Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 Feb 1965

Vol. 214 No. 5

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

I think it will be relevant for me if I begin by commenting on the Taoiseach's references to the esteem in which public men are held by the Press. I think his experience of public life corresponds substantially with mine in the past, however deeply we differ in regard to many matters. I have found myself in deep difference with Fianna Fáil all my life. I believe their policies to have been radically wrong in regard to Partition, the Economic War, compulsory Irish, disregard to the livestock trade, economic isolationism, most of which these they are now in the process of abandoning, a development I welcome. But the general standard of public life in this country has been characterised by a disinterested concern for the welfare of the nation according to the several views of the several Deputies who participate in our public life. How far we have allowed ourselves to depart from that in recent times is something about which it may be no harm to examine our conscience.

I have heard statements made in this House that, to succeed in politics, you must be a rogue, you must lie, you must deceive the electorate. I think most Deputies have dissented most emphatically from such sentiments but I think it is very important before we see the beam in our neighbour's eye that we should be circumspect to remove the mote from our own. In that context, we have got to be scrupulous to avoid reckless allegations reflecting on the personal honour of one another such as that made by the Minister for Justice recently in this House. Quite casually, and without any preliminary precautions, he challenged my veracity as to the user of Government cars when I was in office and, in substantiation of the falsehoods he then uttered, he volunteered to make available the relevant files. He did not, of course, make available the relevant file or files but yesterday he made available three copies of documents, one of which was a letter of a circular character from the Minister for Justice, when deciding the general rule that no Minister is entitled to the use of more than one car, dated September, 1950.

There are two other documents. One is signed by a civil servant, addressed to the Barrack Master of the Garda Síochána. It states:

Dear Mr. Creagh, In a note you sent me last July in connection with Ministers using more than one car at a time, you stated that Mr. Dillon, Minister for Agriculture, had used two cars on each of the following dates:

23/3/48; 20/4/48; 21/4/48; 21/5/48; 10/6/48; 25/6/48; 26/8/48; 9/10/48; 27/10/48; 3/11/48; 31/12/48; 16/2/49; 8/3/49; and 29/6/49.

Would you please let me have information, if available, as to the circumstances which gave rise to the use of two cars on each of the dates in question? Was the use of the extra car on any of the dates necessitated by a breakdown of the Minister's regular car? I would also like to have particulars of the occasions on which it has been necessary to send out a relief car through the Minister's car breaking down. It has been stated that not infrequently the Minister has been left on the side of the road with some defect in his car.

That letter is not signed but the reply to it reveals that it was issued by a Mr. Connolly, at the time, I think, an assistant secretary in the Department of Justice.

The House may wonder at the reference to the fact that not infrequently the Minister had been left on the side of the road because of a defect in his car. Those were the austere days when Ministers felt some reluctance to spend public money on luxurious cars. The result was that we were travelling in extremely dilapidated cars, and I remember on one occasion the late Deputy Norton being nearly killed because the steering in his car broke down it was so old.

To that second letter, the Barrack Master replied on 28th September. He sets out several dates——

Would the Deputy read the whole letter?

Here it is:

In reply to your letter of 22nd instant, re the occasions on which Mr. J. Dillon, T.D., Minister for Agriculture, had the use of more than one car, I attach a return giving full particulars of the cars used on the dates shown in your minute. On none of those dates was the use of the second car necessitated by a breakdown in the Minister's regular car. An examination of our records shows that on two occasions it was necessary to send out a relief car because of defects developing in the Minister's car, viz:—

(1) 9/10/48. Car PI 9821 was sent to Monaghan as petrol pump of Minister's car became defective.

(2) Car ZD 7717 was sent to Cahir, County Tipperary, as a defect had occurred in the petrol pump of the Minister's car.

In the return showing dates on which two cars were used by me occur the dates 23rd March, 21st May, 20th April, 21st April, 9th October, 15th June, 1948, when car No. ZH 3046 was given. Car ZH 3046 was not a State car; it was my car.

State petrol, a State driver.

It was my car.

State petrol.

It was my car. In fact, I was not using a State car at all. On 2nd May, 1948, my car was in use from 8.30 a.m. to 7.30 p.m. Car ZE 9591 was in use from 7.45 a.m. until 1.20 p.m.

I said it was your car with State petrol.

This is the type of disgraceful slander being uttered recklessly for the purpose of denigrating Members of this House. It is disgraceful. The plain fact is that during this period I was not using a State car at all. I was using my own car every day.

Plus an extra car.

There may have been for half an hour on urgent business. Instead of using State cars, I was using my own car.

There were two cars on each day.

That is the kind of reckless, irresponsible slander——

The Minister's ass is impounded.

——by a Member of the Irish Government against a Member of the House for no other reason than to sling mud.

Who started it?

That, I suggest, is the kind of thing which lends an air of verisimilitude to reflections on the standards of public life——

How did the question arise?

Deputy M.J. O'Higgins started it, plus the Sunday Independent.

The practice of promiscuous mud slinging tends to debase the standard of public life and it ought to stop.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Have a word with Deputy M.J. O'Higgins.

The mud slinger bar none sits behind the Minister— the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.

I have not the file and I should be glad if the Minister for Justice would make good his word and make available the file from which these documents have been extracted.

They are the relevant documents.

They are not. This is a vicious attempt at slander and it tends to degrade the standard of our public life. It does service to nobody except to persuade the public that we are not prepared to debate issues on their merit but to seek to destroy one another's reputations by the promiscuous slinging of mud. If this were an isolated case, I would immediately conclude it came from the Minister for Justice who has this mischievous habit and one I suggest he should correct. But it is not an isolated case. We have had others, including the Minister for Local Government who declared in the middle of an election that one letter, which subsequently proved to be a silly practical joke, was in fact one of thousands of forgeries designed to defraud the electors of Roscommon for the purpose of getting an election result.

That was subsequently exposed but here again that type of mud slinging is calculated to debase the standards of our public life. I believe in hard hitting in politics; I believe people who are not prepared to take it as well as give it have no place in politics; I believe politics would be the poorer if we all become so mealy-mouthed as not to allow ourselves in public life to express our minds freely. We all know that when we make energetic, even vituperative attacks on an individual in this House, it is not an attack on his character but on his policies. It is of no cause of scandal to us, who know the ways and manners of this House, if two Deputies who engage in acrimonious dispute here are later found sharing a cup of tea in the restaurant. Long practice has taught us that we are concerned to examine one another's policies but the way and manner in which we do it is to assail the Deputy who expounds the policy and charge him with the faults in the policy. That is all to the good and it would be a bad thing for Dáil Éireann if that was to disappear from our disputations here but an incident of the kind I have described injures us and tends to create a false impression in the public mind and does facilitate those who would seduce the public mind with their regrettable activity.

I must also refer to the standard of conduct which appears to justify the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance appearing at Trinity College, Dublin. He repudiates, I understand, the references to the ex-Leader of his Party.

That was a completely false report and the Deputy knows it. This is real mud slinging.

I have introduced this by saying "I understand the Parliamentary Secretary repudiates the references to the ex-Leader of his Party", but I know that he went on to inform the members of this Society of the Government's proposals in connection with higher education which I understand are still the subject of an unpublished report to which the public have not access and I understood that members of the Government were restrained to confidence unless and until the document was published. Conduct of that kind reflects on the integrity of Ministers.

Whited sepulchre.

We had a scandal about leaks from the Department of Education and I feel now, faced with the declaration by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance that he is in a position to give advance information from the Department of Education——

I think the Deputy is aware that the Commission has not yet reported to me so that any information cannot have been from the Department.

I do not want to peer into the murky depths from which the Parliamentary Secretary drew his information but I understand that he hastened to add "Do not publish this". I do not believe that that kind of behaviour constitutes standards which the Taoiseach and I claim to be the norm of Irish public life. I could refer to other aspects but I feel that on the particular occasion in the exposé I am constrained to make of the Minister for Justice's disreputable performance I have gone far enough to suggest that the Taoiseach might examine his conscience and that of his colleagues before he gets too indignant if the general purposes of public life are sometimes misunderstood in this country. I want specifically to renew the application to the Minister for Justice that he will make available the file——

That is all the Deputy will get, the relevant documents.

I want the file which I understood was to be produced and which I intend to riddle. I think I have said sufficient to indicate the disreputable character of the Minister's observations, and if he fails to make good his undertaking to make the file available as promised, he will reveal further the guilt of his conscience. I regret the necessity of wasting the time of the House describing the disreputable conduct of the Minister in this respect but it is good for the Taoiseach to get some indication of the kind of thing which, I agree with him, is an undesirable development and a denigration of the general standards of Irish public life which, in my experience, with certain glaring exceptions—and they were the exceptions that proved the rule—compare favourably with those of the public life in any other country in the world.

Now I want to turn to the economic aspects of the Vote on Account itself. Deputy Sweetman in opening the debate from this side of the House directed the attention of the House to the astonishing fact that the Supply Services Estimates this year are approximately twice as great as they were seven years ago. That does not take cognisance of the steady increase in the Central Fund Services which this year will amount to approximately £40 million. If all that vastly increased expenditure had produced the results which most of us think are urgently necessary we might congratulate ourselves that we have been able to afford them. If we could say that with this expenditure we had housed our people; if we could say that with this expenditure we had provided the educational facilities we thought the people required; if we were in a position to say that our social services now entitled us to say we had effectively abolished poverty and if we could honestly say we had a health service of which we were truly proud, then whatever sacrifices were necessary to meet the present standard of expense would be cheerfully accepted by the people.

The tragic fact, however, is that with this immense burden of expense on us, and with our resources strained to meet it we have not housed our people, we have not provided the educational facilities that every side of the House believe to be urgently necessary, we have not provided a scale of social services which have effectively abolished poverty and we have not got a health service which gives satisfaction to any side of the House. I heard some Deputy yesterday speak of the building that is going on now and comparing the situation today with the situation when we had not enough tenants to fill the houses available in 1957. That is one of the things I am proudest of, that we built so many houses in our period of office that we actually had more houses than tenants to go into them.

The Government professes to believe that the fact that we have an acute housing scarcity is due to the fact that there are more people in the country now than there were then, but the truth is that they conveniently close their eyes to the fact that their scandalous neglect of housing during the past seven years has resulted in a situation in which the houses which were actually falling down on the people have not been replaced.

The houses are falling down again.

