government when they were in office from 1957 to 1961. The result is that there was a free-for-all and as long as there was a market, the suppliers, whether manufacturers or retailers, felt perfectly entitled to push prices up as high as they could force the consumer to pay. There was the amazing spectacle of some smaller items which are not luxuries—household necessaries— being increased by 100 and 200 per cent. When questions were asked in this House about it, the reply was that the matter was outside the Minister's control. The price-fixing machinery having been removed, of course it was outside the Minister's control.

The eighth round wage increase did bring quite a number of wage and salary earners back to the position they were in in 1957 but quite a number of people have not got any wage increase, including quite a number of State employees. Let me comment here that it seems rather ridiculous when increases in wages to the general tune of 24/- and 25/- per week are being given in outside employment, with a reduction of anything from three to five hours in the number of hours worked in the week, the State should offer 10/-per week without any reduction in hours, and expect to get away with it.

There are people who got no increase at all. Before we shed too many tears about agriculture we should refer to a very integral part of agriculture, the farm workers. Without the farm workers the agricultural industry must collapse. It is the greatest insult that could be offered to anyone to pay them a rate such as is at present being paid to the vast majority of the farm workers. I certainly have no objection at all to every possible aid being given to agriculture. After all, agriculture is the primary industry. But if the farmers expect to get a fair deal from the Government, they should give a fair deal to those whom they employ. The fact that the farm workers work 50 hours a week, for which they are paid as low as £5 14s. to £5 19s. throughout the greater part of the country, is a sad reflection not alone on the farmers who employ them but on this State body, the Agricultural Wages Board, which is responsible for fixing the minimum rates of wages. The Minister should advise his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, that something has got to be done about it quickly.

We are told that in some areas farmers cannot get farm workers. Is it any wonder? Is it any wonder they have been leaving by the thousands over the past 10 or fifteen years and that they are still continuing to drain out? They are not unskilled workers, as some people would describe them. The farm worker is a highly skilled man. He must be. He must know not alone the rotation of crops and the proper types of seeds and manures, but he must also know how to handle and repair machinery. It is just not good enough that he should be the one type of person to be left behind when the question of increased wages is being considered. I hope something will be done for them in the very near future.

We in the Labour Party are perfectly satisfied that the small farmer is having a very lean time. In fact, the farmer from 50 acres down has had an extremely lean time over the past couple of years, and last year was a particularly bad one for him. But we cannot say the same for his brethren from 50 acres up, because, as the farm goes up, the farm profit per acre goes up. It is very easily proven that the man with 150 acres is not doing badly at all, and when you go over that figure he is doing extremely well. It would be less than honest of him and me to try to prove otherwise. There is, of course, also the question of whether or not the amount he is paying in rates is equitable. That is a sticky problem. I think if the small farmer realised that complete derating of agricultural land would not make any difference at all to him, he would soon stop marching around and would concentrate on something better.

Quite a considerable amount of money is being spent each year on industry, encouraging the commencement of industry either by Irish people or foreigners, particularly foreigners. I feel that if somebody is prepared to give decent wages and conditions, they should be welcomed and encouraged even to the extent of giving them State grants. But I want to repeat what Deputy Corish said here today. It is a shame that when a substantial amount of money is given to a company, particularly a foreign concern, a director to represent the State is not put on the board of that company so that he can find out what is happening.

Also it might not be a bad idea if the Minister would consider the advisability of encouraging heavy industry here rather than the type of light industry which simply gives employment to women and young girls. There are areas where such employment is badly needed, but there are areas where such employment is not doing very much good. I do not think it is helping the national economy to start little factories where children—little more than children—are employed at very bad rates of wages. After all, in this country the husband is still the head of the household. He is the person for whom the State should attempt to find employment. He is the person who will stay in the job if it is a decent one and will try to rear a family at home. All too many of them have had to leave the country because of the fact that, while their daughters and wives could get badly paid employment, they themselves had to baby-sit. That was all that was left to them.

