Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Mar 1963

Vol. 200 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Motion by the Minister for Finance.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. J. Lynch)

As the Minister for Finance is indisposed, I am moving the Vote on Account on his behalf. I move:

That a sum not exceeding £55,370,000 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, 1964, for certain public services namely:—

	£
1 President's Establishment	4,000
2 Houses of the Oireachtas	123,150
3 Department of the Taoiseach	12,000
4 Central Statistics Office	64,500
5 Comptroller and Auditor General	16,000
6 Office of the Minister for Finance	181,500
7 Office of the Revenue Commis- sioners	934,950
8 Office of Public Works	270,000
9 Public Works and Buildings	2,200,000
10 Employment and Emergency Schemes	278,000
11 State Laboratory	11,100
12 Civil Service Commission	23,600
13 An Chomhairle Ealaíon	10,000
14 Superannuation and Retired Allowances	488,950
15 Secret Service	2,500
16 Expenses under the Electoral Act and the Juries Act	1,500
17 Agricultural Grants	2,210,000
18 Law Charges	62,000
19 Miscellaneous Expenses	7,000
20 Stationery Office	280,000
21 Valuation and Ordnance Survey	87,000
22 Rates on Government Property	25,000
23 Office of the Minister for Justice	57,400
24 Garda Síochána	2,201,700
25 Prisons	105,600
26 Courts of Justice	131,500
27 Land Registry and Registry of Deeds	50,500
28 Charitable Donations and Bequests	2,700
29 Local Government	2,403,000
30 Office of the Minister for Education	300,000
31 Primary Education	4,400,000
32 Secondary Education	875,000
33 Vocational Education	1,000,000
34 Reformatory and Industrial Schools	105,000
35 Universities and Colleges and Dublin Institute for Ad- vanced Studies	1,185,000
36 National Gallery	5,250
37 Lands	1,121,400
38 Forestry	1,027,000
39 Fisheries	152,900
40 Roinn na Gaeltachta	150,000
41 Agriculture	8,000,000
42 Industry and Commerce	1,494,000
43 Transport and Power	1,740,000
44 Posts and Telegraphs	4,921,000
45 Defence	3,169,500
46 Army Pensions	729,100
47 External Affairs	198,000
48 International Co-operation	100,000
49 Office of the Minister for Social Welfare	179,000
50 Social Insurance	2,673,000
51 Social Assistance	6,709,000
52 Health	2,870,000
53 Central Mental Hospital	20,700
TOTAL	£55,370,000
	''

With the Vote on Account, we commence the financial business for the year 1963-64 which will end in the normal course with the enactment of the Appropriation Act in July next following consideration by the Dáil of the individual Supply Services Estimates. Meantime it is necessary to provide funds by way of this Vote on Account for Supply Services expenditure during the first four months of 1963-64. The Vote now required amounts to £55.37 million or approximately one-third of the total figure of £167.04 million shown on the face of the Volume of Estimates.

The total Supply Services expenditure proposed for 1963-64 is £18.67 million greater than the figure of £148.37 million provided for in the Estimates Volume for the current year. Of this increase £16.87 million relates to non-capital and £1.80 million to capital items. If, however, we take into the reckoning Supplementary Estimates passed or introduced this year the increase over the current year is reduced from £18.7 million to £5½ million. In other words, the greater part of the increase shown in the Book of Estimates for next year has already occurred during the year now ending.

Apart from the details given in the Book itself, Deputies have been supplied with a summary of the principal increases and decreases. In the circumstances, I propose to relate my remarks to the main causes of the increase of £18.7 million as compared with the original Estimates for 1962-63.

Almost half of the increase is accounted for by State aid to agriculture the total provision for which is £36.6 million. The increase of £8.1 million over the original provision for 1962-63 is equivalent to the total additional amount provided for agriculture by way of Supplementary Estimates for the current year, the last of which is at present before the House. Among the chief items in these supplementaries were the bacon and dairy produce subsidies and wheat losses. Further heavy outlay on bacon and butter subsidies is expected in 1963-64 because of the continued difficult marketing conditions for these products. The expenditure on disposal of unmillable wheat follows from the Government decision last autumn to assist farmers to cover the losses incurred as a result of the bad wheat harvest of 1962. The bulk of the payments fall to be made this year but about £½ million will have to be paid in 1963-64. Experience shows how difficult it is to estimate accurately the amount required for agricultural subsidies but next year's provision is considered to be adequate, seeing that it is equal to the total of the original and supplementary provisions for 1962-63. Altogether the amount provided for dairy produce and bacon in the coming year over and above the original provision in 1962-63 is £3.8 million.

State expenditure in the agricultural sector is aimed at increasing efficiency, reducing costs, and sustaining production and exports, so as to help in achieving a better balance between the incomes of farmers and other producers. Apart from the subsidies already mentioned there have been increases in State aid in the form of rates relief, fertiliser subsidies, grants towards farm buildings, arterial drainage and improvement schemes. These latter account for more than £3½ million of the increase on the original provision for 1962-63. £2½ million of this is due to the increase in the Agricultural Grant in last year's Budget which necessitated one of the Supplementary Estimates to which I referred earlier.

About £12½ million, or one-third of the total provision for agriculture for next year, relates to capital investment. Some £5½ million of this total represents the net expenditure on the Bovine TB Eradication Scheme. The provision here is much the same as that for 1962-63. The scheme has been virtually completed in 20 counties. Only five counties in Munster and one in Leinster remain to be dealt with but these counties, of course, contain about 40 per cent. of the total cattle population of the country. Compulsory measures are now in operation in these counties and the Government expects that, with the intensification of efforts to clear the disease from the herds there, the Eradication Scheme will be completed within a few years.

Four other items account for £7.1 millions or nearly all of the balance of the increase in the 1963-64 Estimates. The increases in these items are:

	£millions
Social Services (including Health)	3.3
Education	1.6
Promotion of Industry	1.3
Public Service Pensions	0.9

The rise in expenditure on the Social Services brings outlay under this heading to £40 million. This figure includes the full-year cost of the increases announced in the Budget last year which, as regards this year, are provided for in the Supplementary Estimates for Social Insurance and Social Assistance circulated to-day.

The rise in outlay on education is partly due to increase in teachers' salaries which will cost about £½ million more in 1963-64. A Supplementary Estimate for £360,000 has been introduced to cover the cost of the secondary teachers' award in the current year. A further constituent of the rise is the improvement in grants to vocational education committees. On the capital side, the erection of the new UCD Science Block at Belfield involves additional expenditure of almost £500,000.

More than £4½ million will be devoted to promotion of industry in 1963-64, an increase of approximately 25 per cent. on the original provision for the current year. I would, however, remind Deputies that most of the expenditure which might be classified as aids to industry is provided by way of advances from the Central Fund and, accordingly, falls outside the scope of the Supply Services Estimates. So far as the Supply Services are concerned, almost £1 million of the increase of £1,300,000 relates to capital items and is attributable entirely to industrial grants. An important new item among these is the £¼ million in respect of re-equipment grants resulting from a recommendation by the Committee on Industrial Organisation. Most of the rise in non-capital expenditure on industry refers to expenses to be incurred in connection with the proposed Irish participation in the New York World's Fair, 1964-65.

In the case of Public Service pensioners, the extra provision in 1963-64 is partly due to the increases announced in the 1962 Budget which came into operation from August last. When the current year's provision is adjusted to take account of the relevant Supplementary Estimate, the total increase in the 1963-64 Estimate is reduced to less than £½ million. This figure reflects the full-year costs of the 1962 increases together with the normal growth in pension costs.

This leaves increases of about £3½ million to be accounted for. These can be traced to a variety of smaller items the most significant of which is a rise of £0.7m. in Defence expenditure of which £¼ million is for clothing and equipment and £273,000 for the purchase of helicopters.

Some £400,000 more will be spent next year on Tourism of which slightly less than half will be capital expenditure devoted to the development of resorts and of holiday accommodation. The service of debt chargeable against the Supply Services is expected to show a rise of £400,000, most of which refers to telephone capital repayments. The growth in the revenue from telephones, however, shows this investment to be financially sound.

The estimated total cost to the Exchequer of the remuneration of State and local authority employees in 1963-64 is expected to be £53½ million. When speaking on the Vote on Account last year, I referred to this subject and said that, if remuneration attributable to current services were extracted as a separate item, it would account for £51½ million. The corresponding figure for the coming year shows, therefore, an increase of £2 million. £800,000 of this is for the Civil Service, including industrial staffs, and is nearly all attributable to miscellaneous pay increases in the "eighth round" category and to additional numbers employed. About £½ million is in respect of the secondary teachers' pay award which I have already mentioned.

As I said last year, the size of the remuneration element alone in the bill for the Supply Services clearly poses a major problem in attempting to check the expansion of public expenditure and furnishes of itself strong ground for not wishing to see incomes rise faster than this can be afforded without price or tax increases.

What I have said will, I hope, serve to indicate the main factors contributing to the expected rise in Supply Services expenditure next year. Deputies will, of course, have an opportunity of discussing individual Estimates in detail when these come before the House during the months ahead.

I may say that, faced with such a large increase in public expenditure, special attention was devoted this year by the Government to the Estimates submitted by the various Departments. They were very rigorously examined and many desirable improvements in the public services had either to be postponed or conceded only in part. In a growing economy, where the State itself is an important generator of development, it may be necessary for public outlay of a productive kind— both direct and indirect—to rise for a time faster than current national output in order that national productive capacity may be raised. This process must, however, be carefully watched to see that the favourable results expected are in fact realised and that economic growth is not hindered more by rising tax rates than it is helped by State expenditure. Not all proposals for additional current expenditure are equally efficient in raising national production and a choice has to be made, the test being all the more severe if current expenditure is already outrunning current revenue. The pruning process this year was, therefore, a harsh one and I doubt if Deputies will be able to suggest any really worthwhile cuts which should still be made. Indeed, at the very least, I hope that there will not be pressure to add to State expenditure on behalf of any particular interest.

It is not appropriate on the Vote on Account to discuss the budgetary outlook—all the necessary data will not be available until Budget Day— but this will obviously be a particularly difficult year. The House may be assured that every effort will be made to reach an equitable solution of the budgetary problem and one which will promote continued national development.

I ask the Dáil to agree to the Vote on Account.

Mr. Sweetman

May I say at the outset that I trust the indisposition of the Minister for Finance will be of short duration and that we will see him back here again in this House— but over on this side, of course.

The other day I noticed in one of the newspapers that a cartoonist alleged he had very considerable difficulty in producing a worthwhile cartoon of the Taoiseach. I would suggest that he need not have that difficulty any more. The Taoiseach immediately after the debate in this House a couple of weeks ago hied himself off to Limerick and proceeded there to act the bogeyman in no uncertain fashion. I do not at this stage propose to comment on the discourtesy to the House in that the Taoiseach, who spoke in the debate here in general terms on the day before, did not give his indication in this House but waited until he got down to Limerick to a Fianna Fáil cumann dinner——

The Taoiseach

The Limerick Chamber of Commerce dinner.

Mr. McQuillan

Just as bad.

The Taoiseach

The same thing, no doubt.

Mr. Sweetman

The chamber of commerce dinner, I should have said. It is, of course, unnecessary to comment on that because all through the years the Taoiseach has, in studied manner, made it clear that he considers it undesirable to make statements here if he can find any opportunity of making them outside. The extraordinary thing about that Limerick statement, however, was the manner in which it completely contradicted the statement that the Taoiseach had made here in this House on the Adjournment Debate just before Christmas. At that time—perhaps I will excuse him to some degree because he wanted to send his own supporters home in happy vein for Christmas—he indicated to us, with that ebullience to which we are now well accustomed that everything in the garden was lovely, the economy was going ahead full steam, incomes were rising, and production was rising. In fact, we were treated almost to a description of El Dorado. We came back after Christmas and the Taoiseach produced a White Paper in an entirely opposite vein. There was the bogeyman speech in Limerick to which I referred and we have the closing words of the Minister for Industry and Commerce today.

It is a well-known trick of Governments and a well-known trick of propaganda at which Fianna Fáil—I hand it to them—are adepts, that of providing the sort of stories in relation to Budget prospects that makes everyone's blood run cold. They believe it is good politics that at this time of the year they should whip up a reign of terror in the hope that when the Budget does come along, no matter what they do in it, it will be accepted by the people with some show and some feeling of relief.

I suspect very strongly that that is what the Taoiseach intended to do that night in Limerick. I suspect very strongly that he was trimming his sails to ensure that when the Budget was introduced, the people would have been frightened so much by him that they would accept any imposition, however unpleasant, with a shrug and say: "Well, from what he told us, it might have been worse."

That type of contradictory statement just before Christmas and the irresolute statements which we are now hearing from him and from the Minister do not do the economy any good. It should be possible for a Government who knew their job and was on top of their job to tell some months ahead the picture that was likely to emerge and be able to see where the warning should be given. The fact that the Taoiseach and now the Minister have completely controverted the speech made by the Taoiseach in this House before Christmas makes it clear that either it was a pure bogeyman warning or else the Taoiseach spoke in that Christmas adjournment debate without any regard to the facts and without taking the House into the full and proper confidence into which the House should have been taken.

The bill the Minister for Finance has presented today is a record bill in a year of an enormous number of records. However, before dealing with those other records, let me just remind the House of the figures as they are. This bill of £167 million, of which no less that £140 million must be met out of current income, is one that is produced by the Government at a time when they themselves say it is vital and essential that we should not have any increase in costs. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. If the Government are going to adjure other people to hold back, to cut their cloth within what they can afford, Governments themselves should be no exception to that rule.

The manner in which Government Supply Services have risen in the past eight years by some 50 per cent. is evidence of what I believe to be the fact, that the Taoiseach himself believes that it is better for the Government to spend the people's money rather than that the people should be left to spend it themselves. In 1957, the Estimates for current services amounted to £97½ million. For the year that is coming, the figure has jumped by 50 per cent. to £140½ million.

After seven years of Fianna Fáil administration, there has been that spectacular increase, a spectacular increase which will even be exceeded when it comes to total Government expenditure for the coming year. As far as I can see, it looks like being of the order of £235 million—somewhere about £32 million for below-the-line issues, approximately £180 million for above-the-line current issues and between £23 million and £24 million for above-the-line capital issues, £235 million in one year. When one throws one's mind back to the attacks made by the Fianna Fáil Party prior to 1932 as to the manner in which this country was being run—as they said, on an imperial scale—and when one compares the cost of the Government services at that time with the cost after the last seven years of government by Fianna Fáil, one must have considerable doubts about their political honesty and no doubt whatever about their political cynicism.

As I said, this is a record bill produced in a year of many other records: record Estimates, record Government expenditure of £235 million next year, a record adverse trade balance in 1962, a record collection of rates; indeed in almost everything unpleasant that one could take up one finds that the Government created a record in it. However, I do not propose today to discuss in any detail the Estimates themselves.

One of the few remarks with which I can agree in the Minister's speech is that they are more appropriate for discussion under the various headings. Nevertheless, we must consider this provision in the general pattern in which it should be seen at the present time. We must consider this pattern as part of the budgetary pattern and as part of our economic pattern. We must ensure in the years that lie ahead that we have sufficient growth in our production and in our income not merely to keep pace with other countries but, to a large extent, to catch up with the time lag.

It is undoubtedly and unfortunately true that last year the pace of economic growth was slowing down here very substantially at a time when in some other countries in Europe, at any rate, it was increasing substantially. The last assessment that I saw, for example, of the prospects of economic growth in Sweden, indicated they expected an improvement of 50 per cent in national production and national income in the first five years of the 1960s. It is indicated in that analysis that they were not merely aiming at but pretty certain of a quickening tempo in the current year and in the ultimate turnout of last year. As I said, unfortunately, the position, so far as we are concerned here, is exactly the reverse. Instead of a continuing improvement in our economic growth, because of the vast sums that have been pushed into it in recent years, we have had the reverse.

Taking the December figures compared with the March figures for industrial production, December to March, 1962, showed an increase very little more than half the rate of increase in 1960 or in 1961. In 1960, it was 5.8 per cent; in 1961 it was 5.7 per cent; and in 1962, it was 3.2 per cent. We are experiencing a diminishing rate of increase in manufacturing industry at a time when we all, on all sides of the House, accept and emphasise that it must be an increasing tempo, an increasing production, if we are to be able to keep pace with, much less improve our position in, the world outside.

To say that we have that decline on that basis, while at the same time we have record expenditures in other lines and at the same time, perhaps—and I use the word "perhaps" deliberately — not the buoyancy to account for them is tantamount to saying that a great deal of the expenditure that has been made has, so far, at any rate, not shown the results which we were entitled to expect from it. I think it is inevitable, in the period ahead of us, that there must be very much more emphasis on expenditure by institutions rather than by individual concerns. Profit margins have been dropping very considerably and, with the drop in profit margins, inevitably it means that the ability of firms themselves to finance new improvements will seriously be impaired.

The desire to ensure that an adequate profit margin is retained for the purpose of financing business in the future is of course an entirely different thing from the desire by certain people to increase profits purely for the purpose of distribution. The example we had of that the other day, by one of the well-known admirers and supporters of the Taoiseach, was hardly in accord with the emphasis that had been given by the Government in their White Paper, to put it very mildly indeed. It seems to me that, with the reduction in profit margins because of the keener and closer competition in relation to trade, we shall move into a situation in which firms and businesses, in order to modernise and adapt, will have to rely more than before on outside financial assistance. That means, on the one hand, that we must expect a newer and a more modern outlook in relation to bank financing of risk capital and, on the other, that we must endeavour to ensure that the public sector of the economy does not take from it so much money that there will not be anything left adequately to finance the private sector.

We have become so used to the terms "private sector" and "public sector" that we all use them but I think the day has gone when they are a proper description of what is involved. The day when the public sector was merely public utilities and the cost of Government as such has passed with the intervention of the State in many State-owned industries of one sort and another. A more accurate and a truer description of the two sectors at the present time would be the voluntary sector, equivalent to the private sector, and the coercive sector, equivalent to the public sector, in relation to which the Government coerce people into providing the funds for what is being done in that sector, be it by taxation or by other means.

It seems to me, however, that we shall need a very much more rapid rate of expansion in the economy in the years ahead if we are to succeed at all in our aim as a country and as a people. It does appear that we must have, in that, a new outlook in relation to the financing of risk capital in industry. People will not put money into industry at risk when perhaps they can get seven per cent if Government securities such as the ESB stock this morning are standing at six per cent.

It will be inevitable in the future, therefore, as far as I can see it, that the banks will have to move forward towards industrial financing on a far greater risk basis than ever before. They did that, of course, to some extent in the past few years when they underwrote and participated in hire purchase concerns. Up to the last few years, it was considered highly improper, highly wrong, most unorthodox, for any bank to have anything to do directly with any of the hire purchase companies. That has been changed in the past few years and, as that has been changed, so, too, shall we have to change our outlook in regard to the provision of the risk capital for industry that will vitally be necessary if we are to succeed in our development.

Perhaps to some degree that is more a matter for consideration on the Budget debate than in this but it is essential we should bear it in mind when considering the size of the bill with which we are faced today. If that bill is such that it will mean little will be left in relation either to the savings of the community or the possibility of repatriating savings or of credits that can be advanced without undue strain on our balance of payments, then we will ensure by so doing that private industry will not get the chance and the opportunity required to expand.

The bill with which we are faced today is one that would daunt the most courageous Minister for Finance. Yet it has been introduced without a word of apology or of anxiety except, perhaps, at the very end. It would have been better evidence of his intentions if he had succeeded in doing what he announced he would do with a great flourish of trumpets in 1957—complete an overhaul of the Civil Service so that the cost of government would be streamlined down to what the country could afford to bear. I had some Parliamentary Questions today about the numbers in the Civil Service. This was the first day on which those questions could be asked in relation to this Book of Estimates. I have not yet got the answers to them but I am pretty sure they will not show proof of the pioneering zeal of the Minister for Finance in 1957 but rather that they will prove that here, as in other respects, his policy has been a failure and that the numbers in the Civil Service, far from being reduced, have been increased substantially in this Book of Estimates now before us.

We are not discussing taxation to-day in its particular application as we shall be in the Budget debate, but I should say that it is a matter of extreme anxiety to many people to know why the introduction of a purchase or sales tax, call it what you will, is foreshadowed by the Taoiseach, not in the background of the Commission's Report but in circumstances in which the Government want to have their cake and eat it. The Commission, by a very narrow majority, indicated they would favour a purchase tax for the purpose of reducing direct taxation. The Taoiseach indicated in his Limerick speech that the Government were thinking in terms of a purchase tax, not for the purpose of reducing direct taxation but for the purpose of initiating taxation. To say that was a shock is an understatement.

One of the things I am particularly worried about in that respect is how we are to have a purchase tax of the kind indicated and, at the same time, keep down our costs. It seems to me it will be a very delicate operation at least to ensure that any purchase tax that may be introduced will be one that will not have the effect of increasing costs. That does not therefore mean that our producers, in whatever line they may be, will be prevented by such a tax from becoming competitive in their anxiety and in their efforts to increase sales and to find other markets. Appreciating that this is not a taxation debate, at the same time I think it essential we should all bear in mind that anything that increases tax at the present time is likely to mean difficulties in relation to markets. A purchase tax in the circumstances outlined could well bring about such a situation if it were not brought in at the same time as a reduction in direct taxation so that those who will have to pay more on the one hand will appreciate, whether under PAYE or otherwise, that they will have to pay less on the other.

In this Book of Estimates, there is little evidence of a real Government plan, of a real Government objective. It seems to me that something that has grown up somewhat haphazardly and that has not been carried through in pursuance of any over-riding scheme is a deliberate objective ahead, and this is further evidence, if indeed we need further evidence, that the Government were gambling everything on getting into the Common Market—that getting into the Common Market was to solve all our troubles for the moment and that though we all appreciated there might be considerable troubles ahead in the 1970's, certain people might not then be worrying about these difficulties in public places. The failure of our application for Common Market adherence has shown up the Government in that respect in no uncertain degree. It has shown them up in manner which must have surprised the Taoiseach and his leading light from that constituency in Dublin North-East in a most unusual fashion the other day.

I do not imagine the Taoiseach will admit it, but I feel quite sure he has read the Sunday Review and the result of the poll in the Sunday Review. It is set out in that poll that Fianna Fáil have slumped from 46 per cent of the votes cast in that constituency at the last election to 27.7 per cent and the reason for this is, I think, that people as a whole realise, appreciate and understand that the Government do not know where they are travelling, that they gambled everything on the Common Market and now that that gamble has not come off, they have no progressive or coherent picture to put to the people except that they are anxious to stay in office at all costs. I think I can understand why one Deputy up there would want to laugh——

Mr. N. Egan

I am laughing at the Deputy's faith in the Sunday Review.