Yes, and Deputy de Valera in my hearing in this House protested not six months ago that his constituency here in the city of Dublin was like a devastated area in London after the war, so many houses had been pulled down, so many dwellings had been destroyed, so many gaps existed. I myself have had representations from a parish priest in the city protesting that the collapse and elimination of houses as being no longer safe was denuding his parish of population. The plain fact is, as is known to everybody, and the statistics clearly prove it, that during the last seven years not enough houses have been built to replace the houses that have collapsed, with the result that we have today a number of families housed in Griffith Barracks because there is no other place for them to go. They have been taken out of houses that were falling down and in which it was no longer safe to leave them.

The Government must, I think, ask themselves with great anxiety, since they have allowed the burden of taxes and costs to rise as they have, where do we go from here? Remember, so far I have referred only to the taxation of the Central Government, the Supply Services and the Central Fund but, contemporaneously with that, the local rates in every county are soaring and will this year, on the average, be 5/- in the £ higher than they were last year and last year the average increase represented about 7/- in the £ over the previous year.

It is the practice of this Government, as it has been the practice of other Governments in the past, to generate a kind of euphoria, an atmosphere that all is lovely in the land and that everything is going according to plan. For this purpose the whole jargon of economics is trotted out and many people fail to detect the variations that are played upon that jargon. Some years we are talking about the gross national product. Other years the Taoiseach likes to speak of the national income. This year the national income and its expansion is once again the theme. How many people realise that the lower the value of money falls the larger your national income will appear to be in terms of that money. The cost of living has gone up in the seven years by nearly 30 per cent. There has been a proportionate increase in the national income because the value of money has declined by that much, but that is poor consolation for anybody who is concerned for the future of the country.

The second astonishing thesis on economics is that the adverse trade balance does not matter a damn so long as the adverse balance of payments is kept in equilibrium. The adverse trade balance in the latest available 12-month period that we have amounted to £124 million. The adverse balance of payments will be in the order of £30 to £35 million. We have 61,000 unemployed. There are 70,000 fewer working than there were nine years ago. In the last seven years approximately 250,000 people between the ages of 17 and 30 emigrated from this country.

I want now to suggest to this House that the thesis that the balance of payments does not matter is a thesis which ought to be looked at again. I should like to direct the attention of Deputies to a communication from Mr. Edward O'Toole, the financial correspondent of the New York Times. We are all told that the model of booming prosperity in the world today is the European Economic Community. Mr. O'Toole, writing from Brussels last Sunday, has this to say:

Stormy weather may be ahead of the European Economic Community if the Johnson Administration's new balance of payments attack is at all effective. The overall balance of payments of the European Economic Community has been in precarious equilibrium in recent years with the total outflow of funds just about equal to the total inflow. Meanwhile the United States outflow has been exceeding the inflow by more than three billion dollars annually.

Here are the significant words:

But the net balance of international payments versus receipts can be a grossly misleading index of economic viability. A much more accurate indicator is the balance of trade—how much is being sold abroad compared with the purchases from foreigners.

I will not weary the House by following the length of this article. These words are addressed to the European Economic Community and France, which is at the moment boasting of her gold and her monetary reserves, is faced with the problem that she has an adverse balance of trade of one billion dollars per annum and is warned of the ultimate and inevitable consequences of that being maintained, irrespective of whatever temporary phenomena may operate to keep her balance of payments in precarious equilibrium.

Were ever words more appropriate to the circumstances of this country than to speak of our balance of payments being in precarious equilibrium? We have, in fact, a deficit of approximately £30 million, and that after all the fortuitous borrowings and sales that the Taoiseach described to us yesterday: Aer Lingus borrowing in New York; foreigners investing in our national loan—"hot" money that may be withdrawn at the drop of a hat; foreigners buying land here and foreigners buying businesses here, and not only businesses engaged in export industries but businesses engaged in the internal distribution functions of this country.

We are all agreed that we want to draw in foreign capital and foreign know-how to establish new industries here, with an export capacity which will earn the foreign funds to pay the interest on the capital invested here. What are we to say of capital which is coming in here to take refuge in our national loans and in our banks, or capital that is coming in here simply to draw profits out of the normal distributive functions or other commercial activities already in existence and which are either being wiped out of the national hands which held them heretofore or being acquired from those national hands by purchase by foreign interests? Do not let us forget that every £10 million of that kind of investment coming in here places upon our balance of payments a permanent charge of £700,000 a year. If the investment is of a character to establish a new industry here, the bulk of whose output will be exported, and which will give good employment for our own people near their own homes, it is welcome; and we have provided tax inducements to draw such industries here and grants and benefits of various kinds, because we want that investment.

Let us not delude ourselves that by bringing our balance of payments into that kind of precarious balance we have no reason to apprehend the growing adverse balance of trade, which is steadily increasing year after year and which shows no prospect of correction. I do not know if Deputies have had their attention drawn to a recent speech by the Governor of the Bank of England. The Governor of the Bank of England, addressing the British people—not addressing us— reminds them of the borrowing which restored their balance of payments to precarious equilibrium last November and says "Despite the respite of last November, it, in itself, no more guarantees our future than Dunkirk presaged swift victory in 1940." He then went on to say to the British audience he was addressing, just as Ed. O'Toole said to the EEC audience he was addressing: a precarious balance of payments equilibrium is no substitute for a balance of trade equilibrium. If you persist in a course of conduct which is going to leave you with a growing adverse balance of trade, sooner or later the birds will come home to roost; and the longer you delay by establishing a precarious balance of payments through a series of fortuitous devices of drawing capital into your economy, the worse your problem will be when you are ultimately forced to face its resolution. These kinds of warning uttered in time always tend to jar upon the ears of the public. But it is the common duty of every public man in this country who sees the road we are travelling to sound a note of warning while there is still time to take corrective measures.

What has produced the adverse balance of trade in this country? What tends to expand the adverse balance of trade? The Government's belief that the unrestricted expenditure of money and the promotion of a rising cost of living are sound economics for this country. I want to make this proposition: if you have a steadily increasing rise in the adverse balance of trade, if you have a steadily growing burden on your balance of payments and if, at the same time, your cost of living is steadily rising, you travel a road to ultimate disaster.

We warned the Government when they introduced the turnover tax, which impinged not only on the luxury type of expenditure but on the essential food, fuel and clothing of the people, that that would detonate a spiral of increasing costs in this country which would jeopardise the whole economy. That is exactly what has happened. That has resulted in a natural demand from those who were severely affected by it for increased wages. That has spread all through the Civil Service and the public service. As the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance said, that has involved a situation of a probable deficit in this year's Budget and the great danger of the need for increased taxation in the Budget that lies ahead in order to meet the charges arising from the consequences of the Government's own action.

But that is not the whole of the evil. As our costs rise, our competitive position in foreign markets, particularly for industrial goods, will tend to decline. I read for the House what is happening in the United States of America, what is happening in the EEC and what is happening in Great Britain. I remember saying in this House 12 months ago "You are faced with a situation at present in which you have a general election pending in America and in Great Britain. While those elections are pending, the roof is off. The bottom of the barrel is being scraped. They are spending freely because they are all afraid to check an economic boom. But when the elections are over, watch the atmosphere in which we will have to operate."

Now we see Great Britain with her back to the wall borrowing from Continental bankers and from the United States—on terms we do not know and the British people do not know—and faced with the prospect of having to renew those borrowings within the course of the next month or two on terms which will have to be fixed, not in London, but in Zurich. The like of that has never happened to Great Britain before in times of peace. It may have happened in times of war.

We are faced with the situation in the United States in which the American Government, which enjoys a very substantial favourable balance of trade but an unfavourable balance of payments, on account of its vast disbursement by way of aid and otherwise, is determined to bring its balance of payments more into equilibrium for the protection of its gold stocks. They are forbidding external investment. They are forbidding returning visitors from abroad to bring in more than 50 dollars worth at retail prices. They are cutting down on imports. Great Britain is putting 15 per cent on her imports in order to bring them down.

These are the markets in which we will have to trade in the future. These are the markets for which we are preparing ourselves by precipitating our producers into a spiral of increasing costs. Are we gone made in this country? What would our balance of payments be in this hour but for the fortuitous and blessed fact that the Fianna Fáil Party did not succeed in extinguishing the livestock industry of this country and that we have an acute shortage of meat in Europe at present? Do not let us forget that the Taoiseach in the Fianna Fáil Party was at one time in my hearing proclaiming in the town of Arva that the time had come to get rid of the livestock industry. It sounds incredible.

It certainly is.

I solemnly assert those words were used and the farmers in Arva, in Cavan, were told that a very useful substitute would be the production of honey and he desired to add that his best information was that the most prolific bee was the Egyptian bee. That was proclaimed off a platform in Arva in Cavan by the ex-Taoiseach of the Fianna Fáil Party. I agree that today that sounds crazy, that any man could be so crazy, but, providentially, these kinds of follies have been abandoned and we have the livestock industry today. But, picture what the balance of payments in this country would be like today if we had not the fortuitous meat shortage that exists on the Continent of Europe. The adverse balance of payments today would be between £40 million and £50 million per annum instead of £30 million.

I want to warn the Government, and it is a warning they should face, if we propose further to increase the cost of living, if we propose further to stimulate the spiral of increased costs in industry in this country, we are travelling a road to ruin and it is a wicked fraud on our people to lead them down that road without taking remedial measures in time.

It is quite untrue for the Taoiseach to pretend that the purchase of agricultural land in this country by non-nationals for the relief of our balance of payments is a matter of insignificance. I do not believe the total acreage of land acquired for cash by foreigners in this country will ever grow to proportions which will threaten to exclude our own people from the land because long before that happened civil disturbance would destroy society in this country. But, it is a bad situation that the impression should generally spread abroad that there is practically nothing left in this country on which you cannot put a price and buy it for money, our balance of payments situation is so acute.

There is a very considerable acreage of Irish land being sold for cash to foreigners and it is making a contribution to obscuring the true balance of payments situation with which we are at present faced and only yesterday the Taoiseach, in referring to this, said that while he deprecated any language designed to exaggerate the magnitude of the problem, the Government, on reviewing it, had come to the conclusion that it ought to be prohibited and had legislated accordingly in the Land Bill now before the Seanad. It was only when the Minister for Finance leant across and interrupted him that he was fully informed of what the true position was and he was concerned to say that they had prohibited it except with the consent of the Land Commission.