The whole system of giving grants to people starting industry here should be reconsidered. The Minister should have a good look at the position in this country of some very old established industries which have, for one reason or another, fallen on evil days. We had a number of examples of them, industries of world-wide reputation which have been forced to close their doors, although even a fraction of the amount which has been given to some of the foreign industrialists would have kept them open. The onus is on the State to see to it that if those industries can be kept going, every effort should be made to keep them going. We have, of course, the usual one: that everybody will tell you that that industry was badly run. If we are going into the Common Market and are accepted into it, the question of the badly-run industry will very soon solve itself.

That is one reason why the Minister must be particularly careful about what type of industry is assisted here. There is no point at all in giving assistance to an industry which, within the first few short months, builds up quite a substantial business through the protection the State is giving it and then eventually, when we enter the Common Market, finds it is not able to compete with the Continental firms and goes out of existence. In that case, the last position is much worse than the first.

A question was posed to the Minister earlier today about our preparation for the Common Market. I wonder if, when replying, he will be able to say how far the survey at present being carried out has gone and whether, in a very general way, he can say what are its findings. We seem to be in the horrible position that while we have been cursing Britain and while our forefathers have been cursing her for centuries, we are now on tenterhooks for Britain to make up her mind as to whether she will or will not go into the Common Market. It is on the cards— horrible thought—that whether she does or does not go into the Market, we may not be permitted in.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not seem to arise on the Vote on Account.

Mr. Corish

May we not discuss the Common Market?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Common Market has been mentioned. It is only when it has been gone into in detail that it has become irrelevant.

Mr. Corish

Surely what Deputy Tully has said is not a detail.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

He is forecasting what may or may not happen and——

Mr. Tully

I shall not embarrass the Chair with it any longer. My reference to the Common Market was a very general statement but I do not wish to embarrass the Chair. One other matter which I should like to raise, and in respect of which I would crave the Chair's indulgence, is the question of Foras Talúntais. A certain amount of money is allocated to that body and I am amazed to find that the amount which has been shown as an increased amount is short by £50,000 on the sum which the Book of Estimates shows them as getting. In fact they got a supplementary sum of £50,000 and it is deducted from the £200,000 they are to get this year. I do not think that is the proper procedure. If we are to advance our agriculture, we must know what is right and what it is wrong to grow and to do.

There is a substantial extra amount being given to fisheries this year. Certain statements were made outside this House by representatives of the Government about how that money was to be expended and I think it would not be a bad idea if we could have within the House a definite statement as to what exactly will be done with the extra £60,000 odd which is being made available this year. There are a number of boards of conservators throughout the country who are doing a tremendous job to keep the salmon industry alive and rumour has it that they are not getting any of this money.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That matter would properly arise on the Estimate.

Mr. Tully

I am aware of that, but I have got it in. There is also the question of the Vote for the Department of Defence relating to pensions. Let me say, in conclusion, that it is rather a pity, when such large sums of money are being dealt with in a Vote of this magnitude, that a very petty decision made by a former Minister for Defence should prevent about 50 or 60 people who took part in the foundation of this State from getting the full amount of the pensions due to them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That, too, is a matter for the Estimate and does not arise on the Vote on Account.

Mr. T. O'Connor

Listening to the debate, one would imagine that our country is practically on the verge of bankruptcy. I am rather amazed this should go out of the House at a time when our farmers are doing a good job trying to build themselves up for the years ahead for what they will have to face in the Common Market. If they ever needed leadership, they need it at this time. Figures were given here about the various prices for farm products. The old story that you can do anything with figures holds good in this instance.

The fact remains that whatever we are getting for our farm produce and whatever prices our counterparts are getting in other countries, we have land as good as in any part of the world. We have an ideal climate, as good brains and as good brawn as any country in the world and our farmers, if led properly, can produce the material and will do the job of work expected of them to raise our standards. In my own county, I have seen tremendous efforts and advances made by the farmers, 87 per cent. of whose buildings are valued at less than £20, an indication that they are very small holdings.

However, most of these small holders have increased their holdings and have put extra capital into them to the extent of at least £3,000 each in the past five years. They have erected new farm buildings, built and repaired their own houses, acquired their own machinery. They are faced at the moment with increased costs and are put to the pin of their collars to make ends meet. Once they get off their backs the commitments they have entered into, I think they will be very well able to meet the challenge of the Common Market, and from that point of view, we should give from this House every form of encouragement instead of continuing to talk about the prices or the troubles the farmers are facing. We must be able to sell in world markets on a level with the farmers in the Common Market countries and if we can give directions and encouragement and help to the farmers, then we shall succeed in that job.