Mr. Sweetman

Let us turn from that to another aspect of Government expenditure, expenditure on housing. The Government have been in office now for seven years. When they came in, they said they had difficulty in regard to housing because of the bold, bad record left behind by the previous Government and that they needed only a year or two to change that record and that we would then find an entirely different picture. I put down a Question last week regarding the capital expenditure of Dublin Corporation on housing under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts. I am taking Dublin Corporation deliberately as against the rest of the country because I could see an argument being made that in parts of rural Ireland the housing position had been cleared up and therefore there was no question that the Government were not doing anything about housing but that in certain parts housing was not necessary to the same extent. But nobody, with any reality or approach to the truth, could feel or think that in relation to Dublin city.

Capital expenditure by Dublin Corporation under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts last year was £1,238,616, provided out of the Local Loans Fund, I notice. Incidentally, until I threw open the Local Loans Fund to Dublin Corporation, they had never been able to get funds from that source before, nor had Deputy MacCarthy in Cork Corporation ever been able to get moneys from that Fund before. The figure of capital expenditure for housing in 1962 is to be compared with the figure for the year —or, indeed, any of the years—which Deputies opposite would wish to take when they were complaining so vigorously about housing. In 1955 expenditure was £2,778,000; in 1956, £2,504,000; and in 1957, £2,689,000. In the current year, after seven years of Fianna Fáil, expenditure in even ten months does not come up to half the figure in respect of Dublin Corporation housing that was spent in any of those three years. Yet, we were told that the Government needed only a year or so to put matters right in that respect without any difficulty.

Last year, we had a record in regard to central Government taxation. The tax receipts were the highest percentage of gross national product ever reached in our history, so far as I am aware, and certainly ever reached since 1953 according to the reply to a question on 29th March, 1962. This year, if these figures mean anything, the amount will be substantially greater. Whereas last year the position was that approximately £1 in every £5 of our gross national product was taken by the Government, we shall have a situation this year in which that amount will be substantially exceeded. Will that help economic growth or sustained growth? Will it ensure that we get the development and ploughbacks that we must get if we are to increase productivity and increase the standard of individual national income? Is it not something that shows that the increase in the coercive sector occurs either because the Taoiseach and the Government believe that they can spend the people's money better than the people themselves or because the injections of substantial funds into the economy that have been given have failed to provide the result expected in relation to a buoyant economy and buoyant revenue?

The bill we are facing today is only one part of the burden the people must bear. I think I am right in saying that in the last financial year, 1962, the last year for which figures are available, the amount collected in rates was £23,163,000. That means, apart from Government grants and other receipts of local authorities, £8 for every man, woman and child in the country was collected in rates. The figures for the current year are not yet available but must be substantially greater. We can see from the Book of Estimates we are now discussing that the Minister for Finance anticipates that rates will go up in 1963-64 by a further six per cent. The amount provided for rates on Government property next year shows an increase of something over six per cent. on the amount provided this year. There may be a few more Government properties or a few less but the amount of Government property held is likely to be standard, taking one year with another, and the figure included in the Estimates at page 80 for rates on Government property shows an increase of £38,000 on a total of £601,000 during the current year, an increase of over six per cent.

Rates amounted to £23 million last year. In the current year, they are likely to be about £25 million and, with another increase of over six per cent. next year, there will be the equivalent of a further blister from Fianna Fáil of another £1½ million. Coming at a time in 1962 when the terms of trade were better than in the previous year, these things are all the more striking. An analysis of figures in regard to terms of trade given in the monthly Economic Statistics Index showed that the terms of trade, so far as Ireland is concerned, were about three per cent. better in 1962 than in 1961. Notwithstanding that, we had last year, thanks to Government mismanagement, the all-time record adverse trade balance of £100 million.

While I have been speaking, I have been getting the figure given in answer to the Questions I had down to-day about the Civil Service. It appears that in the 1962-63 Book of Estimates provision was made for 20,162 permanent civil servants and that in this year provision is made for 20,635,500 extra. This increase comes from the Minister for Finance who came in and said in 1957 that he was going to streamline the Civil Service so that it would be able to do the same work with very much fewer people. Even in the case of temporary civil servants, there has been an increase, in the same way, of about 200. No doubt, part of that increase in the number of civil servants is for the purpose of extracting more money from the people. I notice that about 150 extra officials are provided for the Revenue Commissioners to get more money from the pockets of the people.

Before the Taoiseach adopted his bogeyman attitude, it would have been better if we had some explanation of why the revenue was not going to be sufficiently buoyant to carry whatever natural increases there might be. The estimated buoyancy of revenue at Budget time last year was about £7¾ million. This year, while we have had some substantial increases in revenue and substantial increases in buoyancy, we have also seen, in the figures so far available to us, that certain changes made by the Minister for Finance at Budget time last year were not justified, and that the results which we indicated were likely to arise have, in fact, arisen.

The first instance that comes to my mind is in relation to whiskey. As a result of the additional imposition made by the Minister for Finance in his Budget statement last spring, the quantity of whiskey retained for home use this year has been very substantially reduced, by about 10 per cent. At that time, we indicated to the Minister that there was the gravest danger that he was going to kill or injure one of the geese that are laying him a golden egg and that it was essential, if we were to have an opportunity in relation to exports, that we should have a healthy home trade in that respect. We said that there was grave danger that any additional taxation would affect the home trade and from the answer to the Question given to me last week, it appears quite clear that the effect of that imposition by the Minister has been to cut consumption by 10 per cent. There is now a real danger that the goose will be no longer able to contribute to the revenue in the manner in which it has contributed in other years.

I am not at present able to say whether the effect of the tax has been to increase the yield, apart from the reduction in the quantity. That is a matter that will have to wait the out-turn for the year but the reduction in the quantity has shown the danger and the foolishness of the action of the Minister in that regard last spring.

We have also had considerable discussion, which will be affected by this bill, of the position in relation to our external assets and the reasons why we have been seeing two entirely contradictory things happening. There has been an increase in the external assets of the Central Bank and of Departmental funds taken as a block. I said before, and I want to repeat now, that from the information that comes my way in a small way as an outsider, a very substantial amount of that increase in external assets is due to the transferring here of what I would call hot foreign money. There have been substantial foreign investments, not merely in relation to manufacturing industry, but also in relation to land and in relation to business premises and properties. We have seen that money coming in and it is being used for current purposes in so far as our balance of payments is concerned. That is a very nice situation as long as it continues, but, like any inflation, it carries with it its own day of reckoning and when it stops coming in, the last situation is worse than the first.

It means that all that capital that has been coming in here carries with it an increasing debt by way of the cost of its servicing or of dividend payments. It is morally wrong to treat a capital increment as something to be used for current purposes. It is because of that we must regard with anxiety the adverse balance that there was last year coupled with the fact that it does not appear likely that there will be an increase in exports this year that would make up for any additional increase in imports that may arise because of world conditions.

As far as I can make out, we are facing in the financial year that starts on 1st April next a record Government expenditure of about £80 for each man, woman and child in the country which is an approximate total Government expenditure of £240 million. We are facing this new financial year after a record adverse trade balance last year, with little likelihood of any substantial improvement in the year ahead. We are facing the coming year, starting on April 1st, with the sure and certain knowledge that, no matter how rates are at present, the Minister for Finance has himself indicated that he believes that there will be an increase of six per cent. in our rates, in the rates collected from individual ratepayers of about another £1½ million. We are facing a situation in which after so many of our people have gone, we still have 60,000 unemployed. Incidentally, in relation to the 300,000 who have gone, it is to a very large extent the remittances that we are getting from our emigrants that are helping us to keep some relevance in our balance of pay ments. We are facing a situation ir which, after seven years of Fianna Fáil, the cost of living has gone up to a record figure—it has gone up by no less than 21 per cent.—and we are facing a situation in which, so far as I can see, there is no evidence of any plan by the Government to meet the circumstances of the time. On the contrary, they gambled everything, their political future and otherwise, on being able to get into the European Economic Community and now that that is, unfortunately for all of us, not an immediate possibility, they are like a rudderless ship, not knowing where to go, except to ensure that they will say to the people: "Even though we do not know, we are going to pretend we know how to spend your money better than you could spend it yourselves."

Mr. Corish

In the debate on the Vote on Account we are given an opportunity of discussing the bill that has been presented to the nation for the various services and investments of the State, in many cases for services that have obtained for 20, 30, and up to 40 years, and for certain services which are considered to be in the national interest. While this debate is usually taken as a discussion on general Government policy, there are some pertinent questions that should be asked, not only of the Government, but of ourselves. The bill presented to us has been described as a record one. Of course, every Vote on Account is described as being a record. It is described as being a formidable sum as the nation's bill for its services and investments. But, before we criticise it unduly for its size, we should ask ourselves a few questions: (1) Are the moneys being applied in the right direction; (2) are they being spent properly; (3) this is not so much for this discussion as for a Budget discussion—who should pay for them and (4) in relation to Government policy, have we got good results?

It is legitimate comment that in respect of rates and in respect of a Bill such as we are presented with here to-day, if these services are demanded, and universally all of them are demanded, we must accept that they cost a certain amount and that they have to be paid for. The figure is, indeed, a record and a formidable one but is it justified?

The Book of Estimates shows an increase of £13 million. That to some people seems to be a frightening figure but, as against that, we have to measure the return for the money that we expend for State services and for State investment. As far as capital services are concerned, there is no overall increase in the Book of Estimates for this year. The actual increase is something in the region of £400,000. There are, of course, increases in individual items and, in my opinion, these increases must be considered to be desirable, when one remembers that the increases are in respect of arterial drainage, much-needed housing, UCD, education, forestry, farm buildings, the land project, lime and fertiliser subsidy, industrial aid and re-equipment and holiday accommodation grants for tourism.

These increases have been made possible because there has been a decrease in respect of other capital projects. This year, we do not have the commitment for Nítrigin Éireann that we had last year to the extent of £950,000, or for the copper mines, for airport works, for Shannon Airport. There is a slight decrease in the bovine TB provision. The total decreases amount to something over £2 million. So, in effect, as far as capital services are concerned, when one puts the individual increases against the decreases, there is, in fact, no change except to the extent of an increase of something like £400,000. Therefore, most of the increase reflected in the Book of Estimates, to the tune of £13 million, is in respect of the Supply Services.

There are certain sections of the community who assume that the increase of £13 million in the national bill this year can be attributed in the main to wage and salary increases and are prone, as some politicians are, to blame our financial troubles on the eighth round of wage increases, but it should be said, and the Minister did say in his opening speech, that as far as wages and salaries are concerned, they account for £2 million in the overall increase of £13 million. The other increases which the Minister has mentioned and which could be mentioned again seem, in my opinion, to be desired by many sections of the community—the £2¾ million extra for agricultural grants, the £400,000 for local government, mainly for housing, the £400,000 for University College, Dublin, practically £4 million for agriculture, the £1¼ million for industry and commerce. These with various other small amounts make up the £13 million by which the Vote on Account exceeds that of last year.

Again, I want to pose one of the questions I mentioned, that is, whether or not we in this House are satisfied that the £167 million odd is being properly spent or whether or not it is devoted to the sections where it does the greatest good. I have no objection to the amount being voted to agriculture—in the Book of Estimates, £24 million—from other sources something like £12½ million—but it seems to me that as far as agriculture is concerned, and in respect of other sections also, we seem to be applying the same remedies year after year. In the main, the money that is being provided here could be described as incentive money, an assistance to the farmer in order to enable him to produce more or to produce more cheaply, but it does not seem as if we have got the results which we have aimed at.

One could go back for 30 or 40 years and find that year after year we seem to assume that all we need do to make the agricultural section of the population more prosperous and to increase agricultural production is to give that type of assistance. As I have said, I believe that we should give financial assistance but have the Government, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Finance or anybody else ever thought as to whether or not we are getting the best value for that £36 million? I do not begrudge the £36 million being spent if we could do what all of us hope could be done for agriculture. I would not begrudge even another £10 million or £20 million.

We should also ask ourselves if it is being devoted to the people who need it most. I want to declare at the beginning that these are questions I am not absolutely competent to answer. In respect of industry, agriculture and so on the money is not being applied for the best benefit of the country. New schemes are introduced year after year. I assume they are desirable schemes. There never seems to be any consideration of scrapping useless schemes. I know that if some small schemes were scrapped, there would be a furore from a certain section of the community. Whilst we should devote the maximum possible amount of money to industry and agriculture, we should be assured it is being spent to the best advantage. It seems to me from the statistics that up to now we have not been getting results. I do not know whose fault it is. It may not be the fault of the farmers or the agricultural advisers, but the nett point is that the hoped for increase in agricultural production ten years ago has not yet materialised.

In the Book of Estimates, a sum of £4½ million is provided for Industry and Commerce. From other sources, a much larger sum is available for the promotion of industry. There seems to be an opinion recently that many millions have been poured into industry. I know that the Government, through their various schemes of assistance, have pumped quite an amount of money into industry. Again, however, it is questionable as to whether we have got the full value for the money, whether we have achieved the end at which that sort of assistance was aimed. It is equitable that that sort of assistance is now available to all areas. In that the Government have effected that change, I do not want to labour the various arguments I made in debates of this kind in the past. As far as the investment of money in industry is concerned, whether it be made available to Irish or foreign industrialists, there should be a greater accent on the employment content. I know the Government must be primarily concerned with production, especially production for export. But one of the qualifications—not necessarily the first qualification—for assistance for the establishing of industry here should be the employment content of it. In this Vote on Account we are providing £29 million for Social Welfare, £9½ million for Defence, £11 million for Health, £6½ million for Local Government, £20 million for Education, and £9 million for agricultural grants. All these things are desirable. They are a good investment but they would be a better investment if they were all applied properly.

We should be satisfied that the money is being put to the proper use. Frankly, I think the ordinary Deputy, apart from Ministers and members of previous Governments, do not know whether or not it is being put to the proper use. It is true that so far as Government accounts are concerned the Comptroller and Auditor-General certifies the legality and accuracy of the accounts of every Department of State. I think, however, the Taoiseach should seriously consider the establishment of House Committees to investigate whether or not there is waste, whether the money is being applied in the right direction and is getting the results aimed at.

Far be it from me to be critical of Dáil Éireann, but we must all admit that our function here means we participate in a debate like this, asking questions, sitting in on the Committee Stages of various Bills and all that sort of thing. I think, to their credit, Deputies are capable of much more than that. The Committee on Public Accounts is an example of the excellent work that can be done by Deputies. I will not say I have scrutinised the report of these meetings in detail, but it is obvious from even a cursory glance that the members of that Committee get an intelligent grasp of the financing of government. The officials who attend will admit that, after a certain time, the intelligent questions and proposals made by the members of the Committee are, indeed, beneficial.

In this House, we seem to be hamstrung by and tied to what is called the British system—a system which I believe is pretty useless and which could certainly be improved. I do not see why we should not adopt, for the purpose of endeavouring to make progress, a system such as they have in the United States—not necessarily that system—where they have various committees set up to discuss the problems of the various Departments of State. Within those committees there would be a greater appreciation of the expenditure of public monies and of the administration of the various Departments.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I feel that the Deputy's suggestions are outside the scope of this debate.

Mr. Corish

I must, with respect disagree with the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. We are discussing a bill of £167 million. We are concerned with the expenditure of that money. I am merely suggesting that there is a case for the establishment of committees to ensure that the monies we are going to vote are expended in the proper way. I do not intend to labour the point, although I feel I am perfectly in order in raising it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair feels otherwise.

Mr. Corish

If the Chair insists I am out of order, I shall have to desist. I bow to you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I shall not go into any detail, but I think the Taoiseach should consider some change in the system and not have Dáil Éireann what has been described a mere talking shop.

Despite the increase in public expenditure over the years we do not seem to be getting the spectacular results forecast, or, indeed, the results we hoped we would get. While we are devoting a formidable sum of money for the services of the State and for investment, we must have pursued the wrong policies or otherwise we would have had far better results. We are now nearing the end of the Programme for Economic Expansion, which outlined plans and expenditure for a period of five years. The programme seemed to be very optimistic about the results. Everybody accepted this programme in good faith. I think the intentions of those who prepared it, and the intentions of those who adopted it as their White Paper for economic expansion, were honourable but, as I say, I do not think we have achieved the results which this programme envisaged in the autumn of 1958.

In the last paragraph of the Programme for Economic Expansion it is said:

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

I do not disagree with the sentiments expressed there. I believe those who framed them and those who adopted them believed that the things mentioned could be achieved. It may be true to say that the real national income has increased by an average of two per cent. per annum since the programme was commenced, but we have to have regard to factors other than the increase in the national income and the various other statistics which are thrown to us from time to time. I am at one with the Taoiseach when he said on one occasion that a Government must be judged by their record in respect of employment and their record of unemployment because I think we all agree that every Government accept that their main function is to provide that people will be profitably engaged, whether they are self-employed, or whether they are wage earners or salary earners.

I think we are entitled to ask ourselves on this occasion, as we near the completion of this Programme for Economic Expansion, how have we fared. It has been described as no phenomenon that we have a flight from the land because, it is said, there is a flight from rural areas in practically every country in the world. We must accept that there has been, and will be in years to come, a flight from the rural areas, but since this Programme for Economic Expansion was commenced, or should I say, before 1959, up to 1962 there was a flight from the land to the extent of 24,000. There was a decrease in those employed on the land, and that includes fisheries and forestry, of 24,000.

Now, that may not be a frightening figure to some but when people leave the land, there is an obligation on the Government, in the first place, and on the State generally, to provide employment for them. I do not think we have provided employment for them and the result is that many of them have had to emigrate. The Government have made advances in the provision of industrial employment but my charge is that it is not enough. It is not sufficient to say we had so many thousands of an increase in those engaged in industry in this year, that year, or another year. Their responsibility is not alone to provide additional employment in industry but to provide employment generally, particularly for those from the rural areas.

In industrial employment in 1958, we had 272,000 compared with an estimated 291,000 in 1962, so that as far as industrial employment is concerned, there was an increase of 19,000. In ordinary circumstances, that would be reasonably good; that is, if there had not been the flight from the land, there would have been these additional jobs. I should say that industrial employment is employment in mining, quarrying, turf, manufacturing, construction, electricity, gas and water. Those are the main groups. Therefore, as far as industrial employment is concerned, we had an increase of 19,000, but it must also be remembered that this increase was not in new factory work. It represents an increase in employment in construction mainly.

The overall picture is, that at the end of 1962 compared with 1958, as between agricultural and industrial employment, we had a net decrease of 5,000. Therefore it must be admitted, that as far as the Programme for Economic Expansion is concerned, it has not been eminently successful. In respect of productive employment in agriculture and industry, we have 5,000 fewer at a time when the emphasis is placed by all public men and by all public institutions on greater production. Let me give the other side as well. It is true that there were 9,000 more in 1962 than there were in 1958, engaged in other occupations, commerce, insurance and administration, to show, therefore, an overall increase in employment in 1962 of 4,000, compared with 1958. In 1958, we had 1,121,000 in employment and in 1962, there were 1,125,000, an increase of 4,000. I think the significant thing, and the dangerous thing at present, is the fact that in productive employment we had 5,000 fewer in 1962 than we had in 1958. It is not a very encouraging result after four years of the Programme for Economic Expansion.

It was said to the Taoiseach recently during Question Time that unemployment showed a steep increase since last year. The last figure I have available shows that on 23rd February there were 65,511 unemployed. That represents an increase of 9,000 compared with a similar period towards the end of February, 1962. I know that that, as the Taoiseach said, can be explained away to some extent by bad weather. It was impossible during January and February, as we all know, to engage in the ordinary work of construction and building of houses and general building, and that as far as agricultural workers were concerned, there was also a lay-off. However, I do not think that explains away the entire increase. I have looked at the analysis of the unemployment figures for the month of January and I discovered that in relation to unemployment, agricultural workers accounted for an increase of 1,868; and, as far as building was concerned, the increase amounted to 1,631, a total of 3,499, or shall we say, between 3,000 and 4,000. It still means that, compared with last year, January-February, 1962, we have an increase in our registered unemployed of something between 5,000 and 6,000. Even if one were to say 4,000, it is still a danger signal, and it is a problem which, I think, ought to be tackled as quickly as possible. In Britain at the present time, there is what is regarded by some people as a political crisis because they have an unemployment rate there of four per cent. Here we have an unemployment rate of between seven and eight per cent and we do not seem to be too excited about the number of unemployed we have. In 1957, we had a formidable total of unemployed as well. It was again between seven and eight per cent. As far as the percentage of employable people is concerned, we have, therefore, made no improvement as against the year 1957 when we had an unemployment problem of between seven and eight per cent.

Emigration used to be pretty much to the fore in this House in the recent past, irrespective of what Government were in power. There is no need for me to acknowledge that emigration has gone down in recent years, but it is still running at about 20,000. It has remained at a figure of 20,000 for the past 18 months or two years. We should be concerned about this. We should be concerned to provide employment for the type of person who, due to economic circumstances, is forced to emigrate. The 20,000 is below what is described as the natural increase in our population, which is usually put at a figure of 25,000. We have, however, another problem in that respect because each year we have 5,000 new people who need jobs, having either graduated from school or university.

I have no figures, official or otherwise, in respect of housing, but anybody who takes any interest in local government knows that, whilst a good deal has been done in the matter of building houses since 1948, there still seems to be a big demand for houses. The Taoiseach should be aware that in most of the provincial towns, with populations running from 6,000 to 15,000 or 16,000, there is still a need for houses to the extent of some hundreds. I do not know why we cannot try to clear up this problem of housing once and for all, and do it quickly. This was regarded as an urgent problem in 1948. It was regarded as an urgent problem for five, six, seven, or eight years after that, but we seem now to have lost the drive to provide houses for those who so badly need them. Jobs are important. Security in employment is important, but what is important above all to a man with a wife and a couple of children is a proper house. As far as many are concerned, even though they do not find any better accommodation abroad, the sheer desperation of not having a house here drives many of them to take their chance in Great Britain.

The Minister for Local Government said recently that in order to conserve employment for those engaged in the building industry, it was intended more or less to stretch out the work. That may be good from one point of view, but what is most important in stretching out the work is providing houses for those who so badly need them. I urge the Taoiseach to urge his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, to try to get this problem of housing solved once and for all in our cities, towns and rural areas.