I often wonder what kind of Government is this. Do they know one another's minds? Do they know what one another are doing? If that was the Taoiseach's impression of that provision in the Land Bill, then I invite him to look at section 27 and some other sections which he may not as fully understand as he ought to do because, if he did, he would realise that things are being done in the name of his Government which will precipitate further instability in this country. But, at present, I am primarily concerned with the question of the purchase of land by foreigners for the purpose of maintaining the kind of equilibrium, if you can call it equilibrium, that we have in our balance of payments, with a deficit of over £30 million this year.

I wonder at what stage do we propose to call a halt to the rise in the cost of living. Is it the Government's policy to allow the cost of living to rise indefinitely and, if it is, where or how do we stop the spiral of inflation? I want to say quite categorically and definitely that you cannot carry on on the basis of an unceasing spiral in the cost of living, that if you try to do so we will walk into an economic catastrophe which it may be extremely difficult to correct.

Sooner or later, we have to face the situation that if we intend to remain in international trade, if we intend to preserve industrial employment in this country, there must be a rational incomes policy and that is a policy which as regards the cost of living would maintain stability not only of wages but of profits and of incomes generally. The realisation of such an aim in a vast complex society like that obtaining in the United States of America or even Great Britain or Germany or even France, is extremely difficult. God knows, it will be difficult here but ours is a relatively homogeneous, compact society, where it is easier to make every element understand the common purpose we have in mind and, surely, if we mean to prevent disaster, some steps should be taken to that end and we should clearly set our face against further increases in the cost of living.

One of the most potent sources of increasing cost of living is the Government's taxation policy. The Taoiseach very truly said that there is not the slightest use pretending that if you increase costs all along the line you can hold down prices at the end of the process of production and distribution. Who is increasing costs? Whose activities have made the greatest contribution to the increase of costs in the last few years?—the Government's. If you impose taxes upon everything, increase the cost of living with a consequent increase in everybody's wages and remuneration to offset that and then have to raise more taxation in order to meet the increase in wages throughout the public service, and then impose more taxation in order to increase the revenue required, is not that the source of the increase in the cost of living? Who is to stop it, if not the Government? Who is to set the example, if not the Government? Unless the Government are prepared to do it, then we are faced with the plain inescapable fact that we are marching to a dialectic of inflation and it is time to ask ourselves what is the end of that road.

There are two ends to that road. Both of them are, in my opinion, disastrous and the Government which bring us to the end of that road are doing a terrible disservice to this country. One end of that road is deflation, described in England as the "Stop-Go" policy, and if it is applied here, if it becomes necessary to apply it here in order to survive, it will involve our people in great suffering. It will destroy a considerable volume of industrial employment with the deplorable result of driving our people abroad. I suppose it is better that our people should have an alternative means of livelihood than that they should be left hungry at home but it would be a horrible prospect if the end of this Government's activities were to precipitate another wave of emigration like the 250,000 that they have driven out of this country in the last seven years and, if that is to happen and you drive out of the country 250,000 of the wage-earning and wealth-producing elements of society in each succeeding generation, it is hard to see how this country could survive as a viable unit.

The other alternative, and I believe it is an alternative with which the Taoiseach flirts in his lighter moments, is devaluation of the currency and I want to say now, and this is the time to say it, that there is no more cruel and vicious illusion than the belief, secretly held by a good many quasi-economists in this country, that devaluation is not such a bad thing at all. Fundamentally devaluation is a decision to beat down the standard of living of everybody in this country who is not rich enough to store his wealth abroad. Devaluation never hurts the rich but cripples the poor. The rich can always protect themselves. It is the widow, it is the person living on the fixed income, it is the unsophisticated investors who have always put their money in Government stocks, it is the poor and the simple whom devaluation destroys. It is the wealthy who have the knowledge and the sophistication to put their money in foreign equities or, if need be, in diamonds or bars of gold, who come through devaluation unscathed and smiling. There is the wage earner who suddenly finds the struggle to achieve a reasonable standard of living for himself has in one fell stroke been undone overnight because Government policies have led us to the catastrophe of devaluation.

In the United States, who seek to correct the balance of payments, and in Great Britain, who also seek to correct the balance of payments, they have a cushion on which they purport to operate at the present time. The Governments of those two countries are pinning their hopes for the elimination of their balance of payments problems on the reduction of defence expenditure. Both of them are spending not millions but billions on defence, the Americans very largely abroad, the British both at home and abroad. Both Governments say: "The way out of our problems is to streamline our defence expenditures, cut them down, and in this way we can encompass other essential outlays and suffer no national ill."

We have no such cushion in this country. Our total defence expenditures are virtually nothing and that is a matter the Deputies of this House ought to bear in mind. Any adjustments we are called upon to make by the stringencies of balance of payments or balance of trade problems fall to be made in areas where it must hurt everybody. It is not a question of abandoning the TFX 111, as they have called the aeroplane in Britain. It is not a question of closing down 50 armament centres in the United States and deciding they have enough missiles and they do not propose to construct any more. It is not a question of moth-balling two or three fleets of naval vessels that are declared to be redundant to the essential defence requirements of the United States or of the world.

No such economies are available to us and if we suffer ourselves to slither further in the direction in which we are slithering, so that our total revenue capacity is strained to the limit—without the schools, without the health services that our people need, without the social services that would abolish poverty, without the housing requisite to fill up the gaps in Deputy Vivion de Valera's constituency of which he spoke in this House, or to take the people out of Griffith Barracks —we are already faced with a crisis. If what the Taoiseach says is true that the costs of Government are going to rise, then we shall be faced not only with a crisis on the domestic side but with a new crisis in our foreign trade. We are going to be caught between our own rising costs and the drawback by Great Britain and the United States in their import capacity. They want to cut down imports, and our competitive position must grow and grow to meet and overcome that reluctance on the part of our two best customers to accept imports at all.

Let there be no illusion in this House that if taxation is to rise further and rates are to rise on the scale at which they are at present rising and promise to rise next year, the cost of living will go up and, if it does, the consequential adjustments will place a further strain upon the economy which I very much doubt it is in a position to bear. It is certainly not in a position to bear it and provide what I believe are the minimum requirements of the country such as I have outlined.

I believe that this Government are responsible for the situation in which we find ourselves today. The Taoiseach's effort to persuade our people that the line on which we are at present travelling is prudent or maintainable is recklessly irresponsible. The alternatives that lie before us, if these paths are pursued to the end, are dangerous to the very survival of this country as an independent nation. The illusion that we are living in a rich country of illimitable resources is a real menace to the independence of Ireland.

I want to put it to this House that sooner or later all this will have to be faced. Is there nothing left in Ireland that is not for sale? Our people took the decision quite deliberately generation after generation that they were prepared to pay the price of freedom. Now, there are a great many Deputies who never knew what it was like to live in their own country unfree. They have never known what it is like to be an inferior people in their own country. As that knowledge recedes into history, I apprehend it is becoming more and more incomprehensible. Many members of the rising generation forget what all the struggle for freedom was about. Why did people get so het up about it? It was intangible. Mind you, it is still possible for certain young people to experience something like it by visiting certain parts of our country which are still controlled by an ascendancy.

I remember being told once in Lisburn how grateful I should be to the district inspector for permission to walk in a procession down the main street. Can you imagine anyone in our country being told that we ought to be grateful to the superintendent of the Guards for allowing us to walk in a procession down the main street in Ennis, Limerick, Waterford or Wexford, or can you imagine anyone feeling he is indebted to the local police officer for permission to walk down the street of his own town? That is what being an inferior people in your own country means—that and a thousand similar experiences. That is what our people determined they would tolerate no more and they were prepared to put an end to that situation by peaceful persuasion if it were possible, by energetic agitation or by the shedding of blood if there was no other way.

Beware lest we succumb to the pedestrian methods of economics and the nurturing of the illusion that a free Ireland is necessarily a wealthy Ireland expressed in the terms ordinarily understood in a materialistic world. We suddenly find ourselves faced with the choice of a poverty our people are not prepared to accept, the sale of the last thing we thought was purchasable, our freedom.

I want to reaffirm my faith that in this country we have resources available to us to provide all our people with a decent standard of living. I want to reaffirm our faith that in our society we have the capacity to produce the kind of society to which I certainly want to belong and to which most of our people want to belong— a classless society in which we are all neighbours and in which there will be no very rich and no very poor. I want to reaffirm my faith in the capacity of Ireland to provide for its people a better standard of living, in the true sense of the word, than any other country in the world. I want to reiterate a warning I seek to give this Government now, if they chose to chase false gods, to delude themselves and their people into the belief first enunciated by the present Taoiseach when he was a younger man that there was no limit if you put your hand to it—there can be more and more and more. If that is our illusory objective, this country will meet with disaster and disaster of a kind for which there will be no remedy except the ultimate treason of selling for cash what was purchased with blood.

I do not think there was any way for Deputy Sweetman to know from the figures published that he was wrong in assuming there had been a cut in the university grants this year. He could not have guessed the amount of anxiety he had caused in the university and the amount of trouble brought down on my head by his assumptions.

It is a fact, on the figures published.

There is no way of knowing from the figures published.

May I ask the Minister this question?

Am I allowed to speak?

The Minister for Education to speak.

Does the Minister not think from what he has just said that it is a reflection on his colleague, the Minister for Finance, in neglecting to give the explanation when introducing the Vote.

It is a simple explanation. I want to hasten, before the trouble starts, to assure the university colleges. Before the university colleges find themselves in a panic, I want to say that university current grants are increased. Every college will have an increase in its current annual grant and the difference between the Vote for universities this year and last year is on the capital side and is explained by the speed at which the building projects have been completed. The projects in hand which might have cost equal amounts in separate years cost much more last year because of the swiftness with which everybody concerned went about the business. Instead of providing £1,422,000 as for last year, we provide this year £986,000 so there is a reduction.

It is the only Vote reduced.

It is not a cut in money but a reduction in the building requiring money.

It is the only Vote reduced. That is true and cannot be denied. It is the only Vote that is down.

It is a reduction in the amount of building going on this year which will require State money. If the buildings going on this year were more than last year, we would be able to give them more money. I might add, the programme of university building will see an increase when projects are fully developed and the building side will again see an increase in the grants being made for this purpose, but the amount of building taking place this year is such as to require less money. I might add it is to the credit of everybody concerned with the building that this is the case.

Except the Minister for Finance apparently.

There is no point in giving money for building that is not taking place.