References were made to a falling off in 1960 in local authority house building. I can say that in my country we have reached saturation point, that we have caught up on the number of houses required. Three or four years ago, we built many more houses than we are building now but they were in the urban areas and the programme was aimed at catching up on the demand in those areas. We are at the moment engaged in building single rural houses and while we could do with more of them, our trouble is that the job of getting small parcels of land here and there is very difficult. Consequently, we are finding difficulty in getting the amount of land we require to build these houses. I assume the same applies all over the country, which would account for the drop in the building rate.

Reference was made to our tie-up with Britain in the Common Market. I do not think anyone can scoff at the British market but neither can the British scoff at our market. We are at least as good a customer of Britain's as she is of ours. Our economies have always been tied up. She has always tried to adjust our prices to her advantage but that has not worked out in recent years, as can be seen in relation to coal. We used to take large quantities of coal but Britain cannot now compete with the other suppliers to this country. Perhaps it is a good thing to show we can be independent in regard to coal and can buy it from other countries. If Britain goes into the Common Market, we must go in. If she does not, I suppose we are not compelled to the same extent. It is in her interests to continue selling the materials she sold to us in the past and I am sure whatever arrangements will be made will be satisfactory to both countries.

The suggestion is made that the Government Party have jettisoned the policy of finding 100,000 new jobs. The efforts of the Government will always be directed towards finding the maximum number of new jobs. New jobs are very badly needed along the western seaboard. Efforts could be made in the fishing industry to create new jobs, to find a market for fish and improve the lot of the fishermen.

We have always had emigration and I suppose we shall have it to the end of time because our people always seem to want to see far-away places. Many of our people are coming back and setting down after a short time in these foreign countries and they are the better for it. It would be helpful if the production of root and vegetable crops could be developed with some modern methods. That would help to stop the drain of emigration. In the western counties over the past 50 years, 10,000 to 15,000 a year have been going away.

In small holdings, say, of £5 valuation where there are five or six in the family, there is a chance of a livelihood for only one. Obviously, the other members of the family must take to the emigrant ship or at least migrate to some place outside their own area. They will stay at home as long as they can, but once they leave their own area, they will go either to England or to America before they will consider going to Cork or Dublin. They may have friends, relatives, or other connections in these foreign countries. It would be better for us to set about solving this problem rather than try to make political capital out of it.

It is unfortunate that since we achieved self-government in 1922 we have not been able to formulate some scheme for these western counties that would keep our people at home. We are making a certain amount of progress. The introduction of farm machinery to the farm lands has brought along new problems. It has thrown thousands of farm workers more or less out of employment. The farmer has built his economy around the milking machines, tractors, and so on, and he needs the workman for only ten, 12 or 16 weeks in the year. Unless the farm worker can get other employment, he is faced with emigration.

These are all the problems that must be solved. We have a good Government, a good Dáil and good members in the Opposition benches. If we could deal with these problems, we would be doing a far better job than decrying the efforts of each other here or talking about what was done five, ten or 15 years ago or what should have been done. Whatever has been done or has not been done is water under the bridge. It should be within the competence of Irishmen to fix their own affairs and to bring a happier and better life to our people as a whole.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Before referring to the Vote on Account, I should like to compliment the Deputy who has just spoken on the manner of his speech, the appeal he made to the House and the picture he has painted of conditions as he knows them to be in his constituency. I regret that Deputy Booth was not present to hear him because it would have dispelled the smug complacency he displayed as he recited quotations from directors of the Central Bank and such other people as he sought fit to quote.

I am sure Deputy O'Connor was honest in his opinion of the conditions as he knows them and in the appeal that he made to the House to co-operate in trying to find the solution to these serious problems. It is regrettable that he was not in his Party when the country was in difficulties some four or five years ago and when the Party now in Government availed of the difficulties of the time for purely political advantage to make it as difficult as possible for the then Government, taking courageous but necessarily unpopular measures, to deal with the problems of the time.