It has often been stated that the solution to our problem is the production of more goods at a lesser cost in the industrial and agricultural fields so that we can compete successfully abroad. We have not been eminently successful in that sphere so far. I do not think we should deride ourselves too much but, whilst we have made improvements, we have not been, as I said, eminently successful. We ought to ask ourselves now whether or not our methods of production are out of date. It seems to be the view of the CIO that many of our production methods are out of date and there is a strong case for urgent change.

We should also ask ourselves if we fully exploit our natural resources. It does not seem to me we exploit the resources of the land fully. We certainly do not exploit the most important resource we have, our manpower; that is shown by the figures available to us in relation to emigration and unemployment. We have the peculiar situation here that, whilst in other European countries they are crying out for labour and manpower, we have an abundance of manpower here, but we do not use it to the full. Sometimes it is said we could produce more, and at a cheaper rate, were it not that our labour costs are too high. I think the lie is given to that in the fact that some unscrupulous people point out in their advertisements that one of the advantages in establishing industry here is that our wages are so low. The "Pay Pause" was not very encouraging in that respect, of course, but I do not think this is the type of debate where one should talk at length about that.

It seems to me that the outlook for employment is not encouraging because of the fact that we must of necessity lower our tariffs. It is especially not encouraging when we are not a member of either EFTA or EEC. We put ourselves then in the peculiar position in which we are behaving as if we were members of the European Economic Community; in lowering our tariffs we are giving ourselves a lot of the disadvantages, so to speak, but none of the advantages.

I appreciate that all this is a particular problem for the Taoiseach and his Government. Nobody wants to delight in the fact, certainly not the Labour Party, that he undoubtedly has a problem, in view of the breakdown of the Brussels negotiations. It was announced recently that he and the Minister for External Affairs are to go to Britain for general talks with their counterparts there. We wish him luck because we appreciate that it will be necessary for us to make changes from the point of view of this country's trading and to seek alliances or strengthen the undoubtedly strong alliance that we have with Great Britain, and have had for quite a long time. We trust that the talks, whether formal or informal, will inure to the good of this country as a whole.

I believe—this is not the first time I have said this—that whilst we appear to spend more money in this, that and the other sector, the policies employed have not shown the results they should have for such an expenditure. I believe the Government must play a greater part in planning for industrial reorganisation. There was an excellent recommendation made to the Government by the Committee on Industrial Organisation. They suggested there should be development areas, that areas should be zoned for industrial development. The Government, as a matter of urgency, should consider that suggestion. I have no hesitation in saying that as far as financial assistance to potential industrialists is concerned, we are pretty generous. Generous as we are in making grants and loans and giving tax concessions, there do not seem to be enough people appearing to provide the industry necessary for the economy and to take up the slack in the unemployment that we have. Therefore if private enterprise does not do the job, the Government should take the initiative in the establishment of industries because it is their absolute responsibility, if other sections in the community will not do it. It is not enough to offer assistance; the Government must act themselves.

Deputy Sweetman said that during this period there are the usual gloomy speeches and I suppose it is not peculiar to this Government that in the months of February and March we have that type of speech. The assumption by many people is that because there is a big increase in the Estimates figure, there will of necessity be increased taxation. We have seen formidable figures in the Book of Estimates before and we have heard these warning speeches by various Minister in the months of February and March but then when the Budget came, it was not too bad at all. In discussions such as this, we are prone to think merely in terms of expenditure but again, as Deputy Sweetman pointed out, we should also when thinking about expenditure, have regard to revenue. The indications are that revenue was buoyant and it looks as if it will bring in more than was estimated by the Minister for Finance in his Budget speech of last year.

The gloom and despair have become so deep that people, even the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach, are talking in terms of new taxation. There is this new one drummed up, a sales or purchase tax. Deputy Sweetman also referred to a recommendation made by the Commission on Income Taxation and to a document laid before the House in April, 1961. I was interested to read the views of the Government on the sales tax and I quote from page 15 of this document entitled Direct Taxation:—

Its economic effects might also be adverse: the prices of taxed goods would be increased and, through compensatory raising of money incomes, costs might be increased and competitive capacity affected, with risk to exports and employment. While the Government would not, for these reason, feel justified in adopting the recommendation in the majority report of the Commission, they adhere to the view, expressed in the Budget Statement of 1957, that it is a good principle in the circumstances of this country to place the emphasis of taxation on expenditure rather than on income. Earning and saving need to be encouraged—and excessive spending discouraged—in the interests of economic and social progress. Recent budgetary decisions have followed this principle. A sales tax as such would not be inappropriate to the circumstances of this country and, if the necessity were to arise for a major increase in taxation, it might become unavoidable. Fortunately, however, this necessity has not so far arisen.

That was the view of the Government in April, 1961, that there was no necessity for a sales tax. I wonder would the Taoiseach or the Minister for Finance tell us what has happened in the past 24 months to warrant the introduction of a sales or a purchase tax? It seems to me that the policy of this Government as distinct from the policy of Governments all over Europe is to reduce direct taxation and to increase indirect taxation. I think the views of those five who signed the minority report disagreeing with the recommendation of the Income Taxation Commission in respect of a sales tax should also be borne in mind by the Government when they come to consider the form of the sales or purchase tax. There are many good arguments against the tax.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corish will appreciate that the question of taxation or where the money is to be raised is not relevant on the Vote on Account.

Mr. Corish

I make only a brief reference to it. I do not want to pursue this matter except to say that if money to meet this bill must be raised in the manner suggested by the Minister for Finance, it would hit the poorer people and especially those people with large families. It is the lower income group, who now have not sufficient money to pay income tax, who would, in the event of a sales or purchase tax being imposed, have to pay additional taxation in that way. There is also the fact that company profits would benefit considerably if a sales or purchase tax were to be introduced for the purpose recommended in the report of reducing income tax.

I know the Taoiseach will say that we on this side of the House appear to be always preaching gloom and despair but I think I have, whether successfully or otherwise, tried to be objective and factual in the remarks I have made. I want to tell the Taoiseach that as far as the Labour Party are concerned, it would not be a consolation to us if things went wrong this year. We are all public representatives and we all have responsibility for running the country. We as a Party do not vote against Fianna Fáil because they are the Government and we are the Opposition. I think the record of the Labour Party in that respect has been that when the Government introduce proposals we believe are good, we vote for them. We have not consistently opposed the Fianna Fáil Government, or any other Government for that matter, merely because we are in opposition. I believe we have responsibilities in these critical times.

However, the criticism I would make of the Taoiseach—and it is that to which I referred some time ago— is that he seems to assume like many other Fianna Fáil people that because they are the Government, they must control everything. I believe the Government have a responsibility. Theirs is the primary responsibility but the Taoiseach should take the House into his confidence. If he did that, he would get more support and I think he has had many examples of it in the past two or three years. If he came to the House and explained his difficulties, he would certainly get the support of the Labour Party. I cannot pretend at this stage to speak for the Fine Gael party. If there is a problem, the Labour Party certainly will help in trying to find a solution for that problem as will all sections of the community. This is going to be an extremely difficult year for the country. It will be no consolation to us if it is an extremely difficult year for the Government because it means workers will be hit, there will be greater unemployment, and farmers and industries will be affected.

May I say as a last word to the Taoiseach that if he regards at least some of the criticism that has been made in this House as sincere and objective, we will get away from the type of political discussion which we have been used to hearing here on Votes on Account, Budgets and other general debates?

The Taoiseach

The business of government never is and probably will never be easy. If it were easy, I suppose many of us would not have any interest in it; and if it ever should become easy, it would lose its attraction for some of us. The most difficult time in Government is when the tax bill has to be presented at the beginning of each financial year. At all other times, everybody, Deputies responsible and irresponsible, leader writers in newspapers, spokesmen of special interests, everybody who has access to the ear of the public presses merrily for more Government spending—subsidies for this, grants for that, higher outlays of one kind or another — and, of course, it is inevitable that the development of Government policy frequently requires the provision of more money to sustain it. Then, at Budget time, which we are now approaching, the Bill has to be totalled up and presented to the taxpayers. That is the time when all those who have been pressing all the year round for higher expenditures of one kind or another begin to talk about retrenchment and economy.

The Book of Estimates now before us contains the main part of the bill: the capital service charges represent the rest of it. In this year, the bill is a very substantial one. There is not much point in describing it as a record one because we have had a record of that kind almost every year for the past 30 years. However, it is so substantial that it is the duty of the Dáil, as it has been the duty of the Government, to examine it very closely and I hope realistically as well.

The most difficult task in Government is not that of deciding what we would like to do. That is never a problem at all. There are always plenty of people prepared to help us in dealing with it. The most difficult task is that of deciding the things we would like to do but which we cannot afford at this time—the things we have to regard as beyond the realm of financial practicability at any particular point of time—and then determining a reasonable order of priority for the new developments which may become financially feasible.

The main items in the bill presented to the taxpayers this year, apart from the service of debt, are four. The first and largest is remuneration—remuneration of civil servants, teachers, Garda, Defence Forces and health authority staffs. This item of remuneration in this year totals £53½ million. That is an increase of £2 million over the past financial year and that increase arises mainly from what could be described, I hope, as the final adjustments of the eighth round of salary and wage increases.

The second of the four main items in the Book of Estimates is the social welfare service, including health. It will cost in the coming financial year £40 million. That represents an increase of some £3¼ million more than was provided in the Estimates for 1962-63.

The third item is aids and services to agriculture which, in the coming financial year, will cost £36,600,000— being £8,100,000 more than the Estimate provision of last year. As the Minister for Industry and Commerce has pointed out already, and as the Supplementary Estimates now before the Dáil make clear, most of that expenditure was first incurred in the present financial year and the actual increase contemplated next year over and above the expenditure this year, is not as great as the Estimate suggests.

The fourth main item is education. It is true that in education a large part of the total expenditure is represented by salaries paid to teachers and is, therefore, incorporated in the remuneration item to which I have already referred. One half, practically, of the total bill for education is represented by the salaries of primary school teachers. Nevertheless, the bill for our educational services this year will be increased by £1,600,000 to a total of £20,600,000.

The total cost to the Exchequer of these four items—the remuneration of public officers of all kinds; the social welfare services, including health; the aids and services given to agriculture and education—comes to £140,000,000. If Deputies will deduct that figure from the total which appears on the cover of the Book of Estimates they will realise that the amount required to meet the cost of all the other services provided by Government Departments is comparatively small. The increase contemplated in the coming financial year, 1963-64, under these four headings alone, amounts to £15,000,000. That is very close to the total increase envisaged during the year.

May I, at this stage, say that nobody ever has proposed—and I doubt very much if anybody in this Dáil ever will propose—a reduction of Government spending under any of these headings? There is always room for argument about what the country can or cannot afford. There are some who, like Deputy Sweetman, if I understood the sense of the speech, think we have already gone too far in expanding Government services and that we should now stop expanding or even cut back upon some of the services already established. If there are many people of that kind in the country, they are not very vocal and they are never, no more than Deputy Sweetman was, specific as to the particular reductions in expenditure they want to see effected. There are others —and Deputy Corish's speech would clearly put him in this class—who would urge that we should press ahead even more rapidly, increasing expenditure upon education, upon health, upon social welfare, upon agricultural aids, and so on, even if it means new or heavier taxation. There are, of course, some foolish people who think it is possible for the Government both to spend more and tax less at the same time, and a few irresponsible politicians who say that is possible, whether or not they think it to be so.

It is true that at a time of economic growth, when the national production is expanding, the Government can count upon an increasing yield from existing taxes, upon more revenue flowing into the Exchequer without any change in the taxation rates. I think it is clear from the Book of Estimates that the higher cost of these Government services in this coming financial year, plus the higher Central Fund charges, which have not yet been calculated, will exceed any normal revenue buoyancy which might be expected and that, even if we should decide, as we well may do, to cut down upon some of the services envisaged in the Book of Estimates, some new taxation will be needed. That is a statement of an obvious fact—not, as Deputy Sweetman tried to describe it, a device of political tactics of any kind.

Anybody objecting to higher taxation must, in all honesty, avoid proposing higher expenditure for any purpose, and I think they should also demonstrate their sincerity by indicating which of the existing services should be cut down or cut out. Leading for the main Opposition Party, Deputy Sweetman has already indicated that our experience this year will be no different from that in previous years—that this will not happen and that these appeals for retrenchment and economy will always be vaguely expressed without being related specifically to any part of the bill the taxpayers have to meet.

The Government have already cut down the taxpayers' bill for this year. The Estimates, as they were originally prepared in the various Departments, gave a higher total than now appears on the cover of the Book of Estimates. I do not wish to exaggerate the extent to which we found it possible to effect curtailment of proposals for expenditure coming in from the various Departments, having regard to commitments already firmly entered into, but it was decided, either by individual Ministers in relation to the work of their own Departments or at Government level, that in the circumstances of this year some improvements and extensions of the services of Government which we would wish to see— wish our people to enjoy—could not be undertaken yet because it would not be feasible to raise the money to pay for them.

The Book of Estimates indicates the very limit to which we, as the Government, think it would be possible to go this year. That is something that has to be stated clearly and bluntly now, so that some impracticable ideas— impracticable in a financial sense— which are now being ventilated may be cleared out of the way. Deputies are no doubt well aware that there are various agitations being organised for developments which would involve enormous increases in Government expenditure. In the circumstances of this year, all these agitations are divorced from reality. Among the many proposals being made to the Government for increases in expenditure are: further extensions of agricultural rate relief, a general rate subvention for all the western counties, very considerable higher expenditure on education, and substantial increases in salaries for some categories of public servants.

There is also an agitation for a higher price for creamery milk, presumably by way of increasing the price of butter to the Irish consumer. Increases in the price of milk which would involve an increase in the retail price of butter of 1/- per lb. and upwards have been suggested. This agitation, I confess, seems to be the product of rivalry between certain farmers' organisations, partly the product of a struggle for status and power going on between these organisations. I know the leaders of these organisations—I have met them on many occasions—and I have a very high regard for their intelligence as individuals, and I know that they understand very well that it would not make sense of any kind to stimulate by higher prices increased milk production and to pull down, at the same time, our internal home consumption of Irish butter in circumstances in which our present export surplus cannot be sold even at heavy losses.

It is true to say that creamery milk production is still the most profitable farming operation carried on in this country, an operation from which, by reason of measures taken by the Government, all elements of risk have, so far as is humanly possible, been eliminated. The taxpayers will in this coming financial year subsidise creamery milk production and the incomes of creamery milk producers to the extent of almost £5 million— £4,668,000 to be exact. That is the amount required from the Irish taxpayers to enable the present price of creamery milk to be maintained. I know there are many taxpayers, noting reports in the Press of extravagant statements by so-called representatives of milk producers, who are saying they are getting darned little thanks for that contribution.

I want to assure them, however, that is not so, that the great majority of the creamery milk suppliers appreciate very well the help they are getting from the taxpayer, understand the cost of the support they are receiving and the whole position relating to the production and the export sales of creamery produce at this time, and I should not like to see developing any public resentment at this heavy subsidisation— which is necessary to maintain the incomes of the creamery milk suppliers —even if the public should temporarily be inconvenienced — because of a power struggle between two farmers' organisations, and an agitation which is unwise in its concept and cannot possibly succeed.

It is not merely the Government who must have regard to the financial position. All these things for which agitations are being worked up, and others which I have not mentioned, may be desirable. I am not contesting their desirability, but it is plain beyond all argument that we cannot afford them now. The money to pay for them cannot be had and those who think otherwise are living in a dream world. To attempt them in this year, to attempt anything over and above what is proposed in this Book of Estimates, would involve taxation so heavy as to strain the national economy, so heavy that it would stop economic development, which alone can bring these things within the realm of practical politics at some future time.

The considered view of the Government is that expansion of Government outlay this year beyond the limits indicated in the Book of Estimates is not within the bounds of financial practicability and will not become so until further economic development expands both the resources of the nation and the revenue of the State. I am aware there are many people who will not like facing up to this reality, but reality is what the Government have to deal with. We will not commit ourselves to expenditure which we cannot hope to meet. With continuing economic growth, we can expect that, even without new taxes, our revenue will increase in each year, at much the same rate as national income.

There are many desirable things which we cannot afford now which we will be able to consider when revenue expansion in future years makes them financially possible. Everything turns upon the success of the plans we are making to promote economic growth. The extension of Government services to provide new facilities, to provide all the amenities we would like our people to have, and which we hope some day they will be able to enjoy, cannot move any faster than our general economic progress makes possible. This is the elementary consideration which must guide all our policies and all our decisions.

We have indicated that we have been considering some form of general sales tax, purchase tax or turnover tax —some new tax arrangement of that kind. Deputy Sweetman described my announcement of this in Limerick a couple of weeks ago as a shock but the Dáil were informed that this matter was under consideration in April, 1961, in the White Paper from which Deputy Corish quoted and which he had obviously read but which Deputy Sweeetman does not appear to have heard of. It was discussed in the Budget Statement last year. We do not know yet whether such a new tax system would prove capable of being organised in time to help to solve this year's Budget problem. We have been considering this idea for some time past as a permanent improvement in the State's financial arrangements. It is one which most European countries have already made.

The advantage of such a new system of taxation is that it would give a wider and more secure tax base and greater assurance that rising national prosperity would be automatically reflected in higher Exchequer revenue. Our dependence upon tobacco, beer and spirits for the main inflow of indirect taxation involves a risk of revenue fluctuation not related to the country's economic circumstances and the possibility of serious contraction in revenue, due to unpredictable changes in public taste or demand. A turnover tax or sales tax which reflected in revenue the expansion of the volume of retail sales—which is a very reliable index of national prosperity and which in 1962 I may say, was seven per cent. higher than in 1961—would give a much more secure tax foundation. Once such a system of taxation was established, it would be certain to become a permanent feature of our taxation arrangements and might in time permit of more extensive reform of our taxes. It might even make possible at some future time the contemplation of an arrangement which would permit the stabilising of tax rates over a longer period, give an assurance to the taxpayer of no change in tax rates for some period of years instead of from one Budget to another.

Mr. Tully

That tax would mean the person with very little would have to pay the same as the man with plenty.

The Taoiseach

Surely not? Surely any fair system of taxation would involve contributions to the Exchequer by individuals according to their means? Might I point out that the burden of taxation in this country is relatively lighter than in most other European countries. The total of local government and central Government taxation expressed as a percentage of national product in 1961—that is the most recent year for which I have figures and I do not think there has been any substantial change since—in Ireland is 23 per cent. What the State takes plus local government rate charges amount to 23 per cent. of our national product. In Britain in that year, it was 26 per cent; in Belgium 24½ per cent.; in Italy, 29 per cent.; in the Netherlands, 29 per cent.; in France, 34 per cent.; and in Germany, 34 per cent.

It is true that in many of these countries the national product per head of the population is much higher than in Ireland which makes their relatively heavy tax burden more tolerable for them. I read last week in the Irish Independent a leading article which referred to some UNO publication which appeared to show a different picture from that which these figures give which I have quoted. I have had inquiries made in Dublin and New York and can find no reference to any such UNO publication in existence.

The Programme for Economic Expansion to which Deputy Corish referred envisaged the expansion of real national income at an average annual rate of two per cent. per annum. That is the target we set ourselves in preparing that programme and it represented doubling the rate of the national advance as it had been recorded in the previous ten years. As Deputies know, we have done a great deal better than that. Not merely have we achieved the two per cent. rate of growth envisaged but we have since averaged a four per cent. rate of growth. In terms of money values, and of course when we come to consider the Budget it is with money values we are concerned, the increase of national income has been very considerably higher still. We need to maintain the four per cent. rate of progress, the four per cent. increase in national income at constant values, in order to achieve the target we have set ourselves of a 50 per cent. increase in national income by 1970.

I accept that it is the responsibility of the Government so to manage and conduct the nation's affairs as to bring about that result. Some countries have, it is true, occasionally done better than a four per cent rate of increase. Deputy Sweetman quoted Sweden as aiming at a 50 per cent increase in their national income in the next five years. He must have misread some Swedish publication. I do not know how strong his knowledge of the Swedish language may be.

Mr. T. Lynch

He might have read it in the Irish Press.

The Taoiseach

OECD reported that the Swedish rate of increase in 1961 was 6.3 per cent and in 1962, 3.5 per cent, which was not better than ours and unless they can do a great deal better, they will have to limit themselves to the same target as we have set ourselves, even though Sweden on a per capita basis is the wealthiest country in the world and we certainly are not. In favourable circumstances, I think we could do better than a four per cent rate of growth which we are now achieving but we shall need a great deal of co-operation and co-ordination of effort between all the elements in our community.

Greater expansion requires investment. We cannot hope to bring about this expansion in national income or any expansion unless we can induce or in some other way bring about increased investment in production. In respect of the private sector, we can maintain a higher rate of investment only by attracting capital from outside to supplement our own resources. I think that view is now generally accepted. The very substantial inducements and facilities offered by the Government have produced a significant capital inflow which seems more likely to expand than to contract in this year, although it is not yet possible to say definitely how the situation which has developed in the European Economic Community may affect it in later years. There is certainly no sign of any deterioration in our prospects of continuing industrial expansion. New industrial proposals are coming along at a satisfactory rate.

Uncertainty about international trading conditions is always a handicap but the decisions which were taken here by the Government and which were clearly and promptly announced after the Brussels breakdown have helped to minimise this handicap and to reduce its effects upon our prospects, although I will not pretend that it is in our power to eliminate the element of uncertainty. There is, I am satisfied, no need for undue concern. Export possibilities are available to us for industrial products which are not fully exploited. The scope for expansion of industrial production for export still remains unlimited.

Public investment is being maintained at the highest level which is possible by reason of the present level of savings available for public purposes. The public capital programme has gone far beyond the target we set ourselves in the White Paper, the Programme for Economic Expansion. In the present financial year, the capital programme absorbed £67 million, of which £17¼ million was for building, including housing, hospitals and schools, £14¼ million for agriculture, £10¼ million for power and fuel, the ESB and Bord na Móna, and about £10 million for industrial development. This is a free enterprise society and my aim is to keep it so but it can be said that at no time in our history was there greater activity in public investment in industrial development than now.

I mention in that connection the new nitrogen fertiliser factory in Arklow, the new food processing factories that have been mentioned, the extensions of Irish Steel Limited and other projects of which Deputies are aware. The public investment outlay has proceeded far beyond the limits we thought feasible when drawing up the Programme for Economic Expansion. If the level of public investment in industrial development is to be maintained, then we must divert the capital resources available to the maximum extent to bona fide capital purposes. As we all know, and as those who have had experience in government are well aware, Governments have often been tempted to reduce difficult Budget problems by classifying as capital investment certain outlays of a recurrent character which should, on a more strict accounting principle, be charged against revenue. Whatever case could be made for that practice when available capital resources were not being fully utilised, we have now to recognise that if we extend that practice further, it could involve the curtailment of bona fide investment in productive activities on which the country's further development depends.