The Minister should come in and give an explanation which he is supposed to do.

I did not intend, and I am sure the Deputy could not take it from my opening remarks, to say that the Deputy tried to mislead the House.

The Minister for Finance misled the House.

The grants are to be increased. There is a drop in the amount of building taking place so the capital required is reduced. Having said that much, I might add that the science buildings at the Belfield site have been provided at a cost of £2,500,000. At University College, Cork, and University College, Galway, additional accommodation for science students has been completed or is in course of completion. As I said before, there are proposals for further programmes of university buildings which, when fully developed, will require additional capital investment. There is no reason to assume this will not be available.

While I am on that, I may say that I think education statistics may be taken as reflecting the health of our economy. No matter what one thinks of our system of education—there are those who are very antagonistic towards the organisation of the system and others think it is the only way— you will have to agree it is unique in that the secondary education in Ireland is totally in the hands of private enterprise. I do not think any other country in the world has this situation. Because of this fact its financing represents a combination of private fees, and public support and investment, and so the statistics of education reflect the general state of the economy.

I should like to refer the House to the numbers attending secondary schools, vocational schools and universities now as compared with 1957, the year when there was a change of Government. In that year the attendance at secondary schools numbered 59,306 pupils. By last year this 59,000 had exploded over the years to 92,989. The numbers attending vocational schools for the same dates went from 21,786 to more than 30,000 pupils. In the day apprentice and technical courses, the figures went from 8,393 to 15,000. In 1957, there were 8,369 whole-time students attending the university and for 1963-64, which is the last year for which I have figures, the number was 12,915.

As I say, this ability—I am not now taking on this issue of whether the State or private enterprise should pay the fees—of people to pay fees is expressed in the explosive numbers. It also reflects the ability of the State to support the increase because for every student attending a secondary school, the State has to pay a capitation grant. Teachers have to be first made available and then paid a salary for every secondary school supplied. Similarly, in the case of vocational education schemes they have all to be supported by the State at a general global figure of two-thirds the cost. The universities, both in capital and in current grants from the State, have had a great increase because of the increase in numbers.

The State has continually been able to keep up with this pressure because of the proper handling of our finances. We had experience, immediately before that change of Government, of the facility with which the opposite situation can be brought about.

I think it was Deputy Sweetman also who referred, as people are inclined to do, to the increase in money for education—we all want more money for education—and said that our provision was merely for teachers' salaries, as if that were a less worthy way of spending money on education than other possibilities. I am sure, apart from the teachers, there are plenty of other people in the community who regard the teachers as the most important single factor in the effectiveness of any system of education. We cannot regard the State payment of salaries and increases to teachers as being unimportant. I take issue with the speaker, who, in one sentence, disposed of our extra expenditure in that way.

This Government, apart from the normal sharing out of the increased prosperity which has come to this country, the normal sharing out which was due to teachers, this Government by deliberate act of policy decided to raise the status of teachers within the community in so far as this could be done in terms of money. I believe this is the most significant single gesture to indicate our attitude to educational developments. It is not true to say that this is all we did with the money available. In 1957, in terms of actual money, the cost—and it is not a very small amount when you think of the size of the country—to the State was £15 million and by 1961-62 that had gone up to £19 million. We hope, for 1965-66 to provide £33,500,000. We have increased, in a period of eight years, the total expenditure on education by 123 per cent. Some of this, as I say, was spent on teachers' salaries and also on raising the teachers' status in the community. That has only been possible because of the availability of money. I am sure those interested would like to hear some of the things which have been achieved by having extra money available, which in turn has been made possible by proper management of our finances. One of the things which we have been able to do is to add to our corps of teachers 1,000 extra in number since 1957, which means an improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio. The question of very large classes has been raised in this House many times. That is something which bothered me some time ago and I arranged for a survey to be undertaken and information collected so that we could come to grips with the problem and have a reorganisation of classes within schools and a redistribution, where possible, of attendance at schools in the same locality.

The vast majority of these large classes have been done away with, that is, the classes with over 50 on the roll. We were able to supply extra teachers and prefabricated buildings to help solve the problem further. Progress towards further solution of the problem, and a further reduction in the size of the classes in relation to the teachers, will be possible as extra teachers become available.

As I said, we hope to be able to continue the improvement in the number of teachers which has taken place since 1957. Part of the scheme for doing that has been the replacement and extension work in St. Patrick's Training College to provide extra accommodation. Again, when you start to spend money on any part of the education system, you find that you have to spend a great deal before you can show any advance. The college itself had gone beyond being a suitable place for the residential training of teachers. It has been found possible to increase the accommodation for training, and that was made possible by the availability of the necessary £1,500,000. The quality of our teachers is very high—and I am sure Deputies are aware that we must be one of the few countries in the world no longer recruiting untrained teachers—and this quality continues to be improved by the employment of extra staff in the training colleges, and the provision within them of such modern aids as language laboratories.

While all that has been going on, the other need in our educational system at national school level has been the provision of schools. For many years we had been producing the depressingly low figure of about 40 replacements each year, with little prospect of ever seeing an end to the big backlog of several hundreds—perhaps 700 or 800—bad schools which were in need of replacement. The progress made in our financial position, and the management of our affairs since 1957, enabled us to undertake the biggest school building programme ever attempted here, a programme which in the most recent 12 months produced 108 new schools and 93 schemes of major improvement. Therefore it is not true to say the extra money was spent merely on teachers' salaries, as one Deputy from the opposite side asserted. We raised the status of teachers, so far as that can be expressed in terms of money, and we also improved beyond measure the facilities available at national school level.

A number of Deputies have recently shown an interest, and a welcome interest in handicapped children. I am sure schools and parents will be glad of these champions in this matter, but it is not the champions but the handlers of our economy who made possible the provision of something like 41 special schools for physically and mentally handicapped children. The major portion of the cost involved in providing those schools was borne by the State.

The cost involved in meeting the explosion in secondary school attendance was mainly on the basic grants payable. The capitation and other grants were themselves increased in amount but the big increase is due to the fact that over the years the numbers for whom capitation grants must be paid have gone up so fast. It was also necessary to meet the cost of the increase in the number of whole-time secondary teachers from 2,857 to 4,000. That meant that extra salaries, and improved salaries at that, had to be paid. The number of our school buildings has increased from 474 to 573 in this year.

One part of our system of education depends on the other, and to enable teachers to be available they, in their turn, had to find a place in the university to be trained. That was made possible—and the further increase which is necessary will be made possible—by the building of the new university at Belfield, and extensions to our other colleges. Many of the people who felt we were not going fast enough in providing educational facilities may have been among those who objected to our building a university at Belfield. Only one, or perhaps, two members of the House objected to this building at Belfield. Apart from these the House responded well to the need for that building. Those who have given thought to the matter realise that this extra provision is being made available just in time. The science faculties have moved to Belfield, and that has greatly eased their position. They had reached the stage where it was almost impossible for them to do their work. A Minister for Education is mainly interested in the universities for the provision of teachers, but as a member of the Government, I must also be interested in the other graduates from the universities who are so necessary to the economic and social health of the country.

As I have said, we have a unique system of secondary education. It is not directly influenced by any central authority. We have 573 schools which are privately and independently owned. From time to time we find it necessary to seek their co-operation, for example, in recent years in the teaching of science. Since the possibility of the Common Market became more alive, and since tourism brought the European nations closer together, we have also needed to stress the teaching of modern languages. Those things have been encouraged by the introduction of special grants for science equipment, special grants to attract science graduates to secondary school teaching and, as the House knows, by television programmes, and visual aids. The teaching of modern continental languages has been stimulated by making grants for visual aids in language laboratories and the provision of special residential courses for teachers of modern languages.

There has been a very heartening increase in the number of pupils—and especially among boys where the learning of languages was not popular at one time—in our secondary schools who are taking modern continental languages. We have improved the pupil-teacher ratio so that one recognised teacher is now available for every 15 pupils, in addition to special recognition being accorded to the headmaster of the school.

I suppose most members of the House are aware of the building of new schools and the enlargement of existing schools within the vocational system. The overall accommodation in vocational schools has been almost doubled since 1957, and the total financial provision from State funds has been almost trebled. Closer liaison has been established between schools and industry and commerce, which has resulted in extended courses for managers, technicians, operatives, apprentices, and so on. Equally close co-operation is being developed between the vocational schools and the agricultural interests, activities such as the winter farm schools and Macra na Tuatha. I mention these various activities, which have been made possible by the availability of extra funds, for the benefit of those who might feel that all we have done with our extra expenditure is to increase the salaries of teachers. We have done that as a deliberate policy but, as the House will gather from these few facts which I have given, we have done a great deal more.

From time to time a request is made by somebody that we should raise the school-leaving age. Indeed, we have announced our intention of doing this but I should like those who call for the change to give it some thought. You cannot just pass a law or make a rule to raise the school-leaving age and give the matter no more attention. Raising the school-leaving age carries implications. You just cannot keep children in primary schools up to the age of 15. If you raise the school-leaving age to 15, as we intend to do, you have to have some post-primary education available to everybody.

If I have been guided by one special principle as Minister for Education, it has been to try to reach the stage of making some post-primary education available to every child. Exaggerated slogans such as "Free Education For All" are not possible. We have been reminded that we are not a wealthy country but it is possible to take a first step and to see that every child will get some post-primary education.

An excuse for post-primary education would not be enough would be cynical. What we need is to provide a course of post-primary education for every child who can benefit by it, which is almost every child in the country. This, in its turn, implies building and the availability of teaching staff at that level. It implies a vast expenditure of State money which we cannot afford to spend lavishly and indiscriminately so there is an implication that there will have to be some guidance of the pupil towards the type of post-primary education most suited to his abilities and some consideration in our programme for the needs of the community. Such selection, being just one facet, will require the availability of specialised staff in the Department of Education and in the field to consult with the teachers and the heads of schools.

Any aspect of raising the school-leaving age which you care to mention will cost money. We hope to have sufficient school buildings and sufficient teachers trained and produced by our universities by 1970 to raise the school-leaving age by 1970. We hope, with the co-operation of the owners of private secondary schools, where these are available, to be able to provide education suitable to the aptitudes of the various pupils and to the needs of society. I do not think anybody would say that everybody in the community should have an academic education and I do not think anybody really believes that the selection of the type of education should be determined by one's financial position but these are considerations which have to be worked out. In the meantime, we hope to get the co-operation of the secondary schools and the co-operation of the vocational committees. In any areas where provision has not been made by private enterprise, we hope to provide comprehensive schools, as I call them, in which the range of subjects taught will be sufficiently wide to give every child attending the school an opportunity to develop his or her talents. Some of these schools are already being planned. A few are in the hands of the architects. The introduction of a comprehensive curriculum is really more important, if less eye-catching, than the building of the comprehensive schools. The Department of Education has prepared these curricula and will consult with all the people concerned who should be consulted about their introduction.

