That would only increase the suspicion in the public mind that something "hookey" was going on. I think it is far better that we should keep an eye on the overall expenditure. Anyone with experience knows that our standard of entertainment compares anything but favourably with the standards in other countries. Anyone who has enjoyed—as I have—the hospitality of a foreign Government, knows the sky is the limit. I think that is unwise expenditure. Our standard is kept within reasonable bounds and does not call for any comment or criticism.
This Vote on Account is basically a vote of confidence, and it gives, or should give, an opportunity to the Opposition to voice their criticism of general Government policy. It also gives them the opportunity to advocate alternative policies. It is easy to criticise any Government and, consequently, Deputies of the Opposition Parties have raised a number of minor criticisms of detail. Their criticisms have been singularly unconvincing, and they failed entirely to produce any evidence of a constructive alternative policy. It is more than curious, to my mind, that the only mention we hear of the long-awaited Fine Gael policy is from the political correspondents. From the Party we hear nothing, and we can only assume the worst, namely, that they still do not know what their policy can possibly be. If that is wrong, it is high time members of the public, as well as Members of the House, were taken more into the confidence of Fine Gael so that we would know where, if anywhere, they intend to go.
Generally speaking, the criticism has been that much more money should be distributed to the various sectors in the economy: agriculture, industry and the social welfare classes; and, at the same time, that much less money should be collected to pay for this expenditure. Of course, the only alternative is for the Opposition to advocate in detail the substantial economies in Government expenditure that could be achieved. That alternative has not been accepted by the Opposition. They say generally the Government are spending far too much money, but they will not say—because they cannot say—what expenditure should be reduced.
We have seen people like Deputy Donegan on television advocating enormously increased grants for agriculture, quite forgetting, of course, that agricultural subsidies and grants have been enormously increased since Fianna Fáil returned to office. Of course he always omits to mention that point. He wants far more money pumped into agriculture. Everyone would love that if it were possible and, so long as money fell from heaven, and did not have to come from the taxpayers' pockets, everyone would be quite satisfied. Unfortunately that source of finance is not available to the Minister—although I am sure he would avail of it if it were—and he cannot permit increased Government expenditure unless he knows where the money is to come from.
There have been references in this debate to "this enormous bill which has been presented to the nation for payment". I admit that it is an enormous bill—there is no point in denying that—but with an expanding economy, the size of the Budget must increase year by year. If not, it would be a sign of stagnation. It is a sign of our general expansion policy that we are investing more and more money and, at the same time, not just spending it on unproductive things. A tremendous amount of money collected in taxation is redistributed amongst the community in a far fairer way than has been done hitherto.
Capital expenditure is largely financed out of the Government's loans. What we are doing now is authorising expenditure on normal Government services which include the enormous bill which is incurred through the salaries and wages of all State employees. Here, again, we get the double criticism, and it is constantly levelled against the Government, that there are far too many civil servants and that the number should be reduced. At the same time, we are always being criticised that the Government should do this, that and the other thing. The Government are powerless to act except through their civil servants so we are caught between two fires from the same quarter. The Government are not interfering half enough and it is also employing too many people—and you cannot have it both ways.
As State programming continues and as the Government become more intimately involved in economic development it is inevitable that the size of the civil service cannot be cut down. Every effort is being made quite obviously to introduce automation, computers, and so on. While this may prevent the size of the civil service from increasing more rapidly it does seem to be a physical impossibility ever to cut it down.
We are also trying, and with success, to raise the rate of social welfare benefits but not one of us on this side of the House and not one of us in the House at all is satisfied that the social welfare benefits at present being paid are sufficient. But only Fianna Fáil are prepared to take the responsibility for raising the money to pay for increased benefits. It is awfully easy for members of the Opposition to say that it is utterly unchristian to expect recipients of social welfare payments to exist on what they receive from the State. First of all, of course, they forget that these payments were never intended to be the sole source of income and that we must still rely on the family feeling of relatives of old and disabled people to help. But, if we are to increase social welfare payments—as I sincerely hope and believe we do—we shall have to get the money from somewhere. The Opposition will be the first to leap to their feet screaming about increased taxation although they will also scream in the next breath for increased payments.