In our present situation, we have advantages and disadvantages. We have no problems about the availability of manpower and that is an important consideration. We have problems both in respect of certain skills and of productivity. A fully comprehensive plan which would meet all of the requirements of growth would provide for the removal of obstacles to the strengthening of our skilled labour force, for raising the level of skills in some instances, and for the most efficient and most economical utilisation of available resources of skill.

Our progress in every sector depends on the growth of exports and this requires the trimming down of costs at every point, in direct production, in distribution and in transport and power. Every cost which can affect the final price of the product must be eliminated. We cannot carry avoidable burdens into the competitive export trade. I do not think there is a necessity to seek to regulate private invesment in the industrial sector. The soundness of the industrial projects submitted to the Government for approval and support is still the only criterion applied in operating the industrial grants schemes although one could envisage circumstances in which some selectivity, or priority arrangement might be needed.

With regard to agriculture, there is no sense in refusing to face the fact that the breakdown in Brussels and the inevitable postponement of our expectation of becoming a member of the European Economic Community have obscured the road ahead. There have been indications, in statements by the British Prime Minister and other members of the British Government, that changes in British agricultural arrangements are being considered. It is likely that some changes will be made but not very soon. There is no indication as yet of the character of these changes and it may be quite some time before there is any indication of them.

Any development plan for agriculture must be long-term because of the character of this industry and could not be finally settled until longer term trading conditions are known. In the meantime, we are asking the Irish taxpayer to continue to support Irish agriculture to the extent of £36½ million in the present financial year. There is however no solution for the difficulties of agriculture by an extension of State subsidies, even if that course was financially practicable. We want an international situation in which trade in agricultural products will not be subsidised by any country. A small country like ours could have little to gain and everything to lose by embarking on a competition in subsidisation. Whether within EEC or GATT—or merely from an outbreak of common sense—we wish to see the powerful industrial countries dissuaded from continuing the high levels of their agricultural supports which countries like Ireland largely dependent on agriculture cannot possibly match.

We have been carrying out surveys of the main agricultural activities of this country in recent months and the reports of the survey teams have now become available. These surveys were, of course, related to our Common Market prospects and when they are being considered, that fact must be kept in mind but the recommendations contained in them, like those set out in the various CIO reports which have been published, will be valuable and applicable in most circumstances.

But we have discovered that there is this difference between the handling of the result of surveys in the agricultural sector and in the industrial sector, that whereas the CIO can take the information gathered by the survey teams and rather quickly prepare a series of recommendations based upon these facts and publish these recommendations in their reports, that does not seem to be possible in relation to agriculture. The various organisations and individuals represented upon the Agricultural Committee, the agricultural counterpart of the CIO, are not prepared to reach their conclusions and make their recommendations upon the elaborate reports available to them as promptly as all that and, therefore, we have decided that we should publish the reports of the surveys, at any rate the first report that is now available, dealing with the creamery industry, and publish it in advance of any consideration of recommendations by the Agricultural Committee or any policy decisions by the Government based upon such recommendations.

Mr. Tully

It bears no relation to the milk costings of a few years ago?

The Taoiseach

The Deputy will see this survey report. There is a very large number of recommendations relating to the creamery industry, some of considerable importance, some of considerable difficulty, others not so much so and capable, perhaps, of being adopted voluntarily without any further action on the part of the Government.

I think I should tell the House that, since I spoke here in the debate on the Adjournment which followed the breakdown in the negotiations at Brussels, while there is evidence of much discussion and activity at various levels and talk of alternative or temporary devices to end the deadlock, nothing very definite has yet resulted and at present opinion in Europe appears to be fairly general that early developments in this situation are improbable. Within the European Economic Community, we have already during the past week seen evidence of a mood which may for a time prevent decisions being taken upon further development of the Community, including, of course, applications for membership or for association, until Britain's position has been cleared up. I am sure it would be agreed that it would not be in our national interest that our application should become a shuttlecock in that contest.

There was recently a meeting of the Council of the European Free Trade Association and, according to reports, a decision to complete the elimination of industrial tariffs in respect of their mutual trade within three years. I said on the previous occasion to which I have referred that our attitude to EFTA, our decision that there was no advantage for us in membership of EFTA, might be modified if either it became a medium for negotiating a collective agreement between the Six and the Seven or was likely to be extended so as to embrace trade in agricultural products. Neither of these things seems likely now to happen. It is, of course, possible to conceive other circumstances in which membership of EFTA might be to our advantage but they have not yet appeared and may never do so.

Denmark is reported to be seeking some compensation in agricultural trade by means of bilateral agreements made with the other members of EFTA in the light of her acceptance of this decision to eliminate all her industrial tariffs within a period of three years. In our case, as Deputies know, Great Britain is the only one of the EFTA countries with which we have trade in agricultural products and our trade there is conducted under our bilateral agreements which give us the right of tariff-free entry to that market.

Certainly, nothing has happened in these recent weeks to cause us to change in any way the decisions which I then announced—first, to frame our policies on the assumption that membership of the European Economic Community will be achieved with the transitional period ending on January 1st, 1970, as we always assumed; secondly, to continue the process of tariff reduction which is in part consequential on that first decision and in part a necessary adjustment of our industrial policy to developing world circumstances; thirdly, to maintain and to speed up, if possible, all the measures of adaptation and reorganisation on which we have embarked, including both the aids and the inducements as well as the compulsions and, fourthly, to explore every export possibility which exists anywhere and to participate in any general tariff reduction which may be under negotiation affecting the countries with which we trade either under the auspices of GATT or otherwise, with particular interest in openings for agricultural trade.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

We are not yet in GATT, are we?

The Taoiseach

We are an applicant for membership, but action on our application has been suspended at our request for the time being. There is no decision which it is possible to make, no decision which is required, to define Government policy in the new circumstances or to help Irish producers to know where they stand, which has not been taken and announced and nobody has indicated any area of activity in which further decisions are possible or are required at this time.

I shall not attempt now to give a review of the state of the country's economy. The practice we initiated of preparing an economic survey and circulating it to Deputies before the Budget will be continued and they will have that information in their hands before the Budget debates take place. During 1962, however—we have to take note of the fact—the value of our exports was less by about £5.7 million than in the previous year, but, of course, it was very considerably higher than in any year before 1961. Our exports in 1962 were, in fact, £21½ million higher in value than in 1960. There was an exceptional jump in the value of our exports in 1961, due to some extent to temporary circumstances—an increase of £27½ million over 1960. This must be said, however, that the expansion in the volume of our exports in 1963 is not yet evident, although that could be attributable, perhaps, in some degree to the adverse weather circumstances which prevailed during the first two months. In 1962, imports also reached a very high level, being £12 million higher than they were in 1961. Of our imports, approximately 20 per cent. represent consumption goods ready for use and it is remarkable that over the years the percentage of our total imports which consumption goods represent has tended constantly to decline. Sixty-two per cent. of our total imports last year was represented by materials for industry and agriculture and some 13 per cent. capital equipment imported to facilitate new production.

The import excess in last year, £99.7 million, was not fully covered by other earnings. No final estimate of the deficit in international payments has been prepared except that of the Central Bank.

Mr. Dillon

The figure given by the Central Statistics Office was £100,072,000.

The Taoiseach

£99.7 million is the import excess for last year. During last year, unemployment averaged 5.7 per cent. This was the same as in 1961, although well below the previous averages.

There is a problem in giving the House certain information normally available at this time regarding employment based on the sale of insurance stamps, because it is not yet possible to calculate the extent to which increases of earnings among clerical workers took many of them outside the insurability limits.

Mr. Tully

That is a new one.

The Taoiseach

No. On the contrary; it has been a constant difficulty and has been often quoted by the Deputies opposite against the figures given when the insurability limits were raised. When they are raised again, I am sure that argument will be revived.

In regard to net emigration, I cannot yet give the 12 months' figures to the end of February, but all indications are that it was well below the previous year's level. That is a situation likely to persist. For the first time, in recent weeks the local offices of the Department of Social Welfare have been reporting some increases in registrations attributable to the return of workers from Great Britain. Our population in 1962 was 9,000 more than the preliminary census figure as published, but there is some suggestion that the preliminary census figure may have understated the population on the census night, so that we cannot yet come to any firm conclusions in relation to that statistic.

In 1962, the industrial production index moved up from 137.6 to 143.8. That was an increase of 4.6 per cent. The index of wage rates moved from 145 to 160, an increase of ten per cent. In the December quarter, the number of persons employed in industry was 4,600 more than in the December quarter of the previous year. I may mention as a matter of interest, having a bearing on a recent debate here, that the wage and output figures for the final quarter of last year, which were not available when the White Paper Closing the Gap was being prepared, show some improvement in productivity.

Mr. Corish

I assume then the White Paper will be withdrawn?

The Taoiseach

No, it will not. While money wages had increased in that quarter by 7.6 per cent., over the same quarter of the previous year, output increased only by 3.4 per cent. There was still a considerable gap, even though it was not quite as wide as in the previous three quarters of the year.

We have, I think, made available to Deputies in this Dáil far more information about the national circumstances than was ever previously available to members of the Oireachtas. We have also, I think, succeeded in giving to the House and to members of the public more knowledge of the Government's intentions, plans and thinking than was formerly the practice. But I want to say that the Government have not attempted, and I hope never will attempt, to distort the facts of economic life in their presentation to the public. We have made it clear, I hope, that we will not hesitate to speak out when action detrimental to the nation's interest is possible, and when it is our duty to speak. Whether that is good party politics or not, I do not know, and I do not care. Time will show. We have not avoided our responsibilities or sought to gain momentary popularity by dodging any issue. We have not asked any others to share our responsibilities or to lighten the burden of our responsibilities. We believe in government by the elected representatives of the public, not by any committees or councils not responsible to the public.

Mr. McQuillan

It is the people who have to pay for the mistakes you make.

The Taoiseach

It is they who will have the final choice and decision in the matter. I have already expressed my confidence that the Irish people are developing in political maturity. I believe that they now not merely expect to receive the unvarnished truth about national circumstances but expect to be trusted to deal with it objectively and realistically. I have said that I am staking the life of this Government on that conviction.

Mr. A. Barry

Will you accept the by-election test?

The Taoiseach

It would be no gamble. When are you going to have the by-election?

Mr. Dillon

Decency suggests that the dead should be allowed to rest.

The Taoiseach

Then do not be talking about it.

Mr. Dillon

The first available day after the customary month has elapsed.

(Interruptions.)

The Taoiseach

I am not going to be lectured on decency by Deputy Dillon.

Mr. Dillon

Something that Fianna Fáil are not given to is waiting.

The Taoiseach

Then tell your back benchers to keep it out of the debate. The impertinence of Deputy Dillon trying to teach decency to anybody.

Mr. Dillon

Do not lose your temper.

The Taoiseach

Why should I not! It would make a cast-iron dog lose his temper.

Mr. Dillon

You have sufficient difficulties without losing your temper.

The Taoiseach

I was trying to stop the Deputy lecturing me on decency. I was about to conclude by expressing my conviction that it is good democratic practice—and I believe it will prove to be good party politics—to trust the public with the facts, to give them all the knowledge available regarding national circumstances, all the information it is possible to give them regarding the Government's plans, decisions and thinking. That is what we are doing. We will stake the life of the Government at any time on that conviction. I have also said I do not think it is going to be a question of a gamble. On that basis, the responsible democracy of this country will some day be asked to give their verdict on the administration of this Government. That verdict will be a favourable one.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

The speech just made by the head of the Government was from beginning to end the speech of a leader of a Party in Government with his back to the wall trying to defend his Party, trying to defend his Book of Estimates and the taxes he has imposed on the people or is likely to impose as a result of what we see in these Estimates. The Taoiseach started off on a long speech lasting over an hour. In the first instance, he tried to prove that all the services being charged in this year were essential services and he tried to prove that no extra charges were imposed on the people other than remuneration to officials, social services, agriculture and education.

No doubt, the Fianna Fáil Deputies, who have now gone out, applauded the Taoiseach when he went on to make it crystal clear that the majority of the people concerned in agriculture, that is, the milk producers—this applies to every type of farmer, whether he has a small, medium or large farm or whether he is in the West, Munster or Leinster—that wherever he is he can expect nothing from the Fianna Fáil Government in regard to increased remuneration for his milk. I have no doubt that that was the cause of the applause that ran around the benches of Fianna Fáil.

I am satisfied, too, from the speech of the Taoiseach that this Government, as I have said before, is a Dublin-minded Government, that it has no interest anywhere except the city of Dublin. That is only natural from the fact that practically every Minister in that Government lives in Dublin and is totally out of touch with conditions in rural Ireland. If I ever had any doubt of that, having listened to the head of the present Government for an hour and ten minutes, I would be certain of it now.

Let us not cod ourselves any longer. What is happening in this country is that emigration is going on just the same as it ever went on. It is all right for the Taoiseach to say that emigration is going down. Unfortunately he has no facts or figures to prove it. Emigration is increasing and every rural Deputy, no matter from what part of the country he comes, and no matter to which Party he belongs, knows that. We know perfectly well that the de-population of rural Ireland which started with the coming in of this Government with their huge overall majority seven years ago, and who had five years to do something about it, is still going on unchecked. The Taoiseach tells us today that the population has increased by 9,000 according to the latest figures available. Where he got his figures I do not know, nor does any other Deputy, because he did not tell us. I would make a rough guess that probably the 9,000—if it is a true figure—is probably due to the fact that all building operations have been suspended in the United Kingdom where the greater part of our emigrants have been employed. It is more than likely that they have returned to Ireland temporarily, and if they have returned here, I see very little opportunity for them to get employment as long as this Government are in power, judging from the unemployment figures which have been gradually increasing over the past month.

One thing about the Taoiseach is that he did not try to paint a rosy picture. That does not mean that he may not go out tonight and perhaps dine and wine with some chamber of commerce, or some society or organisation, and paint a glorious, rosy picture.

He denied emigration and I have dealt with that. He may be right and I may be wrong, but he has given us no facts or figures to prove it and he is a member of the Government and I am not. Unemployment has dropped by a few thousand but it has been running at the rate of 70,000 which is as high as it has been over the past four or five years. There is an imbalance of trade and imports are going up continually. We have always been told by the Fianna Fáil Government that whenever our imports go up, it is due to the fact that we are importing goods from which we are going to manufacture and going to increase our exports and balance our trade generally. If these imports, as stated by many members of the Government in different parts of the country as well as in this House from time to time, are being brought in, in order to produce finished material, how is it that our balance of trade is in the extremely parlous and dangerous condition in which it is to-day?

No wonder the Taoiseach made a fighting, defensive speech. He tried to defend every action of the Government. There is no indication in this Book of Estimates or in the outline of policy presented for the next twelve months, of any change in existing policy. Are we to hope from that that what the Taoiseach says in regard to the increase in our economy of four per cent, is going to produce for us the necessary condition of affairs so that we can balance our trade, keep our people at home and utilise the available manpower to which he referred? We are the only country in Western Europe to-day that has this excessive manpower which is unable to utilise it for the expansion of our own economy, such as other countries are doing.

To return to the Taoiseach's four per cent, it is probably the lowest increase in the western countries of Europe. Some reference was made by the Taoiseach to Sweden. The aim of the OECD, the successor of the OEEC, was to have a rate increase of expansion of production of 50 per cent in all the countries by 1970. Assuming that the figures given by the Taoiseach are correct and we have a four per cent increase in our income over each year—I very much doubt that that is the case but even accepting it—then between now and 1970, with about six or seven years to go, we cannot hope to reach the rate of expansion of these other countries. That in itself must give cause for serious consideration.

What we have to try to evaluate in this House is where exactly we are going. Are we going to come in each year producing a Book of Estimates which is higher than that of the year before? Is the Head of the Government going to come into this House and challenge the Opposition as if we were the people charged with the responsibility of running the country, and ask us to say what reductions we would propose?

Deputy Sweetman, in a very reasonable speech for this Party, said that there was an increase within the Estimates of 500 civil servants and he was challenged by the Taoiseach that he did not specify any particular reduction that should be made. It is not for the Opposition to try to show where reductions should be made; it is for us to try to see that the money is utilised to the best advantage. We have not got at our disposal the inside information which the Government have. We have very little information as to the exact claims that have been made on the Government for extra expenditure. We have no information from the Government about any advice they may have been given, with regard to a reduction of expenditure, by their expert advisers.

Therefore, I think that the speech made by the Taoiseach as Head of the Government was probably the weakest speech ever made in this House. He was trying to throw responsibility across the floor of the House, whereas he is charged with the direct responsibility. When an intervention came from the benches on my right, he became most indignant and said that they were the Government and they were charged with responsibility and he was determined to discharge his responsibility. Are we unreasonable as an Opposition when we ask him to live up to that responsibility and produce some hope for the future of our people? In every country in the world, even in countries that are not mainly dependent on agriculture as we are, the people are faced with the very serious problem that mechanisation has varied the amount of employment which is available within the rural areas.

We are members of the United Nations, of the Council of Europe and of OEEC and at all these organisations, there has been fully and freely discussed and promulgated a suggested policy for all member countries as a means of halting and arresting this disastrous outflow from rural areas. It is a problem which every country has to face. I do not see anything in this Book of Estimates which is related to any attempt to halt the flow from the rural areas. It may well be said that there is an increased provision for the agricultural grant. Now, if there is to be unemployment in the rural areas, less employment actually within the agricultural sector, two things seem essential to me. First of all —and this is the policy of the organisations to which I have just referred— we must try to start some form of rural industries in the particular areas so that those who may be leaving employment in agriculture can be deflected into alternative employment in the same area. I see nothing in the Book of Estimates to deal with that. I see no suggestion of any change in policy whatsoever in the speeches from the Head of the Government. The policy they have adumbrated is exactly the same as the policy pursued heretofore. What can we expect? All we can expect, if the present administration stay where they are, is a bigger bill next year. All we can expect is an augmentation of all the evils that exist today. All we can expect is a continuation of the flight from every rural constituency in the country. There is no sign that it will be halted, no sign that it will be checked. There is no sign that it will be changed in any direction. All we can expect is a continuation of the policy of pouring such money as there is into the city of Dublin, with all the attendant inflationary troubles that creates.

It has been argued by some speakers in the Fianna Fáil Party that things are better in the city of Dublin because of the vast expenditure of money there. If there is a vast expenditure, it is due to inflation, to inflationary wages, to more wages being paid here to spend, without an adequate set-off in exports to achieve a proper balance of payments. That is something that may go on for a short time. That is something that may bring in more revenue for a time and give an appearance of more buoyancy in the Budget. Sooner or later, however, that situation, when there is no sound balance of trade, is bound to come to an end, and this country will eventually head for disaster unless the Government introduce some new policy to cope with the situation.

I shall probably be criticised by subsequent speakers on the Fianna Fáil benches and told that we should produce the policy. As the Leader of this Party, Deputy Dillon, has so very often said, we have produced policies, policies which have helped the Fianna Fáil Party because, no sooner do we produce a policy, than they adopt it. I should like to assure the House that if the Government give us a chance of producing a policy and testing the opinion of the people—they will be courageous men if they test the feeling of the people with a £100 million, or £99.7 millions to give the exact figure, imbalance in trade, without decreasing imports, with falling exports—we shall have no hesitation, for the Taoiseach's policy is in ruins around his shoulders, he having envisaged himself marching into the Common Market, the panacea for all our ills. It was thought that in the Common Market we would experience an inflow of industry here. Let us be kindly: perhaps the Taoiseach was misinformed, but his policy is now in ruins and I do not see in this Book of Estimates, or in anything the Taoiseach has said, any real help, or hope, for the future of the country so long as the Fianna Fáil administration remains the Government of this country.

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

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. O'Malley)

Unfortunately I was not present for the whole of Deputy Esmonde's speech but I would urge him to hasten quickly to the Editorial Section and examine carefully the last few paragraphs in which he suggested that inflationary wages are in operation in the city of Dublin. In my opinion, that is a most valuable statement coming from a leading member of the Fine Gael Party.

The Deputy's anxiety to test the opinion of the people will be allayed in the next few weeks when the Fine Gael Party move the writ for the by-election in Dublin. Deputy Esmonde and other members of the Fine Gael Party will, no doubt, afford themselves this opportunity. Personally, I have no doubt about the outcome of this contest and perhaps Deputy Esmonde will not be quite complacent when the result is announced.

Deputy Dillon, the Leader of the main Opposition Party, has, I regret to say, been indulging in blatant political propaganda of a nature which will not do his Party, in my opinion, any good. Over and over again in his last three or four speeches, he has harped on the fact that the excess of our imports over our exports is £100 million. He makes no reference to the balance of payments. He also suggests that one of the contributory factors to this position is the purchase of land by aliens. Now that statement is dishonest in the extreme. It has been shown here by the Minister for Lands, in replies to Parliamentary Questions and in speeches in this House, that the purchase of land by aliens is infinitesimal. To attempt to equate an excess of £100 million with the purchase of land by aliens is stretching the credulity of the Irish people a little too far.

Deputy Sweetman has waxed eloquent about the balance of payments crisis and I should like to recap. Do the members of this House, particularly the new members, realise, when we took over office from the then Coalition Government in 1957, what the balance of payments position was? I should have prefaced my remarks by saying that the balance of payments deficit, so to speak, this year should be between £12 million and £13 million. In 1951, the then Coalition left us with a balance of payments problem of the order of £61.6 million. We came back to power then and when we were put out of office in 1954, the balance of payments position was normal, a deficit of £5½ million. During the period 1954-1957, this was the situation: in 1955, £35.5 million; in 1956, £14.4 million. The difference between the Fine Gael Party and this Government is that if and when we see the trend and the danger signal to the economic stability of the country we immediately tell the Irish people what that position is and to the best of our ability, take the necessary steps to bring the situation back in balance.

Still referring to the audacity of Deputy Dillon let me remind the House that when we took office in 1957, the unemployment figure was 92,000, the highest in the history of this State. Emigration was also unprecedented in 1957. Now Deputy Dillon, on the one hand, tells us that the economic situation was never worse, and Deputy Sweetman, his financial expert, on the other hand, tells us that the measures which the Government have in mind are not necessary. It would be a good thing for the members of the Fine Gael Party and the country generally if their two leaders got together and decided whether things are good, not so good or very bad.