Perhaps the most important development, having provided for some post-primary education for everybody, is to provide what is now greatly lacking, that is, a higher course in the technical side of our educational system. I do not think that anybody would agree with the present proportions following academic courses and otherwise. Part of our plan is to provide a higher course in the technical school leading to a technical leaving certificate, this examination itself leading to technological courses in the technological colleges or in the university. These courses have been planned and consultations will soon take place, if they have not already taken place, between officers of the Department of Education and, in the field, organisers of the vocational system. The ordinary course in the vocational school will become a three-year course instead of a two-year course.

When fully implemented, I think our system will give a fair chance, and as time goes on, it can be developed to give a full chance to every child in the community. We have to wait for the time it takes to train teachers. We have to wait for the time it takes to get co-operation. We have to wait for the time it takes to provide buildings. It is not just a matter of saying: "We will raise the school-leaving age."

These slogans are meaningless. Anybody who has given thought to the real problems of providing opportunity for all of our children will realise that it will take not just a great deal of money but time, patience and co-operation to achieve what we all want. We plan to achieve these things.

I have given this outline of what we intend to do, to show that my mind is clear about what opportunities we want to give our children.

As well as that, we have set up the Commission on Higher Education who have not yet reported to me but whose report is being drafted at the moment. I have no knowledge of what is in that report. We have working, too—and I have been expecting a report from them—a team under the joint aegis of the Department of Education and the OECD. These will project our needs in education in the next ten to 15 years, based on certain assumptions. Much of our possible expenditure will have to await the recommendations we shall get from these bodies but I do not think we will have to wait too long. When the various people concerned who have a right to state opinions on these matters have been consulted, we shall move into an era of much heavier expenditure on education but I think that a Government who in eight years have gone from £15 million to £33½ million can be depended on to continue to support the type of educational development in which we believe.

I might say that, as an earnest of our intentions and as an interim measure, in 1961 the first attempt at State aid to local authority scholarships was made. At that time I said it was a pattern which I hoped to see expanded. The scholarship scheme since then has trebled the number of scholarships to post-primary schools and has very much increased the number and the value of scholarships to universities. It is not fully in operation yet as each year up to five years will provide an extension to the original scheme. It is through methods like these we can ensure that the clever boy or girl, at any rate, will not lose their opportunity while we are awaiting the final day, the day of a completely satisfactory system. I do not know if any country has a completely satisfactory system. In any event, we are all well-intentioned enough to aim at a system here which will give equal opportunity to all our children.

We introduced direct building grants for secondary schools. This is something that would not have been possible, were it not for the successful handling of our financial affairs. There has been some delay in arranging the method of the allocation of these grants but there are applications before my Department, being considered at the moment, and it is intended that the State support will be given on the basis of 60 per cent, allowable on the interest payable on the capital sum required for the building of a school. The scheme is well known to members of the House.

Mar focal scoir, ba mhaith liom beagán a rá faoin gceist a phlé an Teachta Sweetman i dtaobh na nollscoileanna. Ba mhaith liom a chur in iúl dó nach bhfuil aon cheist i mbliana go ndéanfar laghdú ar na deontaisí ollscoile. Beidh a mhalairt de scéal ann maidir leis na coláistí, agus ní gá imní ar bith a bheith ar mhuintir na nollscoileanna i dtaobh an méid a bhí le rá ag an Teachta mar gheall ar na deontaisí seo.

An bhfuil aon fhocal le rá ag an Aire i dtaobh an Pháipéir Bháin?

Níl sé sin i gceist anseo.

Before I make any reference to the Vote on Account, I should like to refer to something which seems to be front page news and the subject of a lot of political talk at the moment—the question of a general election. The Taoiseach dealt with it last night but, as an Independent Deputy, I feel I, also, should give my views. The people have the right to be wrong. While conceding them that right, I submit they have it only on stated occasions.

A great judge.

The Constitution provides that there shall be elections every five years. It is also stated that there shall be elections when the Government fail to retain a majority in the Dáil. If one concedes the people's right to do wrong, one would be conceding the right to hold a general election every month. That would not be in the interests of the people. Too often when people talk about a majority, they refer to a small section who create a majority. The difference between six and seven is only one and therefore, some politicians, through bluff or untruths which scare the people, can create a majority. If the result of one or two by-elections were held to justify an immediate general election, one could justify a general election every time some small section of the people were compelled by hysterics or by some Party game, to vote in a certain way in a by-election.

As I have said, the question of a general election is clearly covered in the Constitution, which states there shall be one every five years except, in between, when the Taoiseach fails to retain a majority in the House. So far, the Taoiseach has, and I believe will retain, a majority until next year. If it pleases the Taoiseach to go on until then, I believe he will continue to have the necessary majority. Apart from the fact that a general election could not interest anyone except people who hope to be Ministers, or others outside who hope to be TDs, or some small vested interests, a general election now would not be in the interests of the people at large or of the people who, through misrepresentation on the part of the Opposition, think there ought to be one. The people would suffer.

It is the duty of a responsible leader like the Taoiseach to ignore the hysterics and rely on his constitutional rights and responsibilities. If there were a change of Government, my sentiments now would be the sentiments of the Opposition then because in such circumstances they would not want an election. Therefore, let us forget the hysterics and examine the suggested reasons for a general election.

Why should there be a general election? I have listened to some of the top Opposition speakers on the subject on Telefís Éireann. I wish to God I had a chance of getting on that programme. What I have listened to from the Opposition on that programme is bunk. I have special knowledge and I know bunk when I hear it. I know a lot about certain matters. I am a very active member of a local authority, perhaps the most active in Ireland because I have not missed a single meeting—and I am on seven committees—in several years. Therefore, I know how much of what they have been saying on Telefís Éireann is true and how much is untrue.

I have listened to the several proposals on which the Opposition base their hopes of victory in a general election. One is a great new health scheme. I am a member of Dublin Corporation and the health authority and, in principle, I agree that there is need for a better health scheme. I agree everyone should be insured because the cost of health services would not then be so heavy on them. It would also relieve certain sections of the community, especially the ratepayers. What I object to in their proposals, however, is the suggestion that such a scheme would cost the workers only 1/9 to 2s. a week more. If the Opposition hope to gain votes by putting it over that everybody will have a complete health service, with hospitalisation, drugs and so on, all for 1/9 or 2/6 a week, then that is either a fraud or a case made in ignorance of the truth of the facts.

Only yesterday I attended a finance meeting of the Dublin Health Authority where it was stated that for Dublin, for the limited health service with which many people are disappointed, it will cost the State and the ratepayers approximately £8 million. If Dublin caters for only one-fifth of the entire population, then if the rest of the country are to receive this Utopian health service, it will cost £40 million. If this limited health service were to be doubled, if all the people were to receive free hospitalisation, drugs and so on, and if the unemployed had no insurance fee to pay, then anyone with intelligence can see that the cost will be at least doubled. If the present limited service costs £40 million, then this Utopian service would be nearer to £80 million. If the State is to pay one-third, that leaves some £53 million for the public to fork out.

I shall deal with this in a keen, analytical manner, as I do everything. I approach nothing unless I see through it; that has been my training. When I was a child, I read a maxim of the Duke of Wellington that "If you want to know the truth, make certain you know what is going on the other side of the hill." That is my nature; I accept nothing. Recently I spoke to students at a debate in Eccles Street when the motion was "That Parties have not served this country well." Speaking against me were a a Senator and a TD but I won the debate. I was asked: "How would you advise people to judge politics and politicians?" and I answered that training should be given in the primary schools because most of our voters have no other schooling than that which they receive in the primary schools. I said that they should be suspicious of everything a politician says. The children should also be taught that there are three sides to every question—there is one side, the other side and the right side. If the children were taught that there are three sides to everything, that would justify the first point, to be suspicious. In addition, I said, every child should be encouraged to be critical.

All very interesting but I am doubtful of its relevancy.

Judging from what I read in the press, every subject has been gone into on this Vote on Account. I am making the point that the Government have done well and that the Opposition have nothing to offer, that there is no justification for this talk about a general election and that the people should be given confidence. I am also making the case that there is nothing in what the politicians say and that if the public take a critical attitude to what is said, they would back up the Government.

All politicians are rogues!

Let us qualify that: in the professional sense, yes, but not privately. There is a difference. A lawyer may be a gentleman but he will go into court and defend the devil or an angel and plead for both. That is why lawyers are so good at politics: they can put both sides over. Professionally a lawyer will defend a devil against an angel but in politics there is the Party game about which none of us is a fool.

I was talking about health services. I agree in principle that there should be an insurance charge. It is a fraud and a cod to say to the people "We are going to do this if we get into power and it is only going to cost you 1/9 or 2/6 a week." The truth is that it would cost every working man and woman 10/- to get that service. Even if it is still good in principle, they should be honest and say what it will cost. The Opposition are forever hiding the truth and basing their hopes on this. Like the Ku Klux Klan who hide their identities with masks, they never tell the bad news, never reveal how much it is to cost, or who will pay for it. The Government may be no better than the Opposition but at least while they are in power they have a job to do and it is not fair that this game should be played day after day, month after month. They should be given a chance to do their work and the Opposition should give up this idea of trying to scare the people. They should await their turn and be constructive and let the Government devote their time to their work instead of having to spend time defending their position——

What is the Deputy doing?

I have done something I am proud of——

Face the people.

——and it will be said that there were three or four years of solid government here, in which I helped, that there was economic improvement in which I helped—not forgetting my colleague beside me. Thanks to us, there has been economic improvement and stable government. You can hope that when you get your chance, there will be fellows like us. I have dealt with this bluff about health services. It is not only my opinion that this would cost 10/-, because a health authority inspector made the same statement recently. That is the position about these elaborate health benefits which they use as a subject for a whole evening on Telefís Éireann.