As the Deputy has said, there is not much use in going back on the past except to learn lessons from it so as to solve the difficulties of the present and future. But it is necessary that we should learn from the experiences of the past, and our experience has been that when this Government decided on certain lines of financial policy, we said categorically that we could see no outcome from those policies other than the unfortunate position in which we are today. When the food subsidies were withdrawn, we said it would be impossible for any Government, no matter how strong in this House, to put any brake upon the rounds of wage increases that would have to follow the consequential increases in the cost of living. Members of the present Government, and particularly its present Leader, at that time assured us that the intention of the Government was to cut from the Book of Estimates a considerable sum of national expenditure which in their opinion could be lopped off in one swoop. We warned them then that such an attempt in such a harsh manner could have only one effect—to spark off rounds of demands for increases in income to meet the increases in the cost of living.

The Minister informed us in his statement that part of this astronomical figure in the Book of Estimates this year has been due to the fact that the Government felt bound to honour its obligations to State servants and that such increases had to be awarded. The piper had to be paid and the cost is now reflected in the Book of Estimates. In the bill, which the Minister has described as necessary to meet the charges falling due at this time of year, there is a tacit admission by the Government that the controls they said they would exercise over expenditure have been futile. We have no evidence of even an attempt to exercise those controls.

The House must recall that if there was one clear basis on which the Government assumed office it was on the assurance of retrenchment, on the allegations poured out against the inter-Party Government that it was leading a rake's progress and that, given the authority and strength, on their accession to office they could reduce the level of expenditure and remove from the backs of the people the national and local charges which they said at that time had reached breaking point. If their estimate of the situation existing some six or seven years ago was so serious, what adjectives can they possibly apply to the present situation?

It is very difficult for any Deputy on any side, taking one year with another, to make a correct assessment of the financial situation simply because the Government have had considerable success in removing from national taxation very many charges that have now been passed back to the ratepayers. We must look at the impact on the rates in the country at the same time as we examine the level of central taxation. Not only have we had this burden passed back but we have had the individual cost to people carrying a burden they did not formerly have to bear in regard to their normal budgeting in their own homes.

It used to be said frequently by a former leader of this House that the budgeting of State expenditure was similar to the domestic budgeting. The experience in the home today is that the necessities of life never cost more to procure, that the cost of living has reached heights never envisaged some years ago. Not alone has this been created in the main by the abolition of food subsidies but it has been aggravated by the lack of control of costs or any semblance of an effort to achieve it with the result that no matter what efforts are made by the State and no matter how much money is voted by this House to compensate various sections for the increased charges they must meet, there are still very many classes outside the scope of assistance from State or local authorities. Those are the people who are worst hit today, whose only solution is to emigrate because they find that not alone have they to meet increased charges inside their own homes but they are also called upon to bear increased taxation and increased rates to meet increases that other sections have secured.

This vicious circle builds up at a time when the country is being precipitated into the arena of free competition in the event of our efforts to join the European Economic Community succeeding and when it was never, in the history of the State, so important that we should assume control of our costs structure and the effect of high taxation and high rates which many Ministers have in their administration of Departments unloaded on to the community. Far from assisting them in achieving that sound position which Deputy O'Connor referred to, it makes it infinitely more difficult for us to compete in the free markets which would result from the extension of E.E.C.

Take the Ministry of Transport and Power, a special Ministry created by this Government to deal with a particular area of administration. What has that Minister done? He has succeeded only in the elimination of railways and in relieving the Minister for Finance, as he claimed he would, of the burden of any provision towards transport in the country and in having transferred that burden back to the ratepayers in higher costs of road maintenance and also by passing on to individual producers higher transport charges. How can we examine the Book of Estimates when, month after month, we have increased bus fares, increased rail charges for passengers and goods? How can we examine these Estimates on the basis of one year vis-à-vis another when each month some Minister succeeds in easing the burden on the Government in regard to assistance formerly afforded by his Department?

We have indications that a Department which we were told was out of the red, which did not require any further funds, will in the immediate future impose heavier charges on the community. That steady trend has gone on for so long because the people accepted that aspect of the administration of Government only on the basis that it would result in a reduction of State expenditure. Far from its having had that effect, the Minister now calmly presents the country with this extraordinary bill for the operation of the services of the country, for far fewer people than were in it before this Government assumed office seven years ago.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.