In regard to the balance of payments crisis, our main objection at that time was that the danger signal was not heeded soon enough and that when the deficit of £35.5 million became apparent in 1955, no measures were taken, with the result that in March, 1956, the then Minister for Finance came into this House on the Vote on Account and introduced his third Budget within 12 months. He used the Vote on Account to announce to the public that due to the economic crisis which had become apparent to him, but which to everyone in the country had been apparent for years before that, he proposed to introduce these levies on 68 different commodities.

I had intended to recall to the House some of the remarks made by Deputy Sweetman on that occasion, but, as you so rightly pointed out to me on several occasions, Sir, quotations at length are not desirable or necessary in the House. With that I agree, but I should like also to remind Deputy O'Sullivan that when the levies were introduced, we in the Fianna Fáil Party pointed out that we had no objection per se to the levies but that we believed that had financial measures been taken in time, no levies would be necessary and the crisis which arose need never have arisen.

I am still on the point of the audacity of Deputy Dillon in criticising the Fianna Fáil Party for the present not unusual position, not a position which is critical. The Taoiseach has informed the Irish people that a certain position obtains, that if action is not taken now to control it, the consequences could be serious. In the past few weeks, Deputy O'Sullivan has bemoaned the plight of the farmer. I think it has been suggested by various speakers on the Fine Gael side of the House that the Irish farmer was never in such a plight as at the present time under this appalling Fianna Fáil Government.

Strangely enough, I happen to represent a country area as well as a city area and have a fair knowledge of farming, particularly dairying. Deputy O'Sullivan, the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, is quite an expert on this and I have listened with the greatest of interest to his valuable contributions from time to time. However, would the former Parliamentary Secretary listen to my contribution and compare the appalling plight of the Irish farmer which he suggests exists now with what it was when his Government, the Coalition of 1956, were in office?

Mr. T. Lynch

Do not talk to me about dairy farmers, please.

Mr. O'Malley

We shall be factual. We shall talk about store cattle.

Mr. T. Lynch

Ten-shilling calves.

Mr. O'Malley

I admit Deputy Lynch has an intimate knowledge of store cattle—I am not being smart— from experience over a number of years. In 1956, the average price per head of store cattle from one to two years was £29 13s. What is the average price under the present Government? It is £39 per head. These figures are not from the official Fianna Fáil organ, though I often wonder what is the official Fianna Fáil organ.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Parliamentary Secretary is not alone in wondering that.

Mr. O'Malley

These figures are from the Irish Trade Journal and Statistical Bulletin which indicates that, in 1956, store cattle averaged £29 13s. a head and in 1962, £39 a head. As regards fat cattle, the figure was £41 8s. 6d. per head under Deputy Dillon as Minister for Agriculture. They are now £60 a head.

Mr. T. Lynch

It must have been the Minister for External Affairs who sold them for him.

Mr. Lenihan

That is the record.

Mr. O'Malley

The record of this House.

Mr. O'Sullivan

"Thank God, it is gone and gone forever."

Mr. O'Malley

I know these facts and figures are unpalatable and instead of Deputy Dillon criticising the Minister for Agriculture, he should have given praise where praise is due. Fat sheep—£6 18s. 3d. in 1956. What is the average price for 1962? Another increase. Bacon, creamery butter—all headings of agriculture have vastly increased since 1956. That should be brought home in no uncertain manner.

There is one little thing I happen to know something about, if I am not an expert on this matter of farming, and that is the question of the building industry—housing and schools. If Deputy T. Lynch and Deputy O'Sullivan look up the Statistical Abstract they will see the number of local authority houses built in 1956 and the number built today. We are building fewer local authority houses than the Coalition did in 1956. From that one would get the opinion, in fact, that the tempo of building is less now than under the days of the Coalition. The position, of course, is this, as the Minister for Local Government pointed out recently in this House. For every one local authority house built now, private enterprise is building five.

Mr. T. Lynch

Question.

Mr. O'Malley

They are availing of loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts, the State grant and the supplementary grant.

Mr. S. Flanagan

There was no building paid for in 1956.

Mr. T. Lynch

I will make a bet on it with the Deputy.

Mr. S. Flanagan

Even your own Party are ashamed of you for the way you went on about it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary should be given a chance to speak.

Mr. O'Sullivan

He is doing fine.

Mr. Davern

Deputies opposite should behave themselves.

Mr. O'Malley

The total number of houses built by local authorities, by private enterprise, as well as houses reconstructed, repaired and improved, this year exceeds the total under all these headings during any of the Coalition years. Everyone knows that, at present, one of the greatest difficulties in the building trade is to obtain skilled tradesmen. That problem, as the House is aware, is being tackled vigorously and the Government, to the best of their ability, are facing up to the problem and are taking what I hope will be measures which will put matters on an even keel.

The building industry is in an appalling plight. That sounds a peculiar statement but I think it is a fact. There is no co-ordination. There is no planning ahead. We do not know, with accuracy, the real number of skilled trades under the different categories. We do not know, with certainty, what proposals the local authority and private enterprise itself have for, say, a five to ten year period.

After agriculture, the most important industry in this State is the building industry. If there is a slump in building, the chain reaction that that slump sets off is felt by the entire economy of the State. Therefore, this Government have always attempted—I think with a considerable amount of success—to see that the building industry is put on its feet and, having been put on its feet, is kept on an even keel. The proposals of which we are aware show that it is a vital necessity to re-assess the position with regard to the entire building industry; to make some revolutionary changes whereby an increased number of young men will come into the appropriate trades and whereby there will not be, as I said before, a sudden slump after a boom. It augurs well for the economy of the country that this is the position and, in the foreseeable future, I see no indication of a slump. But, as I said, the industry is in a serious position from the point of view of lack of organisation. It is the duty of the Government to set a headline in that respect.

Talking about setting a headline, I think it is blatantly dishonest, too, to suggest that the Government, in this Book of Estimates, should have given an example when they asked the worker and the companies to show some restraint. That goes down well, no doubt, to the uninitiated. To the person who would not know much about a Book of Estimates, perhaps it would sound completely logical. Yet, the answer in the main to the increases in the Estimates for Public Services is increased subventions, grants or payments, particularly to agriculture.

I should have pointed out, too, when referring to that very critical year of 1956, that when Deputy Sweetman, the then Minister for Finance, introduced his Vote on Account that year it was the third Budget within twelve months. We had the first one in May 1955. Then we had the increases in the Autumn of that year on tea prices, as Deputy O'Sullivan recalls, and then, of course, we had the levies and the hire purchase restrictions and the appalling plight of young people getting married, when the hire purchase restrictions were imposed. Having found the deposit for a house, they then had not the wherewithal to pay the statutory deposit for the furniture and other things they needed.

With regard to those levies which, of course, will become very topical in the next few weeks, it should be noted that the alleged purpose of the then Minister for Finance was to cut the imports—by imposing a levy on 68 items —by £7 million. That was the position at that time and Deputy Aiken, replying, pointed out then that without the imposition of the levies, the same purpose could in fact be achieved by further encouragement of home production. No one denied that at the time and Deputy Dillon, the Minister for Agriculture then, did not refer to it subsequently. I am still on the subject of the blatant dishonesty of the Fine Gael Party and endeavouring to point out to the young voters coming on the register, to the young people of the country, that this is no new trick of Fine Gael. I remember, and all other Deputies remember, when Deputy McGilligan went on the wireless and promised that if he were Minister for Finance, he would cut Fianna Fáil's unjust taxation by £10 million in ten minutes. Not only did they not cut taxation but after two years in office, they had increased it by £20 million.

Mr. T. Lynch

When was that, the Lord save us?

Mr. O'Malley

Our attitude then, as it is now, was that the solution, which should be the aim of all Governments, was to produce at home, as far as possible, those articles we have been importing. That would create new jobs here and eventually succeed in giving increased employment. That has been the policy of successive Fianna Fáil Governments down through the years. My colleague, Deputy O'Donnell for East Limerick, will be interested in the number of cattle in the country today as compared with 1956.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

Survivors.

Mr. O'Malley

He should also be interested in the comparative figures for sheep and pigs, all of which show a vast increase on the numbers for 1956. What then is the criticism of this Government's policy in regard to agriculture? The only fair conclusion one can come to, taking cognisance of all relevant data, is that Fianna Fáil have treated the agricultural community as fairly as they found it possible to do. We have not done everything we would wish to do because it was not possible but we did, and we are continuing to do so, treat the agricultural community with fairness and consideration. Our achievement since 1957 is no mean one. The Minister for Agriculture can say that our policy has succeeded in increasing the cattle population from 4,000,000 in 1956 to 5,000,000 now, that sheep have gone up from 3,400,000 to 4,300,000, that pigs, which numbered 747,000 in 1956, have gone up to 951,000—that is the latest available figure and it is for 1960. I am sure there has been continued improvement in the three years since.

I have not heard any member of the Opposition so far object to any item in this Book of Estimates. Do they object to the increase in the amount for the Office of the Minister for Education from £367,000 in 1956 to its present figure of £894,000? Let us be clear and straight about it. If they object to the Book of Estimates, to capital expenditure reaching these heights, let them say so. Let them say: "We object to the figure; we object to the amount of money; we would cut it and this is what we would cut it by". Do they object to the increase from £300,000 to £800,000 in the figure for the Office for the Minister for Education as between 1956 and 1963? Do they object to the agricultural grant going up from £4,600,000 to over £8 million? Is there an objection to the sum for primary education which has gone up from their day from £9 million to the present £12 million? Do they disagree with the figure for secondary education which has been increased by us by £2 million?

Do they object when we increase the figure for vocational education by £1 million? Is the Minister for Lands not to spend on his Department an extra £1 million? In respect of forestry, is he not to go from £1,600,000 to £3,100,000? Is it wrong? The 64,000 dollar question for Deputy Donegan, the shadow Minister for Agriculture of the Fine Gael Party——

Mr. Corry

The dirty milk.

Mr. Donegan

It is cleaner than yours. Come and look at my cows.

Mr. O'Malley

Do they object to the size of the total proposed expenditure? Does Deputy Donegan, particularly, object to the Estimate for Agriculture going up from £7,900,000 in his time to £24 million? It is now £24 million spent from agricultural grants and they say we have done nothing for the farmers.

Of course, one of the greatest employers in the State is the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. That has been agreed by different Governments. Different Ministers for Posts and Telegraphs did their best to encourage employment in that very important Department, no matter what Government were in power. It is a source of employment for our young people and for getting our young men trained in different trades. Is there any objection to increasing the Estimate for that Department from £8½ million to £13½ million?

I wonder are we wrong in increasing the social welfare benefits and insurance from £18 million to £20 million? I am not talking about the social insurance aspect but the social assistance part. Are we wrong again, in increasing the Health Vote from £8½ million to £11 million?

Mr. Barrett

It depends on what you are spending it on.

Mr. O'Malley

As Deputy Barrett is aware, we are spending it on attempts, possibly not entirely successful——

Mr. Donegan

You can say that again.

Mr. O'Malley

——to see that no one in this State will lack the best medical attention possible.

Mr. Barrett

You would like to spend it on things like regional hospitals for £2 million which are not necessary.

Mr. O'Malley

That is the first concrete criticism I have got on all the matters I have read out. I admire Deputy Barrett for the interjection. He may have a point. I do not agree with everything that is said over here at times. I do not have to. If Deputy Barrett feels that the increase of these millions of pounds which is now asked for on the Health Vote is excessive for any reason—it can be gone into in more detail during the debate on the Health Estimate—there is nothing to prevent him or his Party putting down a motion here that Vote No. whatever it is should be reduced accordingly.

Mr. Donegan

We did it and it was sent to a Select Committee of the House. The Parliamentary Secretary and I are members of that Committee.

Mr. O'Malley

We are talking about two entirely different matters. I am pointing out that if any Deputy objects to an increase—and particularly to an increase in capital expenditure—he can put down a motion. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say to the Irish people: "This is desperate—£167 million; the like of it was never heard before"——

Mr. Barrett

That is true.

Mr. O'Malley

Of course it is true. There it is in black and white.

Mr. Barrett

I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary is it not true?

Mr. O'Malley

It is completely, absolutely, positively true, and we are very proud of the fact that it is £167 million and we are very proud of the fact that the amount of capital expenditure by this Government has never been exceeded by any other Government. We have not got any objection from any speaker on the Fine Gael side of the House, except Deputy Barrett, on this matter.

Mr. Barrett

May be all Deputies do not take the Parliamentary Secretary as seriously as I do.

Mr. O'Malley

That may well be, but nevertheless I think it is reasonable to ask Deputies on the opposite side if they object to what is down here in black and white, and what I have read out in detail? Do they object to these increased benefits which are asked for, for the farmers, and if they do, would they kindly point out under what heading they object and no doubt the Government will consider it. If they want us to cut down the amount asked for, for housing, if they want us to cut down the amount asked for, for forestry and agricultural grants, I am sure that would be considered, too.

Mr. T. Lynch

Just the same as cutting down the judges' salaries was considered.

Mr. O'Malley

The acoustics have not yet been sufficiently improved by the Office of Public Works but if Deputy O'Sullivan would take his hand down from his mouth and say to me what I heard him say to Deputy Lynch about the judges' salaries, that would be all right.

Mr. Donegan

The money spent was badly spent. You are the man who spent it.

Mr. O'Malley

On what?

Mr. Donegan

The Parliamentary Secretary is in charge of the Office of Public Works and if the acoustics are bad, he spent the money badly.

Mr. Treacy

We are getting microphones.

Mr. O'Malley

Does the Deputy realise——

Mr. T. Lynch

We are keeping the Parliamentary Secretary going.

Mr. O'Malley

——that there are no acoustics whatsoever in this House?

Mr. O'Sullivan

What are the panels for?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. O'Malley

Does the Deputy appreciate that no system of acoustics has yet been introduced?

Mr. Donegan

There are acoustics present.

Mr. O'Malley

Acoustics present?

Mr. Donegan

There are acoustics everywhere. If the Parliamentary Secretary goes to the new Oxford Dictionary, he will find that out.

Mr. O'Malley

If Deputy "Little Sir Echo" will bear with me, I will conclude on the criticism of my own Office. We had a plan for loudspeakers, microphones and an acoustics system, but the Deputy should ask his colleague, Deputy Sweetman, who knocked that.

Mr. Donegan

It might have been more money badly spent.

Mr. O'Malley

If Deputy Donegan is as sound on agriculture as he is on the Office of Public Works, God help Ireland if Fine Gael ever get into power. The Deputy should get his facts right. Speaking generally, I have been in this House since 1954, and I welcome the new type Opposition which now exists. The Labour Party were honestly never happy with the alliance with Fine Gael. Deputy Norton knew to his cost, when they refused to allow him to bring in his Social Welfare Bill, and Deputy Corish knew to his cost what an unhappy alliance it was, when he was refused certain submissions which he made to the then Coalition Government. As I say, there appears to be a happier air, a more definite air, about the Opposition at the present time.

Mr. Barrett

An Opposition would be bound to be happy at the present moment.

Mr. O'Malley

Perhaps.

Mr. Crotty

Is everyone not united against you?

Mr. O'Malley

Is it possible that Fine Gael, in their wisdom, expect that the Labour Party will again join with them for a third disastrous period, or do they appreciate that they are on their own now and can never again hope to have a grand alliance?

In the last election, I got 90 per cent. of my support from trade unionists, from workers. Deputy T. O'Donnell will bear that out. He gets 90 per cent. of his vote from the farming community and very ably he represents them. Every Government need a healthy constructive Opposition. That we have not found in this House under the present regime. We hope that we will educate the main Opposition Party to face up to its responsibilities and its duties, but I say that the tenor is changing and becoming more defined with the type of Opposition we have to face. The trend was seen in the last general election, where in certain circumstances our candidates were eliminated in certain constituencies but the tendency is coming back whereby in admiration by the working man for the Taoiseach, transfers of the Labour No. 2s when the Labour Party went out came to our Party. That is a trend which shows one thing manifestly, that they are fed up with Fine Gael and appreciate that Fine Gael will never do anything for the worker and they, to give them their due, are accepting responsibility completely our of proportion to their numbers. I consider that some of the most constructive criticisms and indeed quite constructive suggestions we have received from time to time have come not from the chief Opposition party but, strangely enough, from a minority group, the Labour party.

Of course I would say to the Labour Party in passing that I am always wondering why their own officials, some of whom are my personal friends, have to work a 70 hour week. This is one of those things where they should practise what they preach.

Mr. O'Sullivan

This lecture is very interesting but I wonder is it relevant?

Mr. O'Malley

The truth is never welcome.

Mr. T. Lynch

If I were saying it, I would be ruled out of order.

Mr. O'Sullivan

It is very interesting.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Would you preserve that monument up there?

Mr. O'Malley

Which monument?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Deputy Corry.

Mr. Corry

The dirty farmer and dirty milk——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary must be allowed to speak.

Mr. Corry

Dirty milk——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corry might allow his colleague to continue.

Mr. O'Malley

I should like to draw attention to this question of social welfare, and to put it on record that no matter how a country progresses economically, our first responsibility is to the less well off members of the community. I would classify the priorities in the economic field as, firstly, the reduction of the slums both in housing and schools. Mind you, the back of both problems has not been broken by any means. Having listed these two matters—let me call them social necessaries—I would then say that we should never at any stage when an economic leap forward takes place fail to support that section of the community which through no fault of its own is less well off.

Mr. O'Sullivan

You might make a start in your own city. It is a disgrace to any civilised nation.

Mr. O'Malley

What are you talking about?

Mr. O'Sullivan

The slums of Limerick, which are a disgrace.

Mr. Barrett

And the slums in Cork and the slums in Dublin.

Mr. O'Sullivan

They are a disgrace after 35 years of your Administration.

Mr. O'Malley

Maybe I agree with Deputy O'Sullivan?

Mr. T. O'Donnell

What happened about the building programme in Limerick?

Mr. O'Malley

If Deputy O'Donnell is listening to me, I hope he will let me tell him.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Neither details of the housing nor of the schools programme can be relevant to the discussion at the moment.

Mr. Barrett

It is the Parliamentary Secretary who raised it, not we. If he wants to have it, I think we are quite entitled to have it.

Mr. O'Malley

I was talking about general housing policy, general schools policy and general social policy. I should know better than anybody else the position in Limerick, and I do know better than anybody else how bad the slums there are. They are very bad. They are so bad that I as Parliamentary Secretary had to make a statement 12 weeks ago in the local papers on how bad they were to try to get the local authority to come to its senses and get on with the job.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

Is it the fault of Limerick Corporation?

Mr. O'Malley

I would suggest that it is the fault of not only the City Council—and I think every member is genuine in trying to clear out the slums—but of the Corporation, which includes the City Council, the officials and the general overall picture. I would point out how the Minister for Local Government, before he went to America made a criticism of two cities and suggested that they would be well occupied in clearing their slum problem. Limerick was one of them. I agree thoroughly with him. I was Mayor of Limerick and I know what I am talking about, because as a public representative every Saturday of my life, I get over 100 people in and the main topic is housing. I admit that it is not cured. That is what I have said here, that the priorities of this Government are housing and schools and that the back of those problems has not been broken.

Mr. Barrett

Do you not know as well as I know that there were more houses built in Limerick, Cork and Dublin during the inter-Party Government period than were ever built during your Government's period? I challenge you on that and I will give you the figures if I am allowed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps we will have it on the Estimates.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

From 1961 to 1962, not a single house was built in Limerick.

Mr. O'Malley

The main position is not how many houses were built this year or that year in Limerick or Cork or anywhere else. The position is that there are in the Local Loans Fund sufficient funds to cure the housing needs of Cork and Limerick combined. The money is there now and it is not being utilised. The difference between us is that you had not the money. Your National Loan failed. The banks would not give you the money.

Mr. Barrett

How about your last National Loan?

Mr. O'Malley

The local authorities could not get funds from the Local Loans Fund, on the admission of the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Sweetman.

Mr. Barrett

That is not true.

Mr. O'Malley

He had to admit that the country was going through a financial crisis.

Mr. Barrett

The Local Loans Fund was made available by Deputy Sweetman to Cork Corporation and it was never made available by your Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would Deputies permit the Parliamentary Secretary to make his speech?

Mr. Barrett

If he sticks to facts, yes.

Mr. O'Malley

I will stick to facts. Cork Corporation was allowed access to the Local Loans Fund for the first time under the Coalition Government at their own request—at the request of the Cork Corporation. They borrowed up to then from the public. They did not get the money from the public and had to come to the Local Loans Fund. The position in Cork, the position in Dublin——

Mr. T. Lynch

The position in Limerick.

Mr. O'Malley

The position in Limerick was exactly the same. All types of housing were brought to a finish.

Mr. Barrett

On a point of order, it is incorrect for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that all kinds of housing in Cork were brought to a finish.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Barrett

It is a point of fact.

Mr. Corry

It is a fact that no contractor could be paid there.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Go back and twiddle with your buttons.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would point out to Deputies that if they do not want to listen to the Parliamentary Secretary, they have a remedy. Otherwise, the Chair will have to take action.

Mr. T. Lynch

I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that all this could be dealt with on the Estimate.

Mr. O'Sullivan

We did not object when the Parliamentary Secretary was speaking relevantly.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

Mr. O'Sullivan

It is a point of fact.

Mr. Dolan

On the other side, they are not interested in fact.

Mr. T. Lynch

I hope you have your golf clubs with you.

Mr. O'Malley

The point I was making when Deputy Barrett interrupted me was in relation to social welfare and the Government's anxiety that priorities be preserved—as was always the policy of this Government —for housing, schools and social welfare benefits. Deputy O'Sullivan can correct me if I am wrong when I tell him something I should like to get on the record of the House. Would I be in order in giving the history of social welfare benefits and assistance down through the years?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary would be entitled to refer to the point generally.

Mr. O'Malley

I will give you a resumé of the position. Between 1922 and 1932, according to a little note which I prepared——

Mr. Donegan

That gets rid of another two minutes.

Mr. O'Malley

The Cumann na nGaedheal Government were in office then——

Mr. O'Sullivan

Building bridges.

Mr. O'Malley

No attempt was made —Deputy Sherwin will bear me out as well as any other Deputy who remembers those years—no social welfare fund ever existed in the country.

Mr. Barrett

They were very busy on other matters.