Another issue I want to raise is the fact that if the Fine Gael Party got into power they would change local government; they would give all power to the councillors and take away any power the Minister has now. Do we not all know that the State subsidises the local authorities by almost two-thirds of the total cost of dwellings and by as much as 50 per cent in many other directions? The taxpayer, for whom we speak here, subsidises a large proportion of the expenses of local authorities. Deputy Jones appeared on Telefís Éireann and said, and this is backed by the Fine Gael Party, that they will take away the Minister's power to supervise and watch over the expenditure of the taxpayer's money.

I am a member of a local authority. I was at a meeting of the Finance Committee of the Dublin Corporation yesterday. It dealt with the estimates. Out of 18 members there were only three present for most of the discussion. These are the people to whom Deputy Jones and his Party would give complete power over the money which this House is responsible for raising. Only a week ago I attended a meeting of a committee also comprising 18 members. Two members were present. The Dublin Health Authority has to foot a bill for 85 per cent of the cost of operating the Health Act. That committee is dominated by a clique which meets the evening before a meeting and decides who will be chairman. The Fine Gael Party dominate that committee. In the last five years no Fianna Fáil, no Independent, no Ratepayer, no Clann na Poblachta man has been chairman or vice-chairman. Fine Gael dominate in both Dublin and Dun Laoghaire. Are these the people to whom control should be handed over?

We read and hear about the corruption in the appointment of rate collectors—kidnapping and so forth. There the local authority have the power. I maintain it should be taken away from them. Rate collectors should be appointed by the Local Appointments Commission. The only reason why half the people are in the council here in Dublin is because they hope to become Lord Mayor. If it were the people who elected the Lord Mayor these councillors would not be there at all. These are the people to whom the Minister is to give absolute power over finance and administration. I hold the status quo should continue. I also hold that some of the powers local authorities now have should be taken from them. The only power they should be left is the power of suggestion. When it comes to administration and the spending of State moneys the Minister should continue to watch carefully what is done by the local authority. Fine Gael's proposal is the opposite of that.

Would the Deputy give us his proposals?

With regard to housing, Deputy Ryan referred to the ballyhoo in connection with the venture in Ballymun. There we will build 3,000 houses. Deputy Ryan describes that splendid effort as ballyhoo. Last January when a few members of the Corporation were sent to the Continent to investigate possibilities Deputy Ryan tabled a question here and he commented that they had gone for a good time. The result of their efforts is the building of 3,000 houses in Ballymun. That pattern will be copied in other parts of the country. So much for Deputy Ryan. The odd thing is that he was on Telefís Éireann. So was Deputy Dunne, but Deputy Dunne is not now a member of a local authority. Deputy Ryan is, but he does not attend any meetings. Yet, he lectures the public about housing and I am not there to contradict him. Not that I want to be there. I am merely pointing out the things that should be pointed out. I do not care if I never appear on Telefís Éireann.

The Deputy would be an oil painting.

The country is doing very well. Even if certain things are increasing in cost the people are better off. That is the all-important thing. I remember only too well the period 1956-57. It was reported in the papers that 1,200 workers had been laid off in Dublin. There was a drop of 900 in the building of houses between the first year the inter-Party Government took office and the year they went out. I will give the figures. Deputy Ryan is a member of the Dublin Corporation and, even if he does not attend meetings, he gets a copy of this book. The point I want to make is that the houses handed over in a given year are planned the previous year. One does not suddenly decide to build a house in the month of January and finish it that month. That is not the way things are done. If a thousand houses were handed over in 1956-57 those houses were planned the previous year. Always remember that. In 1954 the number of houses handed over was 1,922. That is the year the Coalition came in. If there is any credit in that then it is due to the previous Government. The first year the present Government returned, 1957-58, the number of houses handed over was 1,021. There is a difference of 900. The Coalition Government cannot get credit for the houses handed over the first year they were in office because those houses resulted from the efforts of the previous administration. The figures will be found at page 105 of the book to which I referred. The drop of 900 is quite plain.

Practically all the proposals and plans made by the Opposition are based on a distortion of facts and on bluff. They are mum about money, mum about how much, mum about who will pay for it, mum about everything. To give an example, there were 11 questions on the Order Paper addressed to the Minister for Health by Deputy Ryan, questions about ordinary day-to-day matters. Deputy Ryan knew well when he tabled those questions that the Fine Gael Party had dominated the Dublin Health Authority for the past 5 years and it was in the Authority these questions should have been raised. But Deputy Ryan did not see fit to raise them there. He raised them here.

This is just another bluff in the knowledge that there is a section of the public which can be influenced by emotionalism. This section can be bluffed into hysterics, just like the crowd that marched last year. This is the section the Opposition hope to get on their side for the purpose of creating an artificial majority. It is on that artificial majority the Opposition base their claim to justification for an immediate election. In my opinion a general election now would be a crime. It would be a crime for the Taoiseach to inflict a general election on us just because of the hysterics of the few whose support is gained by lies and bluff.

I have full confidence in the present Government. I will concede that the Opposition are as much entitled to be the Government as Fianna Fáil. In that event, they would be entitled to as much respect and help. But, until next year, until the end of the period stated in the Constitution, the present Government are entitled to all the help and consideration they can get, if not from the Opposition, then from the people at large.

This constant campaign for an election, because they think they have fooled a certain minority for a period, is a challenge to democracy, and is one of the things that could lead to its destruction, if persisted in. The same kind of campaign could be tried by Fianna Fáil if they were in opposition. In fact, they would have a better chance. The present Opposition have only one big group to attack, but if Fianna Fáil were in opposition, they would have six or seven groups which they could dislodge from each other and pit against each other. By adopting the attitude they are adopting, the Opposition are suggesting to future Oppositions that they can do likewise. If democracy ever fails in this country, it will be due to the mean, miserable, puny, little tactics of the Opposition over the past few years. I would ask the Opposition to be constructive, to forget about an election until this Dáil has run its course, and to make their case when that happens next June.

The total national income is somewhere in the neighbourhood of £550 million. The Minister for Finance, introducing his estimate here for £220 million—now, with local taxation, approximately half the national income—gave us a very minor outline of the policy of the Government. In fact, I do not think I am unfair in saying that the major portion of the Minister's speech was directed towards explaining why the cost of living has gone up and why it is incumbent on him to collect these charges from the people by taxation. In effect, it is fair to say that what he admitted was that the turnover tax he introduced had been responsible for a rise in the cost of living and that the increase of 12 per cent last year was responsible for a further charge on the public services to pay public servants for the duties they render to the State.

I do not think the Minister really said anything else, except to repeat the parrot phrase we have listened to over the past 12 months that it can be assumed we will be in the Common Market in 1970. He made very little reference to the imposition of the import charge by the United Kingdom and its effect on this country. As far as any negotiations between this country and the United Kingdom are concerned, at Ministerial level or otherwise—and Ministers must always be responsible to this House—my impression is that we died very soft. I should like to give the House a few facts of which they may not be aware. The overall amount of our exports affected by the 15 per cent imposition which does not apply to food products in any shape or form, is 70 per cent. In Austria, it is five per cent and in Denmark, about seven per cent. In fact in no other country in Europe is it above 15 per cent. Therefore, it is an accepted fact that we were hit harder by those charges than any other country. I found recently at the Council of Europe, on both occasions the General Assembly met, a good deal of surprise among the parliamentarians as a whole that so little protest had been made by the Irish Government against this shattering blow to our economy.

It does not seem to me that the Minister, when he came in here with this enormous bill, had anything to tell us except that he cannot help the proportions it has reached. He indicated it is very possible that the charge may be even higher than at present estimated. In fact, these are only estimates of estimates. It is up to the Minister for Finance, who is responsible for overall financial policy, to give us some indication as to what our future is likely to be in our trading with other countries. It is an accepted fact that we have a very heavy adverse balance of trade with practically every country with which we are trading. We have the greater part of our trade with the United Kingdom. The need for a diversification of that trade should have been obvious to the Government over the past few years. It has at least been brought home to them by the imposition of the 15 per cent surcharge.

I should like to know from the Minister what exactly are the overall lines to be followed with regard to trade, not only with regard to the European Economic Community but with all other countries with which we have trade. Are we going to accede to GATT? We are told that at the moment our application is static and we are not proceeding any further with it. We are told we are to be in the European Economic Community by 1970. We are told it is not politic at the moment to pursue our application. Could any senior member of the Government give us any indication when it will be politic?

I wonder has it occurred to the members of the Government it is possible there may be an accommodation, a rapprochement, if you like to call it such, between the European Free Trade Area and the EEC? It is always well to bear in mind that when EFTA was established, it was established more or less as an offset against the EEC trading potentialities. It has certainly proved to be far more efficacious than it was intended to be. It has certainly affected us, although according to the reply the Minister for Agriculture gave me yesterday, he does not seem to think so.

There are already signs of a considerable liberalisation of agricultural trade within the EFTA group. It has also been announced very definitely by the present British Opposition in their Parliament that they intend to pursue their application for membership of EEC. There is already a considerable softening on the part of the French Government towards the admission of the United Kingdom. Obviously, there has been fresh thinking in that regard. General de Gaulle, who 18 months ago or so opposed their entry, would seem to indicate in some of his recent utterances that he might be thinking again on that point.

Are the Government absolutely satisfied, that in the event of the United Kingdom making a fresh application or of the united EFTA group coming to some form of trade accommodation with the European Economic Community, we will not be left on the doorstep? It would appear to be the theory of the Government that once the United Kingdom goes into the Common Market, all we have to do is to knock on the door and six nations will be standing there welcoming us in. Has it not occurred to the Government that it is quite possible we might find a situation developing wherein the United Kingdom would be in the European Economic Community or, otherwise, in a definite trading group with it, and we would find ourselves in the position that tariffs might be imposed against our goods under any obligations that they might require?

People say that the United Kingdom will not do that, that we have an old-standing trade agreement with them. We have an old-standing treaty of understanding and that is all we have got. We have a treaty of understanding with the United Kingdom whereby they agree to take certain things from us and to give us free entry or imperial preference — whatever you like to call it. Have we any guarantee that that will persist?

I wonder have the Government done any rational thinking on this subject at all? What would the position be if the United Kingdom were in the European Economic Community or if they established a special trade agreement and we found that our entry was not acceptable to some member of the European Economic Community or, if there were an agreement between the two groups, to some member of the EFTA group? The House is entitled to some information on that point. If the Government are laying before the House the estimated expenditure over the next 12 months, they cannot divorce that expenditure from the existing trade agreements and the changing circumstances within the European trading community at the present moment.