We have had, of course, some quite ridiculous criticisms from the other side of the House. Deputy O.J. Flanagan, the night before last, referred to our health services as being the worst in the world. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know that the health services are far from perfect but, in fact, during its deliberations so far, the Special Committee has not been able to find any evidence that any number of persons urgently in need of medical attention are not getting it. In actual fact, people who are in need of medical attention are getting it under the health services and are profiting from it very well, indeed. There can be and I hope will be some improvement in the system. Some adjustments are overdue but no major improvements appear to be necessary.
It has been advocated, particularly from the Fine Gael benches, that we should finance our health services by some form of insurance. That, of course, is based on the illusion that the British health services are covered by insurance. That is an illusion and a very dangerous one. The actual fact is that the insurance contribution pays for only 11 per cent of the expenditure on the British health services. A further 11 per cent is paid for out of local rates and the remaining 78 per cent is paid for out of central funds. So that, to refer to the British health services as being services based on the principle of insurance is just nonsense. The insurance system is not a way of getting away from heavy subsidisation from ordinary revenue. There are many other arguments against any alternation in the financing of arrangements here but I should like to establish once and for all that insurance is no easy way out.
Another criticism that has been levelled against the Government— again in very general terms — is that the cost of living has gone up very steeply and, of course, the immediate diagnosis of the cause of the trouble is the 2½ per cent turnover tax. This keeps on being trotted out in spite of the fact that statistical evidence has shown quite clearly that the cost of living rose by about 3 per cent only as a result of and immediately after the introduction of the 2½ per cent turnover tax. I should like to quote a different view about the reason for price increases. This quotation is as follows:
The insistence on 12 per cent wage increase made price increases inevitable and it is quite naive, to put it mildly, therefore, for parties to call for price control who themselves are the authors of the increased costs which inevitably showed themselves.
That quotation shows very clearly that a prominent businessman of this city, none other than Senator McGuire, an ornament of the Fine Gael Party, is firmly convinced that the price increase is due very largely if not entirely to the 12 per cent wage increase. I was quoting from the Irish Times of February 17th.
The introduction of the 12 per cent wage increase was not directly the result of Government policy though the principle of a national wage agreement was entirely the idea of the Taoiseach. The negotiation of the amount of the national wage increase was a matter that was left entirely between the trade unions and the employers. There are many people who feel that 12 per cent was too high, that it was an advance payment on account of increased productivity which was expected. The national wages agreement has proved to be well worth while during the period of its first term of currency and we must examine very clearly what the result of that wage increase has been. If I had made that quotation from, say, some member of the Government it would have been laughed away as being sheer Fianna Fáil propaganda, not based on fact at all, but I am quoting from a Fine Gael Senator who does not pull any punches, who is a man who knows his business, who knows a fair amount about economics and finance and who is certainly not prejudiced in favour of the Government. Yet he states quite clearly that the reason for price increases—the blame, if you like—must be put in the right place, namely, on those who insisted on such a steep increase in wages. I think we should be able to get over that so that, in general, it would not have done any harm to the economy though it has done harm to the price level.
It has increased prices, but let us make it perfectly clear that as a criticism of Government policy this has no foundation good, bad or indifferent. Deputy O.J. Flanagan, too, referred to the general gloom over the country. He did not say clearly where he had come across this phenomenon. Nobody else seems to have noticed it. I should like to quote from an article by Mr. Garrett Fitzgerald in yesterday's Irish Times. He is regarded generally as a dispassionate observer of the economic scene—in fact, so dispassionate is he that some political correspondents say he is a pseudomember of Fianna Fáil while others say he is a Fine Gael backroom boy.