Mr. O'Malley

The non-contributory pensions which we hear about from older members of the Fine Gael Party were in fact, I find, introduced in 1908 by the British and the national health and unemployment insurance schemes which they quote were introduced in 1911. These schemes were taken over by Cumann na nGaedheal. They did not add one penny to them in any way whatsoever in those ten years even though the period between 1922 and 1932 was one of very heavy unemployment and emigration and social distress at the time was very serious indeed. The only change I can find during this period was the enactment in 1924 of the Old Age Pensions Act which reduced the old age pension from 10/- to 9/- a week. That was bad enough but many old people were prevented from benefiting even from the 9/- due to the very strict means test imposed by the Government.

Mr. O'Sullivan

It was not half as strict as it is now.

Mr. O'Malley

As the records of the House show, due to the agitation in 1928 by the Fianna Fáil Party, the shilling was put back. The result was that Cumann na nGaedheal or Fine Gael went out of power in 1932 with the social services at a lower level than they were even under the British régime.

Now I come to the progress of social welfare, social insurance and benefits generally to the less well-off members of the community in the period between 1932 and 1948. I am not asking anyone to listen to me if this is unpalatable or unsavoury. If they do not like it, they can leave. I have done a certain amount of research and I want this on the record finally so that there will be no doubt, so that it will be clear beyond yea or nay, as to what the position of successive Governments has been. Take the period betwen 1932 and 1948 when the first Coalition Government came into office. In 1932, the first thing we tackled after we were a week in office was the crying need for social legislation.

Mr. Crotty

What did the old age pension increase by?

Mr. O'Malley

How right Deputy Crotty is!

Mr. Crotty

I am just asking.

Mr. O'Malley

I will tell you in a second. There were a series of enactments with far-reaching benefits.

Mr. Crotty

What did the old age pension increase by?

Mr. O'Malley

The scope of existing services was extended and as we know many completely new schemes were introduced in 1932 as I saw from the Dáil debates at the time. It is no pleasure for me to go back on those times which I personally do not even remember but it is essential once and for all to clear up the position. Deputy Crotty interjected——

Mr. Crotty

I am just waiting for you. I am going to a Party meeting.

Mr. O'Malley

In 1932, we found that there was no unemployment assistance of any type whatsoever in Ireland and no acceptance of responsibility by the State for the unemployed who were outside the scope of the insurable occupations. The Unemployment Assistance Act of 1933 was brought in by us and it brought benefit to those people, but particularly to the rural workers who before this strangely enough were excluded completely from all types of assistance. What did we increase then? In 1935, what did we increase? Under Cumann na nGaedhael, widows and orphans——

Mr. Crotty

I am asking one question. What increase was made in the old age pension between 1932 and 1948?

Mr. O'Malley

All right.

Mr. Crotty

That is all—just one question.

Mr. O'Malley

What did we increase widows' and orphans' pensions by? There were an awful lot of these widows who were old and who would qualify for the old age pension but by what did we increase the widows' pension? There was no widows' and orphans' pension but in 1935 we brought in a comprehensive scheme to provide for contributory and non-contributory pensions for widows and orphans, including those who would qualify for the old age pension. Children's allowances were paid for the first time in 1944. That was the first Act of its kind in Britain, Ireland or any other part of this part of Europe.

We knew then in Fianna Fáil that the conditions of the workers would have to be improved. We knew that there were employers, and we have them still, who would squash their workers under their heels and pay them as whim dictated. One of the great advantages of trade unionism is that they brought that unsavoury type of employer to heel. In 1939, for the first time, we made an advance towards giving the workers a charter. In 1939, we established the 48 hour week.

Mr. Donegan

I thought you were talking about a 70-hour week.

Mr. O'Malley

We established the 48-hour week for adults and a 40-hour week for workers under 18 years of age.

Mr. T. Lynch

You gave them a right charter with the standstill order.

Mr. O'Malley

I am always curious when a member of the front Bench of the Fine Gael Party makes an interjection on behalf of the workers.

Mr. T. Lynch

Deputy O'Malley said some time ago that the workers of Limerick mainly supported him. I should like to say that I get a subscription from an industrialist but it is the working class people who elect me.

Mr. O'Malley

I have no doubt that what Deputy Lynch says is true. He is a unique Deputy, like myself, in some regards. When we introduced the 48-hour week for adults and 40-hour week for those under 18 in 1939 restrictions were also placed for the first time on the employment of women and children and these restrictions extended to what could be done with regard to night work and overtime. There was a statutory obligation placed on the employer to give his worker an annual holiday.

Mr. Barrett

What year was this?

Mr. O'Malley

I am referring to 1939.

Mr. Barrett

Is that relevant to the Vote on Account?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It has a very tenuous relationship to the Vote on Account.

Mr. Barrett

Could you impress that on the Parliamentary Secretary, Sir?

Mr. O'Malley

It would be relevant to the Vote on Account if the 1939 Act had not given the 48-hour week to the worker, if it had not given him holidays with pay and controls with relation to overtime and night work. I think it is most relevant.

Mr. T. Lynch

Do not forget the standstill for the workers.

Mr. Dolan

You would not give them employment.

Mr. T. Lynch

I would employ more than you with your tennis raquet and your golf clubs on the road to Cavan.

Mr. O'Malley

This is the third time that Deputy Lynch has interjected a remark about a standstill order. What about the standstill order? You tell me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Not at this stage.

Mr. O'Malley

The point is that there never was a standstill order. There was a certain position at the time due to the circumstances at the time and the then Taoiseach had to go on the radio to contradict the misrepresentations made by a former Leader of the Coalition.

Mr. Crotty

Are the same circumstances operating now?

Mr. O'Malley

I know that these social achievements of the Fianna Fáil Government are unpalatable to the Fine Gael Party, the attitude of which will continue to be, with the exception of Deputy Lynch, against the working people of this country. Deputy Lynch has said that the workers vote for him. I know the people who have voted for Fine Gael but the laws of order would not allow me to express myself on them.

Wet time insurance, the charter of the building worker, was introduced for the first time by Fianna Fáil. The present Government is examining the position with regard to wet-time insurance generally. I came across a case recently in which a man with his family would have been better off if he had drawn unemployment assistance rather than wet time.

Mr. Tully

One case? I could give you 400.

Mr. O'Malley

We are the Party who have brought all these injustices before the people. We do not think we have cured all the ills but we have placed them before the Irish people and told the people that we want to remove them. We do not say that everything in the garden is rosy. I have not yet come to 1948. I am now at 1947 and only that Deputy Barrett reminded me I would have forgotten to mention that in 1947 our Government set up the Department of Social Welfare.

Mr. Barrett

I did not remind him of any such thing.

Mr. O'Malley

I was looking at the Deputy and I was reminded that in 1947 we set up that Department. I need not now go into the necessity for it but we were dissatisfied with the delays and the faulty administration which obtained up to that time. The first task given to the Department was to prepare a comprehensive scheme of social welfare but we went out of office in February, 1948, without bringing in that scheme. We had to wait until 1952 to bring it in.

Deputy Norton, who was then Leader of the Labour Party, became Minister for Social Welfare in the Coalition Government in 1948. In public statements, he said he would bring in the Social Welfare Bill before the summer. He genuinely believed that he would. I believe that he believed that and so did the Irish people. He meant it in his heart but he was in a Coalition Government. For three more years, Deputy Norton as Minister for Social Welfare repeated that promise and covered up his Fine Gael colleagues in the Coalition Government to the best of his ability and acted in what he deemed to be an honourable manner. The Social Welfare Bill did not appear. It was held up by the Fine Gael majority in the Coalition Government.

Mr. Barrett

On a point of order, has what the Parliamentary Secretary is now saying anything to do with the Vote on Account for 1963?

Mr. O'Malley

It has everything to do with it.

Mr. Barrett

He has not made it clear to me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Parliamentary Secretary is dealing with Government expenditure, he is in order.

Mr. Barrett

He is not. He is dealing with the Social Welfare Bill of the inter-Party Government in 1948.

Mr. T. Lynch

I hope you will remember that, Sir, when I am speaking.

Mr. O'Malley

Vote No. 50, Social Insurance, and Vote No. 51, Social Assistance total £28 million and it would be a sorry look-out if I could not refer to an item costing the taxpayers £28 million.

Mr. Barrett

So long as that holds for the rest of the debate, it is all right.

Mr. O'Malley

I shall not dwell on this but I shall just recall what Deputy Jim Larkin said on 28th April, 1952, describing the position:

We knew that Fine Gael utilised every opportunity that came not only in the open light of day but in the dark of night.

That was often quoted by Deputy Norton subsequently. That was the reason—and let the public know it— why the Labour Party were not allowed to bring in the Social Welfare Bill. What was the contribution to the old age pensioners and the widows in those years, 1948 to 1951? The total increase was 2/6.

Mr. T. Lynch

Question.

Mr. O'Malley

All right.

Mr. T. Lynch

As my memory serves me——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot have debate in this fashion.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Parliamentary Secretary said it was 2/6. They got an increase of 7/6 and the means test ceiling was increased from £99 to £104 in 1948.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy seeks on every occasion to bandy words with the Parliamentary Secretary. The debate cannot be carried on in this fashion. The Deputy will get an opportunity of making his own speech in an orderly fashion. This is disorder.

Mr. T. Lynch

I am very pleased with you because I hope you will think of this when I am speaking.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair always thinks of it when anyone is speaking.

Mr. O'Malley

The figure of 2/6 which I gave for old age pensions and widows' pensions in the three years of the Coalition Government is correct.

Mr. T. Lynch

No, it is not correct. The means test ceiling went up from £99 to £104.

Mr. O'Malley

When we took over.

Mr. T. Lynch

No.

Mr. O'Malley

When we took over in 1951, we immediately increased the rates of old age and blind pensions, and we eased the means test very considerably.

Mr. T. Lynch

The means test remained as it was.

Mr. O'Malley

In 1952, this long awaited Social Welfare Act became law.

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

Mr. O'Malley

We will skip those years with those references. Deputy Lynch might enlighten me because he was here from 1954 to 1957. What was the sum total of the increases in social welfare benefits in that period given by the Fine Gael Party who had control of the purse strings and the key Ministries and used their influence and voting power to overwhelm their Labour colleagues? I want to get it on the record. What was the sum total of the social welfare increases in that period, 1954 to 1957?

Mr. T. Lynch

You tell me now. You seem to have it there.

Mr. O'Malley

I have—2/6d.

Mr. T. Lynch

What did you give from 1957 to 1962?

Mr. O'Malley

In every single year since 1957, we have given an increase and some new improvement in the social welfare services.

Mr. T. Lynch

That is lovely, is it not?

Mr. O'Malley

We have increased old age pensions by 8/6d., I think.

Mr. T. Lynch

Could you be sure?

Mr. O'Malley

I am certain. We eased the means test for old age pensioners and beneficiaries of unemployment assistance.

Mr. T. Lynch

Of course, having taken away the subsidies on bread, butter, tea and flour, you had to do something.

Mr. J. Brennan

The Deputy's Party were back in office subsequently and did nothing.

Mr. T. Lynch

We were not back since 1957. You removed the subsidies in 1957.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary might be allowed to make his speech. The Deputy will get an opportunity of making his in an orderly way afterwards.

Mr. O'Malley

In reply to Deputy Lynch who asks what did we do since 1957, we increased the widows' pension by 8/6d. A widow with two children got an increase of 14/6d. Are those figures correct? Before that, nothing was paid to a woman with more than two children. Now, as we know, all dependent children, are counted and the widow with six children is now entitled to a non-contributory pension of 71/- as compared with 36/6 in 1957.

Mr. T. Lynch

How many of those widows are there?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. O'Malley

That represents an increase of 34/6d. a week. In unemployment assistance, there is an increase of 24/6d. and, as in the case of the widow, all dependent children are now included. A man with a wife and six children in rural Ireland now gets 74/6 a week. What did he get in 1957? He got 28/-. In urban areas, a man with a wife and six children gets £4 2s. 6d. What did he get in 1957? He got 38/-. There is a 50 per cent. increase in children's allowances. Recently we introduced the contributory scheme for old age pensions. There is now no means test. It is not necessary to retire from work in order to qualify, and the basic rate is 40/-a week. A man gets 30/- extra in respect of his wife, irrespective of whether or not she is under 70 or over 70. He gets £2 and an extra 30/- for his wife.

All existing rates of benefit have been increased since January last, even though they had already been increased in last year's Budget. The increase amounts to about 5/- a week, and there is a substantially greater increase for dependent children. As a result of all these increases and social welfare payments, contributory and non-contributory, given in last year's Budget, I calculate that recipients will benefit in a full year to the extent of no less than £3,780,000. That was the figure given by the Minister for Finance. The net result of all that is that this Government added to the expenditure on social welfare in 1962 a sum 50 per cent higher than the total amount added during the whole period of the two Coalition Governments, dominated by the Fine Gael Party.

I do not think we shall ever see another Coalition Government in this country. That is my personal opinion. Equally, I do not think we will ever see a Fine Gael Government. My reason for spending so much time on these social welfare benefits given by my Government to the workers and the less well-off members of our community is to bring out into the open the Fine Gael position. They have now an opportunity on this Vote on Account of saying in public here what they stand for. They have now an opportunity of criticising, of saying what they think we should do, of telling us what they think we should cut.

The whole kernel of this Vote on Account is the total shown on the right-hand column of the statement of the net added expenditure on Public Services for the year 1963-64. It is misleading, and politically dishonest, to suggest that the figure of £167 million is criminal, unprecedented and wrong. The only regret I have is that the figure does not approach the £200 million mark for capital services. I hope that the day is not too far distant when the economy of this country will be in a position to finance further capital expenditure by the State on the progressive schemes I enumerated at the outset. I am only too sorry that the Minister for Agriculture is not getting £80 million instead of £8,816,000.

Mr. Barrett

He will probably promise it the next time.

Mr. O'Malley

I am only sorry that education is not getting more than £12 million, but I get some consolation in the fact that it has increased since 1957 by £3 million. I am sorry we cannot give secondary education more than £3,745,000, but I get some consolation in the fact that it has gone up by £2 million since 1957. I am sorry too that vocational education, about which Deputy Treacy has often spoken here, is not getting more than £2,255,000, although there is £1 million more being given now as compared with the amount provided by our predecessors. I am sorry all this expenditure on education, agriculture, housing and social welfare is not higher. I make no apology to the Fine Gael Party that the figure stands where it does. They should appreciate the difference with regard to the expenditure of the money. They should realise what it means to the farmers.

We have heard the Leader of the Opposition and the former Minister for Finance speaking; not only have they said it but it has been stated in the papers by their minions, in speeches prepared for them, that this unprecedented amount of £167 million in the Estimates for the coming financial year will be a crippling burden and should never have been allowed to reach this level. I only hope that the economic position of the country will allow us to vote more for housing and more for schools. Never in the history of this State has more money been spent on schools than has been spent last year and this year by this Government. There are hovels of schools. There are hovels under this Government but we are out to eradicate them to the best of our ability. Are Fine Gael against this £2 million vote for schools? Is Deputy Barrett against it? If he is, he cannot have it both ways. We shall have a vote on it. He cannot, on the one hand, say these Estimates should not amount to £167 million and, on the other hand, when I explain to him the different headings, advocate that money should be spent on various services. However, if he disagrees, he has an opportunity of showing his disagreement to the public.

Too long have Fine Gael run with the hare and the hounds. I am very glad that the mild dawn of promise has arrived for my friends on my left. That is why, when a Fine Gael speaker addresses us here, he should tell us, beyond yea or nay, whether he is against these increases. Let him tell us whether he wants a reduction in the Estimate of the Minister for Lands, who is here beside me. The Estimate for Lands, when we took over power, was £1,900,000. Do the members of the Fine Gael Party want us to knock off this amount which the Minister for Lands is now asking this House to vote in the coming financial year? When he took on this responsible position, including Forestry, the expenditure was £1,600,000. This year, we are asking for another £2 million on top of that for Forestry.

That is the only purpose of this Vote on Account, that the Government will put their case and that the Opposition will be, as it is their duty to be, constructively critical. It is certainly not their duty or responsibility to attempt, as they have done over the past two weeks, to mislead the Irish people. Of course the tempo will increase for the next few weeks. With the by-election looming up, all this political misrepresentation has been planned.

I think I have put my views reasonably. I have given no false figures. I have made no outlandish claims and, with due respect to Deputy Barrett, any figures I have quoted I have quoted from the official documents of this House. It is time the Fine Gael Party realised that it is in their interest and the country's interest that they should consider their position and the role which they have played here in Opposition. They will then appreciate that instead of their being looked on as the main Opposition, the eyes of our opponents turn elsewhere.

Mr. Treacy

Having listened to the Parliamentary Secretary give us a dissertation at great length on the ancient history of this country and trace the various enactments back to the commencement of the State, I do not intend to follow that line of debate. I merely wish to avail of this opportunity to make a brief appraisal of the work of the Government, to review their policy and indicate the attitude of my Party in that regard.

It has been said that the amount of money being voted this year is a record figure of £167 million, and that is so. It has been said, and rightly so, that it is a formidable sum. We are not so much concerned about the actual figure itself. It is understandable that it should increase, having regard to increased costs, the cost of capital services and other services. Rather are we concerned about how it will be spent and what effect it will have on the economy. Our Party is concerned to know what effect the expenditure of this formidable amount of money will have in creating employment opportunities and giving our people a better standard of living; what effect it will have in increasing social welfare benefits and bringing much needed relief to the aged, the sick, the infirm and the unemployed. If it has a worthwhile effect in this regard we say it is money well spent and our only regret, like that of the Parliamentary Secretary, is that there is not a greater amount of money for public services on this occasion.

In regard to this huge expenditure, we have had forebodings and indications from the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance as to how it will be met this year. We are naturally concerned as to how this money is to be found. There have been indications that the Budget may contain a sales tax provision of some sort. There has been an attempt recently to place a pay pause on wages and salaries and we are afraid that by reason of the manner in which the Government have set about finding this expenditure, the situation in the economy may well worsen rather than improve.

There have been increases in many important categories—agricultural grants, Local Government, Education, Lands, Fisheries, Health, and so on. In relation to agricultural grants, it is gratifying to know that there will be an increase in expenditure of £221,000. It is gratifying as a whole to see more money being spent on agriculture. However, as the Leader of my Party queried today, we wonder, having regard to all these helps, aids and stimulants to the agricultural community, if they are bringing the reward which we should expect.

We have not been getting the increase in productivity from agricultural land that one would desire. Despite statements here by Government spokesmen that theirs is the Party and the Government which best serves the needs of the agricultural community, we have evidence of great unrest amongst certain sections of the agricultural community today, particularly, the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association, in relation to the price of milk, to which the Taoiseach referred, and the general situation in local authorities as regards the impost of rates. It is true that the Government have come to the rescue of farmers in this regard and have set aside a considerable amount of money to bring about a rebate in rates.

We desire very much that agricultural produce should increase. We should like very much to see more people employed in agricultural production in this country. We deplore the fact that so much machinery must be brought in here to work our land and that so many people have been disemployed in agriculture in this country. You do have that drift from the land, to which the Minister should have regard, and which is very undesirable.

It was rather ironic to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance tell this House about the great things his Party had done for the welfare of the workers of this country. He traced the whole code of social legislation and the Industrial Acts and tried to infer that the Labour Party, as such, was a misnomer and that anything that had been done for the workers of this country had been done by the Fianna Fáil Party. I believe, fundamentally, that were it not for the Labour Party and the trade union movement spear-heading all these ideas, no Government in this country would have brought about these reliefs. It was the trade union movement and the Labour movement which really agitated for shorter working hours, better conditions, decent wages and better social welfare benefits. It was only by dint of pressure and pressure on the public conscience of this country that any Government acquiesced under the circumstances.

It was ironical, too, inasmuch as the Minister for Lands is in the House at present, that the Parliamentary Secretary should talk in this strain when, quite recently, the Labour Party sponsored a Bill in this House to give a new charter to agricultural workers. We sought to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board and to give these workers the right to go to the Labour Court to lay down decent wages, conditions, holiday payments, and so on. The Minister for Agriculture opposed that motion. We had the spectacle of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael going into the lobby only a few weeks ago to vote against that measure to improve the status of the lowest paid, hardest-working and most exploited element in our society.

We had, too, the evidence of the attempted pay pause which the Government introduced quite recently. Fortunately, it did not have the desired effect. The workers of this country were quite shocked, and appalled even, that the Government should have the audacity to impose such a restriction on the right to negotiate with their employer or trade union or that there should be the suggestion of a pay pause. Not only were the workers shocked by that proposal but the country as a whole was deeply shocked by it.

Up to Christmas of last year, the Taoiseach and Government spokesmen indicated clearly in public statements inside and outside this House that the economy of this country was in a very sound condition; that we had a viable economy; that there was nothing to worry about unduly; that we were going full steam ahead into the Common Market; that we would be in the Common Market very soon and that we had nothing to fear at all from outside competition. Indeed, the confidence of the Government was such that the Taoiseach was inferring that we might even go it alone into the Common Market, if necessary.

It was rather a shock to us all, then, to find within a few weeks that we should have this complete change about. The gloomy picture was painted of a fall in production and a disequilibrium in our balance of payments. An attempt was made by the Government to introduce panic measures, the first of them being the pay pause and indications now that a sales tax will be imposed in this country.

A sales tax, if it is true, may well have very bad effects. If it is to be a tax imposed on so-called luxury goods, it will mean that the average housewife in this country will be denied those things which are regarded as essential in these modern times to eliminate drudgery in the home. It may, too, have an effect on employment inasmuch as, if sales fall, it is bound to have an effect on production and certainly on any goods manufactured or assembled in this country. It is bound to have an adverse effect on and to upset the employment position in this country, which is very bad at present.

Speaking of unemployment, we have heard of the Government's Programme for Economic Expansion. The Government, despite any pretence on their part, will have to admit that their plans in that regard have proved an abject failure. The increase in productivity which they set out to achieve may have been achieved, and a little over and above that, but that four per cent. increase in production is nothing like the increase in production which is desirable in order to create full employment. We need an increase in production much in excess of four per cent. to give us the full employment which is so desirable in our country.

We have at present upwards of 60,000 unemployed. It is true to say that nearly 300,000 people have emigrated in the past six years. At a time when the Government are crying out for increased productivity, it is indeed farcical to talk about it when, on the evidence before us, we find that our most cherished assets, our young people, are denied the opportunity to work in their own land. What a colossal increase in productivity we should have if we put the 60,000 people at present unemployed in this country to productive work. Is it outside the bounds of possibility for a Christian Government to find ways, means and measures to put these people to work? What a wonderful economy we should have, what a prosperous one, if we had devised ways and means as we should have done to employ in productive work in the country the 300,000 people forced to emigrate in the past six years?