I want to say, also, that we are suffering, as everyone admits, from an adverse trade balance. I have always advocated in this House that our diplomatic representatives abroad should have been seeking trade agreements and following trade statistics carefully and closely.

It has been my privilege to go on behalf of the Council of Europe to the FAO Conferences for the past four years. At the conferences one thing emerged all the time, that there was going to be an almost illimitable demand for beef. That did not happen merely yesterday or last year or the year before. It was evident three or four years ago. What I charge this Government with is that they did nothing to expand and increase the production of beef. Increased production of beef would have achieved the favourable balance of trade that we require. It cannot be said that expansion of beef production was not advocated from this side of the House. Several methods were advocated from here. The Government subsequently chose the method of the heifer subsidy. I do not know whether that is the most efficacious or most economical method. I have my doubts on that subject. I make the charge against the Government that they did not become alive to the situation in time and, as a result, we have the adverse trading position we are in today.

We are told that the British Prime Minister, Mr. Wilson, agreed that there was a case of hardship on the Irish Government and on the Irish people as a whole. It is not the first time the United Kingdom imposed hardship on the Irish people. They admitted that. They admitted that our difficulties were perhaps greater than those of any other country and they said that there were discussions proceeding for the purpose of having a new agreement. I do not know what these discussions are as the Government have been extraordinarily reticent about everything they are doing. I do not know whether or not there will be a hard and fast agreement which will ensure that we will not be walked up the garden path as we were before. I do not know whether there will be an advance in trade between the two countries or not.

I do want to make the suggestion to the Minister for Finance that one of our great troubles in this country in the textile trade is the duty on artificial fibre. That has long been a subject of resentment within the trade here, that we are prevented from exporting to the maximum and getting the full benefit of the British market. Surely, it would be a simple matter for the Irish Government to go to the British Government and represent to them that in imposing the surcharge they have given us the greatest blow that any country in the world has got, a greater blow, economically speaking, than any of the commonwealth countries has received and that, in view of that, the British Prime Minister has said that he wishes to help Ireland, that he wishes to soften the burden, that he appreciates the damage he has done us. Surely, the Government could meet the British Government at political level? That would improve the situation to a certain extent.

I referred earlier to GATT. I should like to know from the Minister for Finance whether or not we will accede to GATT. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to say that or not. Our position at the moment is that we belong to nobody. We are in no trading group. We are in no free trade group. We are not in any economic community group, customs union or anything else. Therefore, we are wide open to all the disadvantages that may accrue if we accede to GATT. For that reason it is inevitable and inexorable, in relation to all matters connected with our future trading position, that the House should be informed. When the Taoiseach or the Minister for Finance—I forget which —is questioned on that matter, it would appear that no hard and fast decision has been taken. That is the indictment I make against this Government. In practically all the important things, the things that mean so much to our future trading, one cannot live from day to day. One cannot live by taxation alone. Plans must be made for the future. Efforts must be made to expand and increase the economy. The Government appear to have no such plan.

I do not think anyone can be satisfied with our trading position. I do not think anybody can be satisfied with the enormous adverse balances we have everywhere. Great play has been made about the détente between the Taoiseach and Captain O'Neill, the Head of the Northern Ireland Government, and the benefits that may accrue from it. I should like to say that as an Irishman I welcome anything that will lead to national unity. In fact, as a Parliamentarian I welcome anything that leads to better feeling anywhere in the world. But I do say that we sell to Northern Ireland £22 million worth a year and they sell to us somewhere in the neighbourhood of one-half of that—£11 million worth. I do hope it will not mean that they will get the benefits of all these discussions and that we will not get anything in return.

The most important aspect of the Minister's speech in introducing this Vote was his reference to rising prices. He purported to give reasons why prices were rising and he also displayed his apprehension as to the future trend of price levels generally during the coming 12 months.

I am glad that the Minister addressed himself to that very important matter because I think he knows as well as I do that on all political sides at the moment the average man and woman in this country are concerned more with the inflationary trend than with any other subject. Listening to the Minister and his expressions of hope that prices will not rise further, one is entitled to ask is he even on speaking terms with the Minister for Industry and Commerce. One would think that the Minister for Finance had absolutely no influence at all in endeavouring to get the Minister for Industry and Commerce to do his job and control prices.

It is not as if the Minister for Industry and Commerce had no power in this matter. In 1958 this House went to the trouble of passing special legislation, the Prices Act of that year, which gave the Minister for Industry and Commerce all the power he needed, all the power for which he asked, to intervene in this matter of prices. The outstanding feature of that legislation since its enactment has been the fact that it has not been utilised. Then the Minister for Finance bemoans the increase in prices and hopes they will not increase further during the coming year.

There are other Ministers of the Government who go to the annual dinner of some chamber of commerce and take it upon themselves to lecture the workers and the trade unions regarding controls on income. They are at pains to point out to the ordinary labourer that if he persists in looking for further wage increases he is not very patriotic, that he is undermining the economy of the country. There is nothing at all about the people who by increasing prices are piling up higher profits week after week.

We know that last year the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Federated Union of Employers came to an agreement whereby the trade unions undertook the voluntary control of wages and salaries for a period of 2½ years. That was something that was welcomed by all sides and should have been welcomed by the Government. However, the position is that since that, prices have continued to increase week after week, so much so that the Congress of Trade Unions found it necessary to issue a warning, which I repeat here, that if this situation is allowed to develop they will certainly have to have another look at the last wages agreement which they signed.

It is understandable how frustrated the average wage or salary earner is in all this matter. If he seeks an increase in his weekly income he is compelled to proceed through his trade union to the Labour Court or to some other body of arbitrators, or through some conciliation officer, and make his case. He goes before this body and it is only when he can prove beyond yea or nay that his claim is justified that he secures any increase in his weekly wage packet. On the other hand, there is no investigation at all regarding price increases. The combine, the monopoly, the cartel is allowed to go along in its own happy, willy-nilly way and raise prices. They are not dragged before any court of inquiry to prove the increases they seek in prices are justified. The manufacturer, the distributor and, indeed, the retailer, acting either individually or in conspiracy with one another, as happens in very many cases, can do exactly as they like and our Government will not use the legislation passed by this House to control their activities. It is the wage earner and the salary earner who are upbraided almost weekly by some Minister of the Government regarding their alleged irresponsibility. These are the people who suffer from the activities of the monopolies and the other groups I mentioned.

There is worse than that. The old age pensioners and the recipients of social welfare benefits of one type or another who have nobody to protect them suffer even more than the wage and salary earners who have their trade unions. Even the plight of these unfortunate people does not galvanise the Government into using the powers they have to protect these people. We take the view that it is the duty of the Government to be the watchdogs on behalf of the social welfare recipients. It is the duty of the Government to protect these unfortunate people who have nobody else to protect them.

It is true to say that the Minister for Industry and Commerce intervened when an increase in the price of petrol was suggested. There was also intervention in regard to the increase in the price of sugar, but we are entitled to ask and we shall continue to ask about the other 101 items, the essentials of life, that have to be bought day after day by the ordinary housekeeper. What is being done about control of prices in regard to these items? The fact is that the Minister is doing nothing.

The record of this Government may well be judged in the immediate future and we shall persist in outlining their record in regard to price control. The Government's record in this regard is dismal. Not alone are they the Party that originally removed the food subsidies, they are also the Party that imposed the turnover tax on food as well as everything else. In other words, they taxed food for the first time ever. We shall trot that out and I hope the Minister will be in Cork for the Mid-Cork by-election and I have no doubt the people of Mid-Cork will give him his answer when the opportunity arises on 10th March.

This recurrent note on price control during the years I have been in the House makes one feel a little despondent about Opposition thinking on such matters. I should like to remind Deputies who have spoken about this price control business that this cry has been raised in the House by people in the Opposition ever since the last war, to the extent, indeed, I fear, of being almost a catchcry. I am competent, I think, to speak about this because, when I was in the Opposition shortly after coming into the House, I thought it was a simple thing to go out and get a list of prices, bring it in here and talk about price control. But although I learned that it is easy enough to collect facts, it is a different thing to deal with overall trends.

I should like to ask the last speaker in particular, how it was that the Labour Party, although it dominated two Coalition Governments was unable to do anything effective in the matter of price control. Was it because they were not trying? I do not think that would be a fair imputation. The then Leader of the Labour Party was the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the Coalition Government and, beyond an ineffective demonstration, nothing was done effectively to control prices. Efforts were made and the matter was considered by both Fine Gael and Labour, in coalition, and by the Fianna Fáil Governments.

I should like to ask, in all objectivity, the simple question why price control, which has been so much talked about by Parties in the past, has not been brought in and made effective by Governments. There must be a reason, and it is this: You cannot operate price control in an economy such as we have in common with the whole western world, except in war-time conditions or something like that. During the war we had price control. Then it was of necessity associated with something the Labour Party were very vocal about and of which the Opposition, as a whole, made a great deal of capital during the war, and particularly in the immediate post-war period, namely wage control.

Price control was possible during the war only because there were other restrictions possible and necessary and, in fact, were imposed by the war. War-time conditions imposed restrictions on supply and industry because supplies were not available, restrictions on trade because markets were not available, and restrictions on transport because the physical effects of the war disrupted the whole transport system. Under these circumstances it was possible rigorously and effectively to control both prices and remuneration— in other words, to control costs. It was a very abnormal situation and one, taken overall, that could not compare at all, from the point of view of benefit to the community, with the situation in peace-time with all its drawbacks.

I think everybody wants to keep balances and this talk about control which the last speaker has, if not explicitly, implied, is illusory, misleading and unhelpful at the present moment. I should like to look at the problem on a different basis. Let us go back a few years to the situation of, say, five or six years ago. We had a situation—there is no point in apportioning blame or credit at this stage— in which people were actually questioning the viability of the Irish economy. In plain language, some eight years or so ago, people were actually raising the question, and it was a frightening one, in this free community of Ireland, whether the State, which had been founded after so much struggle and after so much effort on the part of the people, could hope to survive as an economic entity. In other words, the whole question of the survival of the country was in issue at that time and the kernal of the problem was whether the economy was viable, whether it could survive in the expanding competition and environment of the modern world.