The Government talk of productivity as if the worker who is fortunate enough to have a job in this country could bring about greater productivity of his own volition. The facts are that the worker on his own is not capable of increasing production, that unless he gets the tools, the machines and the equipment, he cannot do it. Therefore, the attitude of the Government in reflecting like this on the Irish worker was wholly unjustified and unfair. It was done in the clear open light of day, without any regard whatsoever to a check on profits and prices. Prices have increased considerably, and the Government have not availed of the machinery which is there to control them. Indeed they have permitted profits to rise unbridled.

It is my firm opinion that the Government have leant over backwards on the side of the opulent, the wealthy and privileged in this country. There was evidence of that fact when they conceded only 2/6 a week to the old age pensioners, while, at the same time, giving upwards of £12 to the judiciary. It is evident from the point of view that they gave a rebate in rates on agricultural land while ignoring other sections of the community on whom rates are as heavy a burden. That is not to say that I begrudge the agricultural community what they got, but I do say it is unfair that one section of the community should be chosen for such a concession.

In relation to the Estimate for Industry and Commerce, I notice that there is a figure of £250,000 as an increase for equipping industry under the re-equipment scheme. That is very desirable. It is of the utmost importance that industry should be guided, advised and helped to re-equip itself to meet the free trade circumstances which are looming up, for despite the fact that we have not as yet got into the Common Market, it is evident that free trade is in the offing. Nevertheless, I am concerned that the expenditure of this money for industrial expansion in this country needs some looking into.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy, but discussion on particular Estimates is not regular on the Vote on Account. It is the general policy. The Deputy will find an opportunity of dealing with the matter he is now endeavouring to deal with when the Estimate for that Department is being debated. If the Deputy were to be allowed to proceed on those lines, we could take every Estimate individually.

Mr. Treacy

I have no intention of delving——

An Ceann Comhairle

I would sooner he did not deal with it at all because it would then become difficult, if not impossible, to restrain Deputies from dealing with the Departments of Defence, Local Government, Agriculture and so on.

Mr. Treacy

It is a pity the Ceann Comhairle was not here when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance was speaking because he covered the whole ramification of Government down through the years.

An Ceann Comhairle

He did not cover any particular Estimate.

Mr. Tully

Every Estimate since the beginning of time.

An Ceann Comhairle

He referred only to outlay on the Estimates. The Deputy is trying to deal with administration and the policy of the various Departments.

Mr. Treacy

I do not wish to comment any further on this matter except to say that I am concerned with redundancy in industry and that it is desirable when we spend money on industry that we should ensure the highest labour content is involved. I wish to submit that the £250,000 in this Estimate for the re-equipment of industry should not be spent on experimenting with new ideas, new machinery, new equipment, which would only have the effect of displacing labour.

I know as a positive fact that much money allocated in this way has been utilised for the re-equipment of industry in the belief that it would achieve greater production, but that the employers concerned were satisfied with the same productivity and there was created as a result of the expenditure of this money much unemployment in the firms. I think money spent like that, while it may seem economical and wise to the Government, is socially wrong. The primary purpose of spending money for industrial progress is to endeavour that industry should give the highest possible employment and that this employment should be as permanent as possible. It is to be deplored that any money spent in assisting industrialists should be used to achieve a situation where unemployment obtains.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy and I seem to differ about what a short reference is.

Mr. Treacy

I do not want to go through the various headings, lest I might outstep my rights. You will understand, Sir, that as a new Deputy, I am not as yet acquainted with the——

Mr. Moran

The Deputy is not doing badly at all.

An Ceann Comhairle

General Government policy.

Mr. Treacy

Since we have the Minister for Lands in the House, I should like to refer to the Estimate for his Department.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is what I took exception to in relation to Industry and Commerce. The Deputy will probably endeavour to refer to Agriculture, Local Government and so on.

Mr. Treacy

I really want to praise the Minister——

An Ceann Comhairle

That is just as disorderly.

Mr. J.J. Collins

The Deputy is making a great case if he can get away with it.

Mr. Treacy

I hope the increase in the Estimate there will give more employment and I hope the Minister will see fit to acquire more land and, above all else, where he knows there is redundancy in afforestation, that he will consider paying a little more for mountain land. I understand the price at the moment is not very attractive and much more land is required if we are to maintain the present employment under this heading. I would ask the Minister to consider an increase in that regard.

The ideal which the Government had of providing 100,000 new jobs has not yet been realised. We have not seen the achievement of the 20,000 new jobs a year which they set out to attain. Indeed, unemployment is now in excess of what it was at this time last year. I want to see that dynamic programme which the Government had devised on paper put into operation and implemented in practice, if that is possible. I believe the Government are pursuing the wrong policies in many regards. The 20,000 jobs a year have not been achieved; we have not seen the dynamic programme to which they referred; and we have not seen any capacity for hard work on the part of the Government, never mind on the part of the workers of the country.

Mr. J.J. Collins

What about the 92,000 who were unemployed when the inter-Party Government were in power? Is there not a great difference between the two figures?

Mr. Tully

There were 140,000 unemployed in the Deputy's time.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Treacy should be allowed to speak without interruption.

Mr. Barrett

A consummation devoutly to be wished.

Mr. Treacy

As a result of the breakdown of the Common Market talks and the situation that has arisen since, the policy of the Government of continuing to reduce tariffs is causing some anxiety. They are continuing a policy of reducing tariffs in the belief that in the long run we will get into the Common Market or some such organisation, possibly EFTA, but there are no indications as to when that will happen. In the meantime, the industrialists are in the position that tariffs will be lowered without any of the gains or advantages which would normally accrue to us if we had gained access to the Common Market or some similar organisation. That is a worrying situation. I wonder if it is a wise policy.

It seems to us that the Government staked their all on the hope of geting into the Common Market under the umbrella of Mr. Macmillan, and now that General de Gaulle has put paid to that hope, they seem to be at sixes and sevens as to where to turn or what to do. They seem to have no policy, and they are trying to rearrange their programme as best they can, but they should soon be in a position to give an indication to the country as to what the future will be. It is not good enough to continue to reduce tariffs as if we had some hope of getting into such an organisation and allow that to happen indefinitely. That will have the effect of creating unemployment and redundancy in many industries of which I have personal knowledge.

The Government have the reports of the Committee on Industrial Organisation which clearly stated that there would be serious redundancy in very many of the industries they had surveyed. They stated that there would be redundancy in the cotton, linen and rayon industry, in the boot and shoe industry, and serious redundancy in the car assembly industry and some other industries. That is the pattern, and that is why I lay such emphasis on the desirability of attaining something worthwhile with the money sought in the Book of Estimates.

The Labour Party aspires to the idea that a redundancy pay fund should be available for people who are disemployed. That is nothing new. Many progressive countries have a system under which the workers are compensated when laid off in industry. It seems only right, equitable and just, that when a man has given the best years of his life to industry, he should not be discarded and thrown on the unemployed scrap heap without as much as a "thank you". We hope that provision will be made for that kind of redundancy pay fund which will adequately compensate those people for their loss of employment and give them an opportunity of looking around for alternative work or starting out, perhaps, on their own. I was hoping to have an opportunity of going through some of the items in the Book of Estimates.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has not lost his opportunity. He will have it on the Estimates when we come to them.

Mr. Treacy

Very good. While the sum is up on the sum for last year, we are not at all surprised at that. We believe that if the people demand a service and if a service is being supplied, it must be paid for. There is nothing in this Book of Estimates that we could fall out about and our only regret is that the amount of money being sought is not more.

We express the hope that the expenditure involved will bring about the kind of Ireland to which we aspire: an Ireland of happy homes with men, women and children shielded from the terrible spectre of unemployment and emigration, an Ireland where men are afforded an opportunity of working at home in their own towns, if possible; where they are afforded an opportunity of marrying, founding a family and rearing them at least in frugal comfort, an Ireland in which they have a decent educational system which will give every family, however poor, an opportunity of attaining to the greatest heights in education, cultural and spiritual pursuits, an Ireland where there will be decent social welfare benefits.

The people on the front bench of the Fianna Fáil Party may pride themselves on the increases they gave under the social welfare heading in recent years, but when we compare our social code with that of our fellow-Irishmen across the Border, it pales into utter insignificance. We desire in Estimates of this kind that there will be a good health service for our people. In that regard, we would hope we would not have an odious means test applied under which a person's family life and his privacy are pried into in order to determine whether or not he should get free hospitalisation, as is the position today.

That, as I say, is the Ireland to which we aspire. I do not believe these Estimates are sufficient to give us that Ireland, and I believe that many of the increases in the Book of Estimates this year will be offset by the method by which the Government now propose to finance the Budget. I believe the forecast is that we will have a hair-shirt Budget. I also believe that a sales tax will interfere with the standard of living of our people.

Mr. J.J. Collins

What does the Deputy want?

Mr. Treacy

I believe that a sales tax will have the effect of reducing the standard of living of our people.

An Ceann Comhairle

We may not discuss taxation on this.

Mr. Treacy

Very well, Sir. We believe that our people are entitled to the best in life. Some people, including some of those in this House, think that because a worker has a motor car or a television set or a washing machine——

An Ceann Comhairle

Taxation on any goods is not relevant on this.

Mr. Treacy

Very well, Sir.

An Ceann Comhairle

Tax expenditure, not tax collection, may be discussed.

Mr. Treacy

On the general policy, I was saying that there is a feeling in this House, on certain sides of it, that the workers are too well off, that they are too well paid in the first instance, that they are not producing enough and that they should work harder. When I say that they are too well off, I mean that if they have a motor car, they are looked at with suspicion. If they have a television set, it is resented by certain elements of society. We believe that our people are entitled to the best that life can offer.

Mr. Lenihan

Hear, hear.

Mr. Treacy

We believe that all the things, including the so-called luxury goods, will now probably come under the axe of a sales tax and thereby have an adverse effect on the standard of life of our people and possibly have repercussions on their employment.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not in that very clever way discuss taxes by a sidewind of that kind. I have given the Deputy a good deal of latitude but my rulings in future will be more rigid.

Mr. Treacy

Very good, a Cheann Comhairle. I propose to conclude, so I will ease your mind in that regard. I am only concerned to say that I would love someone to indicate to me whether in this formidable amount for Public Service this year, there is any hope for the young people, especially those who are coming out of school for whom, to my mind, there are no opportunities available. There does not seem to be—certainly in my constituency, for which I can speak with authority—any opportunity for young people of 15, 16, and 17 years of age, however well educated they may be. There seem to be no jobs available for them.

I appreciate that the Government are anxious to increase the industrial arm and are spending quite a colossal amount of money in that regard but it does not have the desired effect. We are not creating the employment opportunities for our young people. It is my experience that those males who enter employment in a particular industry as long as it survives remain there, but the amount of recruitment in after years is very limited indeed. The amount of recruitment of juvenile labour since the middle thirties is very slight indeed. There does not seem to be, then, an opening or an opportunity for our young people to gain any foothold in any kind of secure or remunerative employment. All that is available is the blind-alley job, the underpaid job or that job where they are taken in and employed for a number of years and then laid off without any hope of being retained.

Some kind of indication should be given as to what we propose to do for the 5,000 or 6,000 who are coming out of school every year, to provide jobs for them. My experience in my constituency is that in the main the bulk of these people, the flower of our youth, the brains of our country, the people who should be making the Ireland of tomorrow, whom we are educating at a great cost and whose parents are making great sacrifices to rear and train them as good Christian men and women, are being discarded by this Government as products of no consequence and sent out to the four winds of the world.

Mr. J.J. Collins

What would be the Labour policy?

Mr. Treacy

We would see to it that it was not so much wealth that counted in this country but welfare. We would see to it that it was not so much profits that counted as people, and we would regard as the first essential, the most cherished asset in this country, our people, our children. We would see to it that in so far as it was humanly possible, our children, whom we reared at great cost, would be provided with a job at home. It is significant to note that every progressive country in Europe ravaged by a great war has found full employment for its people, and a high standard of life, and this country of ours has not. Be it said that despite the aspersions cast on Fine Gael and the Labour Party in this debate and the aspersions cast on the Coalition Government effort, we have heard nothing in this debate but great disillusionment and great frustration, particularly from Fianna Fáil spokesmen.

Mr. Lenihan

Line up with the Tories.

Mr. Treacy

I am no Tory.

Mr. Lenihan

Line up with them.

Mr. Treacy

Never. I have heard aspersions cast and the only solution to the whole situation was a reference to 1957. We had the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance going back to 1908 and tracing the whole social welfare code and the various enactments down to this time and talking about the past. I am not concerned about the past. I am very definitely concerned about the future, and I am asking as one who has obligations to speak for the young people of this country, what is to be done for them. Are we to pursue a policy of being satisfied to rear them, educate them and then send them into emigration? That is the policy we deplore. We say again that as far as we are concerned, our most cherished assets are not the land or the capital of this country but its people, and we would see that those people are given a right to a job in this country and to the best that the State can provide, a high standard of life in keeping with the countries of Europe. When, as I have said, every country in Europe is progressing to a very high standard of life, to full employment and to a state when it is able to draw on labour from other countries, we have this country of ours virtually crawling on its belly.

We have made very little progress in the last 15 or 20 years and the main fault must lie with the Party now in power. They are the Party who are in Government in this country. They have had full control of the affairs of the country. They have been in office now since 1957 unhindered in the pursuit of a policy which is not bringing more security, more prosperity or more happiness to the Irish people and in that regard I feel that they have utterly failed.

Mr. Barrett

Arising out of the remarks made by the Deputy who has just spoken, it would be no harm to mention at this stage that one of the boasts of the Government Party is that they have attracted many foreign industrialists to the country. The reason of course is plain. Foreign industrialists find here the cheap labour they cannot find in any other country, and it must be borne in mind that if you have cheap labour, you still have in the minds of the people providing that cheap labour the anxiety to emigrate. That was referred to by no less a person than the Taoiseach when he spoke in Galway two years ago. Talking about steps to be taken to combat emigration, he indicated that one of the most important factors was to reduce the gap between earnings in Britain and earnings here so that the people of this country would not be encouraged to emigrate by the prospect of obtaining greater earnings.

The last speaker who spoke on behalf of the Government was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. I have seldom heard a less realistic or a more pessimistic speech. The norm or standard of success for Governments, judging by the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks, is how much they can spend in any year. The Parliamentary Secretary exulted that they were spending more this year than they ever spent before and he apologised to the country that they had not spent more. We were spending £167 million and so many thousands and he was terribly sorry that we were not spending £200 million. He apologised for everything except the fact that the present Government had not honoured their promise to employ 100,000 people. He spoke of capital expenditure of £100 million but if the norm or standard of success for Governments of the country is how much we spend, let us at least know what it is being spent on.

The Parliamentary Secretary lamented the fact—he had to lament it because it is under his nose in his own constituency—that enough was not spent on the housing of the working classes. He indicated that this was not the fault of the Government but of Limerick Corporation. To me, it appears an amazing coincidence in respect of Dublin, Cork and Limerick Corporations, three bodies which are most sincerely anxious to house the deserving working classes, that since a Fianna Fáil Government went back into power by some extraordinary unexplained process——

Mr. J.J. Collins

It was not extraordinary and you know that.

Mr. Barrett

Deputy Collins can make a speech later, if he wishes.

Mr. J.J. Collins

I will; I will speak next.

Mr. Barrett

I was speaking about Limerick, Cork and Dublin Corporations and Deputy Collins might do me and the House the courtesy of shutting up.

Mr. J.J. Collins

I am sorry.

Mr. Barrett

It is an extraordinary coincidence that the three main public bodies in the country which are sincerely anxious to house the working classes housed less since the year Fianna Fáil went back into office. How it happened I do not know.

Mr. J.J. Collins

I will answer that.

Mr. Barrett

Speaking as a member of Cork Corporation—and there is at least one other member of the House who is a member of Cork Corporation and if he were here, he could not deny what I am saying—I say that Cork Corporation is anxious to house the working classes but the number housed dropped by 100 per cent. since this Government took office. The Government will lend money through State or semi-State bodies for the building of hotels but it will not give money for houses for many pregnant young married women. They are going on the basis that the sacrament of marriage does not matter.

Mr. J.J. Collins

I thought you were an honest man.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Barrett should be allowed to speak without interruption. That privilege is allowed to every Deputy.

Mr. Barrett

It is misleading to look at the Estimates alone for an indication of increased public expenditure. Deputy Collins who has been so voluble knows as well as I do that not only the Estimates will be used to raid the pocket of every wage earner. Deputy Collins, as a member of a public body, knows as well as I do that increased rates will mean an increased raid on the pocket of every ratepayer in the country.

Mr. J.J. Collins

Because they are going to get extra benefits.

Mr. Barrett

Does the Deputy want to make a speech?

Mr. J.J. Collins

I am sorry.

Mr. Barrett

Cork County Council, for the first time in their lives, will require over five million pounds from the ratepayers of that county. If the estimate which is before the council is passed, it will mean a 4/2 increase in the rates. Cork city will have an increase of 3/3 if the estimate as it is put before the corporation is passed.

One might ask: what is one going to do about it? What is one to do about the increased demand we find in the Estimates for the Public Services? What is the member of Cork County Council or Cork Corporation to do regarding the local demands? It is only with fear and hopelessness that you can address yourself to a problem of that nature. For many years, one has been saying: "This cannot go on; we must live within our means," but these words do not seem to mean anything any more to anybody. Nevertheless, these things are said only because they are facts. It is a fact that this cannot go on and it is a fact that we are living beyond our means.

This country, in my opinion, seems to be suffering from that most dangerous disease known as delusion of grandeur. Any medical man will tell you that this is the most dangerous condition in which any person can find himself and, in my opinion, it is the most dangerous situation in which any country can find itself. We are in this situation and I defy any member on the Government benches to deny it. Only the best will do us. We are a poor country, a country which is progressively becoming depopulated, almost an underdeveloped country, but only the best will do us. I remember standing down in St. Stephen's Hospital in Cork with an international delegation—architects, engineers, doctors, everything mixed up. One of them looked at one of the corridors and said: "I never saw so wide a corridor in any hospital in the world in all my life." He thought it a most magnificent piece of extravagance.

Mr. Lenihan

The Fine Gael attitude to social expenditure.

Mr. Barrett

I do not care who did it. Even if we did it, it is still continuing and that does not stop me from decrying the fact that there is not any indication of the present Government stopping it.

Mr. Lenihan

Poor mouth.

Mr. Barrett

Anybody who travels from Dublin to Cork or further south will see the folly of our expenditure on public roads. Since 1954, I have seen it year after year.

Mr. Lenihan

What will the Labour Party say to that?

Mr. Barrett

I am not interested in what the Labour Party say about it. I am suggesting to the House—and if Deputy Collins is capable of hearing what is being said, I am suggesting it to him—that that is not a form of expenditure in which we should engage. We are a small country——

Mr. J.J. Collins

And a great one.

Mr. Barrett

The difference in the journey between Cork and Dublin in terms of minutes, quarter hours or half hours means nothing. No matter what you do to the main roads, it would not mean more than twenty minutes between Cork and Dublin. I insist that it is the most unnecessary form of expenditure any government can engage in.

I think Deputy Corry will agree with me on this, however reluctant he may be. This is a further scandal to which I am referring. I do not know that I am remaining sufficiently general or not but regarding the regional hospital in Cork, the health authority said no, we did not want a regional hospital. I have a shrewd suspicion, and I know that Deputy Corry has a shrewd suspicion, that the Minister for Health is determined to spend £2 million on that institution, if necessary, over the dead body of the Cork Health Authority.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is becoming rather particular.

Mr. Barrett

I was afraid of that, Sir. Hospitals with wide corridors and roads with four lanes of traffic might be highly desirable but I, as a private citizen, might think it desirable to paper my house with the most expensive wallpaper. However, I, as a private citizen, would cut my cloth according to my measure. It is unreasonable to suggest to those on the Government benches that they should do what the ordinary responsible citizen and householder would do, that is, cut their cloth according to their measure and not come in here and suggest that the ordinary norm and standard of success of the Government is how much they can spend in any given year.

I suggest that the proper question is to ask how much can a Government save in any year, how much can they save on roads and hospitals and how much can they spend on the necessary social service of housing the working classes. If I am becoming particular in this matter, Sir, I think you were presiding here when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance went into the question of housing in Limerick and dealt with the eradication of the slums. In 1956-57, when the inter-Party Government were in office, 491 houses were built in Cork city by Cork Corporation. In 1957-58 the number was 381. Since then, the number has gone down and down until last year only 228 houses were built.

If there is to be expenditure, let it be expenditure on services that are necessary, not on services which are providing unnecessary main roads, not on hospitals which are unnecessary.

On the question of unnecessary expenditure, I should like to protest against the vulgarity that is being introduced into our tourist trade. Year after year we are becoming less and less Irish and more and more commonplace. We are reducing this country, to which tourists used to come to see how the native Irish lived, to the common basis of any country in Europe.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

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

Mr. Barrett

I am trying to keep my argument as general as possible. There is no man I know who worked more selflessly to bring this country into the Common Market than the Taoiseach but the Government seem to have failed signally in their responsibility to the people in that regard. The upshot of the whole thing seems to be that the Government gambled on our becoming a member of the Common Market. Every Minister went down the country addressing meetings, speaking at junior chambers of commerce meetings and, in some cases, senior chambers of commerce meetings in terms of what was to happen when we entered the Common Market. Nobody ever spoke of what would happen if we did not. Nobody seems to have thought of what would happen if we did not.

We are now in the situation that we are not in the Common Market, we are not in EFTA, we are not in anything; we do not know where we are going and we do not know how we got where we are. It might be true to say that the Government are the victims of circumstances. That is not the business of anybody on this side of the House.

Mr. J.J. Collins

Why is it not?

Mr. Barrett

When in 1957 the inter-Party Government found themselves the victims of circumstances, when an economic blizzard was striking Europe, nobody over at this side of the House worried about that. They told us that we were the people responsible for government and that it was our baby. The people on that side of the House are now the Government. They have failed the country signally. We are not in the Common Market; we are not in EFTA; we have arrived nowhere. It is their responsibility now to explain how we have arrived at this position and it is the responsibility of the Government on an occasion such as this to tell us whither we are bound and how we are to get there.

It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance to go back to 1908. The country wants something more than vague vapourings about 1908. The country wants to know about 1963, 1964, 1965 and what is to face our children. For that reason, I want to protest more strongly against the type of speech made here to-night by the Parliamentary Secretary. We want reality here; we do not want time-wasting adjectives with an occasional verb.

Mr. J.J. Collins

Hear, hear!

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Collins must allow Deputy Barrett to make his speech.

Mr. Barrett

I am glad that Deputy Collins realises what I am getting at.

Mr. J.J. Collins

I thought you were an honest man until now.

Mr. Barrett

That is typical of the remarks we hear from the benches over there. So long as we compliment the Ministers and agree with what they have done, everything is all right but immediately we disagree with the Parliamentary Secretary, with what the Government proposes to do, immediately we criticise the Government for failing to carry out their promises, then one ceases to be an honest man. We are here to criticise the Government and we will continue to criticise the Government. It is my pleasure to criticise a Government who have failed so signally to deal with the problems I have mentioned, who have left us in the position that we are not members of the Common Market, that we are not members of EFTA, that we do not know where we are going and that we do not know how we are to get there. That is something the Government should answer before this debate concludes. I challenge them to do so.

I doubt if Deputy Collins can satisfy us on that matter or if any member of the Government can do so. I believe that the whole approach by the Government to the problems of our time was shown by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance when he exulted that they had spent more money than ever before, when he apologised that they had not spent more, when he intimated that next year they would spend much more, no matter where they got the money. You cannot spend unless you get the money and the people are tired of giving the money to the Government. The Government have investigated every crevice of every pocket of every wage-earner in the country. They have gone far enough. The stage has been reached at which the people will not stand it any more and I believe the Government will be told to get out and to stay out.

Mr. Corry

Before Deputy Barrett leaves——

Mr. Barrett

I will leave before the Deputy starts.

Mr. Corry

——I should like to assure him that the Government have no intention of running out. Judging by the antics of the Opposition Party we will be in office for our full term. The Opposition will take good care to give us no opportunity to move out. I can assure Deputy Barrett, further, that when we do move out, we will not leave the load of sorrow Deputy Barrett found in Cork. in 1957, and the broken homes of building contractors who had to clear out, because the State welshed on their grants and had nothing with which to pay them.

Deputy Barrett's complaint now in regard to the number employed is that we brought in foreign industrialists to employ them. I have gone as closely as I could into this Vote on Account. I have heard some criticism of the Minister for Lands here. If there is anything for which to condemn him, I will condemn him. During the long time I have been in this House, the Land Commission has been regarded as an institution in which if a scheme was started, your grandson might reap the benefit. However, I gave the Minister for Lands a job to do, namely, to rescue from misery seven families and the Minister did it in three days. My only regret about the Estimate for the Department of Lands is that more money is not being provided to rescue more families from the congested holdings on which they have to eke out an existence at present.

We should have a little more patriotism. If people who are in safe positions in this country, instead of buying a British article, were to buy an Irish article, they would create employment for Irish people in their own country. In that way they would be doing something for the country. Unfortunately, that aspect of patriotism has disappeared, particularly in this rotten city of Dublin.

I have here an advertisement published by a Dublin businessman. His greatest boast is that 65 per cent of the goods he sells, as estimated by his company's auditors, is Irish manufactured, which means that the people of Dublin are buying the other 35 per cent of foreign clothing, foreign shoes, boots and so on.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would seem to be a matter for the Estimate and not for the Vote on Account, which deals with policy in relation to Government expenditure.

Mr. Corry

I am dealing here with Government expenditure and the remedy for it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is talking about Irish industries.

Mr. Corry

My friend Deputy Treacy complained about luxury taxes. I say there are 2½ million imported foreign goods which could bear a 40 per cent. luxury tax and it is the only way to help to create employment for our people and compel these snobs to buy Irish.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question of taxation does not arise on the Vote on Account.

Mr. Corry

There were complaints from Deputy Treacy also about unemployment. We had a Labour Minister for Industry and Commerce up to 1957. There was a State industry in the town of Cobh—Irish Steel Limited—where there was employment for 600 men on the day that Deputy Norton took over as Minister for Industry and Commerce and when he left office in 1957, there were 300 odd employed in that industry. That is the employment the Labour Minister for Industry and Commerce provided in my constituency. He cannot deny it. Today, that industry is giving employment to close on 1,000 men. Since 1957, there has been that change in regard to employment generally right through my constituency. I may not be believed; people may take the view that I am biased. I shall quote an opinion of a man who is honoured by every class in the community and by every Party here for the employment he is giving in rural Ireland. I have here a letter I received from General Costello within the past fortnight indicating the position as he finds it in my constituency. It is as follows:

It has from enquiries been clear to us that the labour required for the operation of a processing plant is not available in this area in addition to the labour demand that will arise on the land for the production of the intensive crops required. It is quite apparent from our inquiries that the necessary labour cannot be got. Not only is there no significant unemployment in the area but a considerable number of workers are being transported daily into the area from places a considerable distance away.

He goes further and says:

A large number of Mallow workers have to live in Cork city and to be drawn from Cork city.

That is the condition of affairs in my constituency. In those circumstances, we hear a wail about unemployment.

On Thursday morning last, I had to leave this House to attend a conference in Mallow of the organisers of four new processing plants, two in Kerry, one in East Cork and one in West Cork, that would give employment to a minimum of another 1,000 people in the factories and at least 3,000 or 4,000 on the land, which is just the type of employment we need. Those are the things that are required and any Deputy worth his salt would go down to his constituency and find employment for his constituents, as I have done, instead of moaning here about unemployment. If he does that, he will have no need for moaning here.

The more we look into this question of employment, the more we see the line and the steps the Government took. It is only a couple of months ago that £5 million was provided for that particular side of the industry. That is providing more employment in rural Ireland and keeping more of our people on the land. That is the kind of employment we want for them. That is the kind of employment to which they are entitled. You will not get that employment by coming in here and moaning about unemployment, any more than you will improve conditions for our dairy farmers by statements like the outrageous statement made here by Deputy Donegan a fortnight ago. No responsible Deputy would make such an outrageous statement. As a farmer, and a representative of a rural constituency, I object to slanderous statements being made by the Deputy.

Listen to what the Deputy said on 5th February, 1963, at column 1054 of the Official Report:

What I am going to say now is not a popular thing. I have said it before and I am going to repeat it. From two-thirds to three-quarters of the milk being delivered to creameries here is unfit for manufacture into cheese and the higher priced milk products because it is too dirty.

That is a statement by the shadow Minister for Agriculture. I do not know what Deputy T. O'Donnell thinks about it.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

Read the next sentence.

Mr. Corry

"At the same time, the dumped world produce so far as milk products are concerned is butter."

Mr. T. O'Donnell

Finish the paragraph.

Mr. Corry

I will.

If you leave out the consumption of liquid milk here, which is very small, 95 per cent of our milk production, on which rests the whole basis of our agricultural economy, goes into butter. These are the figures on which we propose to dismantle our tariffs for eventual entry into the Common Market.

The milk goes into butter, Deputy Donegan says, because it is too dirty to go into cheese or the higher priced milk products. That statement is, of course, in keeping with other statements I have heard from those benches from time to time.

I made inquiries into this. I went out to Mitchelstown, which is in my constituency, and I asked them how much of the milk coming in there was put on one side because it was too dirty to manufacture into cheese. They said: "You might get one per cent off and on, but that is all". I went to Rathduff, another cheese factory newly established, and I got the same reply there. If the farmers are dirty and if the farmers' wives are dirty, then it must be in county Louth that they are dirty. That was the most disgraceful statement I have ever heard in this House, and the biggest insult ever hurled here at our agricultural community.

That is the kind of statement made here by certain irresponsible Deputies. That is the kind of statement which causes a good deal of unrest amongst the rural community. It is, of course, in keeping with the policy of the gentleman who stood up there and offered the farmers 1/- a gallon for milk for five years. What hope could we have of increased employment on the land under the policy laid down by the present Leader of the Opposition? Listen to his opinion of the beet factories. I am not at all surprised that he apparently did not bother interfering whilst another member of his Cabinet, Deputy Norton, was getting a levy of £16 a ton imposed on our sugar. Here is what he said at column 2041 of Volume 106 of the Official Report:

There remains beet—the blessings of beet! Some day, and in the not far distant time, our people will have to ask themselves whether it is in the best interests of the community as a whole to continue the production of sugar from beet in this country at an annual cost to the community of £3,000,000 sterling. That is what it costs in normal times to keep the beet industry going in this country. If, instead of growing beet and converting it into sugar, we import refined sugar into this country there will be £3,000,000 sterling more for the national exchequer and that £3,000,000 can be used to increase children's allowances in every home in Ireland from 2/6 per child to 5/-per child, and the land vacated by that crop can be used for the production of profitable agricultural produce which will help to finance essential imports and to enrich the farmers who live upon the land.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Why not go back to the Flood? Does the Fianna Fáil Party not like to go back?

Mr. Corry

I will go back to 1922, if the Deputy likes.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Go on. The Deputy will bring blushes to his colleagues' cheeks.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order. Deputy Corry should be allowed to make his speech without interruption.

Mr. Corry

I am giving facts, statements from the Official Report of this House. It is no wonder the Deputy who made that statement did not know, when he was in a position of responsibility in later years, that there was a levy being put on our sugar and did not even know that it was in contravention of a trade agreement. The taxpayers of this country have paid over £1 million in levy last year and ever since that levy was imposed, for six years at least.

Mr. O'Sullivan

For six years after the Deputy's Party returned to office.

Mr. Corry

For six years after that levy was imposed. If the Deputy has any doubt about it, I will quote again from the Leader of the Opposition. Here is what he said at column 1411 of the Official Report of 12th July, 1960:

I want to raise a specific matter which affects the problems of beet farmers who are supplying beet to the sugar factories, and also other products which are produced from Irish sugar, which is raw material produced in this country. In 1948, we negotiated a trade agreement, Article V of which reads as follows:

The Government of the United Kingdom undertake that where goods, the growth, produce or manufacture of Ireland, are dutiable at preferential rates of duty, they will not vary the existing preferential treatment of these goods in such a way as to put any class of goods the growth, produce or manufacture of Ireland at a disadvantage in relation to goods of that class from other sources enjoying preferential treatment.

Now, that is a pretty comprehensive Article and yet with that Article in existence, I understand that goods containing Irish sugar are being subjected to a very formidable levy, the proceeds of which are devoted to the subsidisation of goods of similar quality containing sugar derived from Crown Colonies of the British Crown. I am told, I think, by some of the Minister's colleagues, that when Deputy Norton was Minister for Industry and commerce, this matter arose and that he did not consider it desirable to press the interpretation of Article V which would give us the right to claim exemption from that levy.

I do not know what the position is in regard to that. I have no recollection of hearing the matter discussed when I was a member of the inter-Party Government, although it could have happened and passed out of my memory but I do not remember it and I have not discussed the matter with Deputy Norton. Whatever attitude was taken up, I should like to be told now because frankly I confess that as I see it now, it appears that that Article is wide enough and comprehensive enough to cover the present procedure under which I believe that goods which are the growth, produce or manufacture of Ireland are being put at a disadvantage in relation to goods of that class from other sources enjoying preferential treatment.

That was the statement made by Deputy Dillon in this House on 12th July, 1960. What amount of revenue and what amount of production have been lost to this country in the six years since that inequitable agreement was made?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Why do you not change it instead of blowing your top here? Say it to the Minister.

Mr. Corry

You made it.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

You change it.

Mr. Corry

The evil that Deputies do and the evil that buckshee Ministers do lives after them. That is our misfortune in this country.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Corry

We are still endeavouring to get clear of the mess you made six years ago and it was only this year we were able to bring in the Coast Protection Bill. Down in my constituency within the past three months, farmers have been refused contracts in respect of over 250 acres of beet. Out in a portion of Deputy O'Sullivan's constituency, there are 500 acres of beet short, due to the working out of that iniquitous agreement. That is the position due to the fact——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Corish

Deputy Corry is just being vulgar. Is that in order?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I did not catch Deputy Corry's statement.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I hope you will not catch it tomorrow when it will be repeated.

Mr. Corish

That is the second time.

Mr. Corry

Who made the agreement? Who is responsible for that money having to be paid? Who was responsible for the loss of employment to the worker in the field, to the worker in the factory and——

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

Mr. Corry

I am dealing with the amount of unemployment that was caused by that one step alone on the part of the inter-Party Government, the amount of misery that was caused by it. I am not asking too much in asking that even at this late hour some definite steps should be taken to have the matter straightened out. I should like to see the job finished so that our farmers can go into full production.

Dealing further with agricultural topics and the position of our agricultural community in general, I think I remember Deputy Dillon here complaining last year about the price of wheat. It has been a very sore topic. If a man has not some faith in what he is saying, he should not say it. How can a man responsible for making such statements as Deputy Dillon made in the House look in the face any farmer growing wheat. I wish to quote from Col. 2050, Vol. 106, of the Official Report of 18th June, 1947, where Deputy Dillon said:

...for the first time since the emergency, we had the enthralling, stimulating and surprising experience of eating bread made out of Irish wheat. Before you ate it you had to hold it out in your hands, squeeze water out of it, then tease it out and make up your mind whether it was a handful of boot polish or a handful of bread. If it was boot polish you put it on your boots or shoes and if it was bread you tried to masticate it if you were fit.

That was the opinion of Deputy Dillon, the Leader of the Opposition, as to the kind of wheat produced by Irish farmers. Let us examine the agricultural policy from the shilling a gallon for milk to the attitude of the new budding Minister for Agriculture who tells us that 75 per cent of the milk is too dirty to be made into cheese. Let us examine the policy on those lines. Let us remember the batch of Ministers who went over to Britain and came back with a £76 per ton levy on our sugar but did not know anything about it until we challenged them here years later. What can you expect from a team like that? So much for that.

I shall now suggest to the Government that in line with the reduction in tariff duties in preparation for entry to the Common Market, they should remember that the agricultural community have so far got no round of increases. My friends on my left are looking for the ninth round, but the poor agricultural community have not even got one—and let me tell you that there is nobody in that community who does not work. All we are asking is that we be brought into line with our fellow-farmers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland with whom we shall be competing. In fact, I would go a step further and ask the Government to take a bigger step in the derating of agricultural land in this year's Budget.

When I heard Deputy Barrett talking about the cheap labour that is to be had, I could not help thinking of the lot of employment we have succeeded in getting for the Deputy's constituency at Rushbrooke where each worker is earning anything from £12 to £25 a week. That is the general run for the workers at Rushbrooke Dockyard. The minimum wage at Irish Steel is £9 10s. a week and there are very few on that minimum wage. Most of them are earning from £14 to £20. Those are the conditions under which extra men have been placed in employment in my constituency since 1957. The 200 men whom Deputy Norton got rid of from that industry in a very short period of three years are back in employment and 400 more with them. There are now 1,000 at work there at decent wages.

Mr. Tully

What did you do when the fellows were knocked off the railways?

Mr. Corry

In the area under my jurisdiction, I take very good care nobody is knocked off. If others looked after their bit of territory as I looked after mine, there would be no need to worry.

Mr. Donegan

Brian Boru was not in it—the new king of Ireland.

Mr. Corry

If I had blamed the farmers' wives of this country for dirty milk, I would hang my head.

Mr. Donegan

Who is doing the blaming now?

Mr. Corry

This budding Minister for Agriculture said 75 per cent of the farmers were producing milk too dirty to be processed. If there was any shame in him, he would run off and drown himself in it.

Mr. Donegan

There is not. We are getting the statement but not the reason for it.

Mr. Corry

The reason for it?

Mr. Donegan

I did not give the farmers' wives——

Mr. Corry

I have given the statement and I have given the proof that such does not exist, as far as my constituency is concerned. I am calling on Deputy T. O'Donnell to say whether all the farmers' wives in County Limerick are dirty milkers, too.

A number of comments have been made about housing. I am prepared freely to admit that it took the Minister for Local Government nearly three years to get the civil servants in charge of housing in this country——

Mr. O'Sullivan

Is it proper for the Deputy to charge the Civil Service?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

He is making general charges. These charges have been made throughout the debate and were ruled to be perfectly in order.

Mr. Corry

What I am saying is that it took the Minister three years to get out of the heads of the civil servants the instructions they got from Deputy Sweetman. That is what I am saying, and I stand over it. I can now say this much: the man who wants to build a private house in Cork county today need only have £80 of his own money.

Mr. J.J. Collins

Good man.

Mr. Corry

Deputy O'Sullivan knows that. He knows the regulations made under the development grant and loan schemes in regard to housing in my area.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I do, and I know a lot more, too, of what the Deputy says to the Housing Authority in Cork about the Minister and his Department. Of course he will not say it here.

Mr. Haughey

Hot under the collar.

Mr. O'Sullivan

When it is not going on record, what he says about the Minister and his colleagues in the Government is entirely different.

Mr. Corry

I shall put something on record now. When the Deputy was still in the sucking bottle days, I was saying it here.

Mr. O'Sullivan

That was when the Deputy was playing with the buttons in the RIC barracks. We still have that now.

Mr. O'Malley

I am surprised at the Deputy.

Mr. O'Sullivan

That is what you will get.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Sullivan must make way for the Deputy in possession.

Mr. Corry

The Deputy made a remark and——

Mr. J.J. Collins

I would ask that Deputy O'Sullivan be forced to withdraw that statement.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The last time, Deputy Corry withdrew at the instigation of his own Party in the Cork County Council chamber.

Mr. J.J. Collins

The Deputy has just passed a certain remark.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will Deputy Collins please resume his seat?

Mr. J.J. Collins

We could have the imputation here that a man's father ran away from the Fenians.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If Deputy Collins persists, I shall have to ask him to leave the House. Deputy Corry is not being allowed to make his speech. Deputy O'Sullivan should cease his interruptions.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I shall, Sir—when the personalities cease.

Mr. Corry

I can assure Deputy O'Sullivan that whenever my father's record comes to be written, it will be as good as that of his father.

Mr. Corish

Get on with the Vote on Account. This is the greatest lot of nonsense one could hear. I am not saying who is to blame. There should be an end to this kind of maudlin stuff.

Mr. Corry

The speed or the slowness of housebuilding in any area is 90 per cent the responsibility of the local authority in charge of the area. I can stand over that statement. There are times when the speed of housing in any particular district is slowed up and stopped. In some cases, that is due perhaps to the tardiness of the elected representives but in many cases, it is caused by the manager in charge. I have had experience of that. Anybody who reads last Tuesday's Cork Examiner can see an example of it.

Two things which we require in this country are, first, employment for our people and secondly, that when a man leaves his work in the evening, he will have a decent home to go into. We should proceed along those lines and it is the one thing on which I agree with Deputy Barrett. I seriously suggest to the Government that the Road Fund Money at present being squandered on roads should be diverted to housing. I think that that would be a good and a wise step. Only last Saturday, I attended a meeting in a village in my constituency. The proposal there concerned a sum of from £65,000 to £70,000 in respect of by-passing a village.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would be for the Estimate for the Department of Local Government. It does not arise on the Vote on Account.

Mr. Corry

I know that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy knows it, there is no point in proceeding with it.

Mr. Corry

I am suggesting that a change be made in this Estimate as regards roads and that the money be channelled into housing. I think it is a wise and a good suggestion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is no Estimate before the House.

Mr. Corry

I do not wish to take up much more of the time of the House. I have examined the Estimate as closely as I could. With regard to rates on agricultural land and, as a matter of fact, rates in general, the Government should take a further step to lighten the burden in that respect. We have an increase of 4/2 in the £ to face next Friday on the consideration of our estimate. That absolutely wipes out the increased grants we got last year—and farming prices have not improved. The position of the farmer as regards prices today is just as it was seven or eight years ago. He has not got another round of increases. He certainly deserves some direct relief, particularly in his rates. In order to deal with the competitive market, we shall have to place our farmers in line with the farmers in Britain and the farmers in Northern Ireland, neither group of whom pay any rates on agricultural land.

As regards Deputy Barry's remarks and, I think, the remarks of Deputy Treacy on the position of the Common Market, I should like to say that our application for the Common Market stands where it stood at the start.

Mr. Tully

Tell that to the Taoiseach.

Mr. Corry

The only trouble is that General de Gaulle was not prepared to allow into the Common Market, not Britain on her own but all her step-daughters and grand-daughters and every other country that she had collected or forced into subjection during the past 400 years in with her. If all those came into the Common Market, then the position of the Irish farmer entering the Common Market would be far worse than our present position, instead of improving it. De Gaulle is therefore fighting our fight. Firms subsidised by the State should at least be compelled to purchase Irish products, particularly food. I suggest that someone should go through the books of Irish Shipping Limited for the past 12 months. It is strange that money supplied by this State would be used for the purchase of New Zealand butter and North of Ireland sausages. If anybody here has any doubt about it, I shall produce the proof of what I am saying. If we are to find employment for our people, if we are to work out employment for them, we must at least hope for sufficient patriotism here amongst our own people to buy Irish first.

Mr. Donegan

As we have now left what Deputy Corish described as "Children's Hour," I suggest we should not mention Deputy Corry's remarks until later. It must be said that we have reached a stage where, since this Government came into office —not at the last election but at the previous one — somewhere between 250,000 and 300,000 people have emigrated. At the same time, we have an unemployment figure something less than the worst we recorded. However, taken in conjunction with the——

Mr. Lenihan

Thirty thousand less.

Mr. Corish

Do not exaggerate. We are prepared to accept the accurate figures.

Mr. Donegan

We have over 60,000 unemployed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Donegan has only a few moments. He might be allowed to speak.

Mr. Haughey

Even if he is only talking nonsense, let him talk.

Mr. Donegan

In conjunction with the 300,000 who have emigrated, one must—if a true comparison is to be drawn—take a figure of over 60,000 unemployed into account. If one is to take below the line expenditure as well as above the line expenditure, it will hit somewhere above the £235 million mark. The national debt is around £500 million. At the same time, we have a trade deficit of £100 million. What saved us from a balance of payment crisis?

Mr. Haughey

Good government.

Mr. Donegan

A combination of things saved us. The tide was running with the Government. They were going with the stream. They had these advantages. A flow of money was coming into this country in different ways. First, you had emigrants' remittances. Next, there was the purchase of land by foreigners. On Tuesday, we tried to get this recorded but we were not given the facility. Nobody knows how much land is purchased here by foreigners. We tried to get a register kept but we did not succeed.

Mr. Cunningham

Has the Deputy an estimate?

Mr. Donegan

When I feel like giving it, I shall give it. At the same time, in Dublin city, you had a flood of semi-public buildings—offices, the new university, Liberty Hall, the P.J. Carroll building, several insurance buildings, the Intercontinental Hotel. All that is activity which will not recur again.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.