That question is not in issue today. It is not an issue today because in the intervening period we were able, in this country, to get a broader grasp of the problem and tackle it on a large enough scale. I believe the present Taoiseach will be remembered in Irish history as the man who, when this Party got back into power after the 1957 general election, realised the magnitude of the economic task facing the country. He realised the scale on which that problem would have to be tackled. "The historic task of this generation"—these were his own words and I will paraphrase thereafter —was to consolidate the foundations of our independence and the foundations of the State. The Taoiseach was admitting, in effect, that the problem of the viability of the Irish economy had already been raised and it would be solved only by action in proportion to its magnitude.

It is to his credit, to the credit of his Government and the Minister for Finance, who introduced this Vote on Account, that not only was the magnitude of the problem appreciated but also that steps on the necessary scale were taken. The practical outcome of that thinking was, firstly, the organised and planned Programmes for Economic Expansion which we all know, with targets which were attainable and, secondly, deliberate systematic planned action in the Government under which, with each Minister having his specific targets before him, there was general Government direction to stimulate the expansion of the economy and the building up of economic activity here at home and the competition for foreign markets.

There was inherent in that problem —going from the general to the particular—the particular emphasis that had to be put on industrial development because we, in company with all other agricultural communities, were faced with certain specific problems in regard to agriculture and land. In proportion to the gearing of our main industry, namely, our land and agriculture, to modern requirements in order to support the whole of the community, one had to find a corresponding industrial development and opportunities for employing people to compensate for the so-called flight from the land. No matter what the Opposition may say, there has been, and there is, in this country at the moment a greater level, not only of community prosperity, as measured by industrial activity but also as measured by the relevant prosperity of individuals in the community.

It is not fair at all to take the impression that the last speaker would leave behind him, that people were worse off now than they were before. The contrary is the case. Let me say, to cover myself, that nobody suggests that people's position should not go on improving. Nobody suggests that people ever reach the stage when what they have is good enough. It is part of the whole human endeavour to try to better one's lot in life. But it is not right either to decry the progress made or to pretend that progress has not been made, when it has been made. Although it is perfectly true that the cost of commodities has gone up, it is also true that personal remuneration has gone up.

While people talk very glibly and generally about incomes policies and about prices and all these things, there are certain facts in the present situation which should be taken into account. The 12 per cent wage increase has a bearing on it. That wage increase was given with the full approval, I think, of everybody here in the House. At least I have heard nobody come in here and say it should not have been given. I did hear the Taoiseach here in this House indicate a certain uneasiness about the magnitude of the increase when he pointed out that about eight per cent would have been what we could bear but that we were prepared to go a bit further in the hope that it would buy the confidence necessary for further agreement.

(South Tipperary): Buy the votes.

It would buy the confidence to have future agreements, to have a general incomes policy and that that investment would be worth while. We would all agree with that. Let us hope that will be the ultimate goal. We cannot deny that that 12 per cent was amongst the factors which, of necessity, increased prices. You cannot have things every way. You cannot have all the profits and no disadvantages in this modern life of ours. It is so trite and so obvious it almost seems silly to say it but it is nothing but the plain, unvarnished, honest truth to say that if we are to have increased remuneration in the community beyond a certain point, if we are to develop so far in the community and provide the things the Opposition talk so much about, if we are to have more educational services, social services and all these things, there will have to be more expenditure in these regards.

It was rightly pointed out earlier in the debate that if you have an increase in the general levels of remuneration, you will have to give increased remuneration to State servants, who are a sizeable proportion, and that can come only from increased expenditure by the Government. The point I simply want to make in the nett is that when you talk about price control, it is illusory. The best example of that is in reference to the Labour Party when they had their own Minister for Industry and Commerce. It was just as illusory for him and under two Coalition Governments, in which they had a controlling part—at least they had the power to dictate to the major Party in the Government—no solution was forthcoming.

We on this side equally examined the question and I will not question anybody for having raised it the first time. I criticise people who, having tried to knock their heads through a stone wall two or three times, will not realise in the end it is a stone wall and that they have only a head. That is the first point. The second point I want to make in the the nett is that it is all right to talk about prices, but if remuneration goes up, it must inevitably have an impact on prices.

We will come down to the commodity which is produced in any factory and sold through any kind of a shop. If the raw material for that article, and the cost of wages go up, inevitably the cost of the article must go up. If you have a factory which is selling something, using raw materials and also employing a number of people and the cost of one of those things, wages or raw materials goes up, there is no escaping the fact that the cost of production of that article has gone up. Therefore the cost of the finished article will likewise go up. If the cost of raw material and of labour goes up, the cost of the finished article must inevitably go up.

We have seen during the past few years, very significantly, that the cost of labour has gone up and in many cases, because of that, the cost of raw material has gone up in most of our industries. That has taken place even where our raw material can be obtained here, no matter what inflationary trends there are outside the country. Everybody knows that prices have gone up but the important thing is to try to keep the balance between the level of remuneration and prices so that you have, in fact, an adequate degree of prosperity both for the community and for the individual.

That is what this Government have been trying to do, and that is what I claim this Government have been eminently successful in doing, notwithstanding all the things that have been said. In fact, over the years there has been expansion, and it is mirrored in the accounts of the State. Revenues, whether private, commercial or public, have increased, and so have costs. The problem which remains, and always will remain, is the problem of the relationship of expenditure to revenue. Beyond that I shall not go at the moment.

I should like to conclude, pretty much as I started, by saying that the policy adopted by this Government has been a deliberate policy, adopted with vision, and with the vision of the Taoiseach who was ideally fitted for the job of steering this country out of an economic depression. His concept was great enough to match the magnitude of the problems. The Taoiseach and the Government are no less conscious of the difficulties and problems than anyone else—in fact, probably more so, as evidenced by their statements. Certainly there are no people in this country at the moment who have the same grasp of the economy as the Government have through their deliberate planning. Because of their broad concept, we have today the prospect of not only a viable but a growing and developing economy and, also, an economy that is being shaped so far as human forethought can shape it in view of the best estimate of what lies before us.

Someone referred slightingly to the talk about our being in the Common Market by 1970. That may or may not be the case. People are not prophets, but people can make estimates, and whether or not we are in the Common Market by then, we can be more than sure that the type of economy which we were used to in the thirties —a pattern which naturally repeated itself more or less after the war—has been changing, and markedly changing in the sixties, because of technological and social development in the world as a whole. There will be changes and it is not good enough to continue thinking in terms similar to the concepts we had heretofore. That type of criticism based on ultraconservatism is liable to be more dangerous than imaginative efforts— and they can be dangerous enough at times. Between those extremes, there has been Government activity, ably backed by the advisory sections in the service, and by the commercial and industrial communities, which has given us a situation which, to say the least of it, compares very favourably with the situation in this country before that progress was initiated.

(South Tipperary): I think it is fair to say at the outset that the Government seem to have one policy and one policy only, a policy of progressive inflation.

Mr. Burke

What was that word?

(South Tipperary): Progressive inflation. In case the Deputy does not know it, inflation means the situation that arises when you have too much money chasing too few goods and services.

Mr. Burke

I have not got too much money anyway.

(South Tipperary): I am sure the goods and services are also limited. This is a very attractive policy for a Government. Down through history Governments have periodically been tempted to pursue that policy, and there is a stop and go progression of events to be seen in the economic history of every country. In fact, a book was published recently dealing with the story of inflation throughout the past 100 years. In that respect we are no exception. Periodical inflation has to halt, first and foremost because it proves to be fiscally unsound and, secondly, because it is socially bad. It produces a situation in which the rich get richer and the poor poorer, and eventually society rebels and a policy of sanity prevails for an interval.

The previous speaker dealt at considerable length with price control. He would like to suggest that the only notion we have in our minds, the only problem facing the country, is the question of price control, and that present costs are all due to failure to control prices. Of course Deputy de Valera will not allow his mind to go back any further than to the 12 per cent wage increase. Without saying it in so many words, he would like us to gather that there, and there only, the present lamentable increase in costs and prices began.

In point of fact, the story began much earlier. Like the hen and the egg, it may be a question of which came first. Why does Deputy de Valera lay so much stress on price control? Because he wants to push the blame back to the worker. Why does he not go back a little further and say the real cause is not entirely wages but inflationary policies? Because that would push it back to the Government. This problem really began with the abolition of the food subsidies by which the Government secured £8 million per year from the people. It was later added to by the turnover tax by which they secured £14 million per — £14 million taken up in taxes and spent by the Government without any corresponding real increase in production.

In February, 1963, the Taoiseach produced in the House a White Paper which he entitled Closing the Gap. At that stage, his argument was—as his argument re-appeared in his speech yesterday—that wages threatened to outrun our productivity and that we were suffering at that time from the effects of the eighth round. That was in February, 1963. Yet, the following March or April, on the Budget of 1963, he introduced the turnover tax to bring in £14 million to put into circulation which meant, in effect, inflation also. If you give £14 million to workers in the form of increased salaries, or if the Government take it in taxation and spend it, the effect is ultimately the same when there is no increase in productivity to meet it.

Taxation which spells out immediate expenditure has the same effect as a wage round increase. But, to everybody's surprise, between the Budget of 1963 and the following Autumn, our economy improved so much — by virtue of the fact that by-elections were pending—that, on 11th November, the Taoiseach announced here that our economy had improved so much that we were now ready for a new round. Mind you, the 11th November was exactly one month after the death of the late lamented Deputy Galvin from Cork who died on October 11th.

We may recall that on November 13th a Labour motion in the House to issue a writ for the Cork city byelection was defeated. The stage was not yet set. The Taoiseach had not yet arranged his 12 per cent wage increase. Subsequently, he got the Congress of Irish Trade Unions to meet the Federated Union of Employers and the 12 per cent agreement was finalised.

I accept Deputy de Valera's statement: I think he is correct that the Taoiseach rather feebly said at that time that the eight per cent was about as much as the economy could reasonably be expected to contain. But let us not forget that he asked the Congress of Irish Trade Unions and the Federated Union of Employers on three occasions to re-assemble — he was so desperately anxious to secure that agreement. Deputy de Valera says that the Taoiseach finally accepted the idea of a 12 per cent increase against, perhaps, his better judgment in order to buy the confidence of the workers. I think "buy" is the operative word but I think it was not their confidence that he was buying but their votes and that it was their votes he bought.

The 12 per cent increase, as far as the ordinary commercial life of the country was concerned, meant the disbursement of £40 million to 300,000 to 350,000 people. Naturally, it was followed by corresponding increases in our central Government services and to all local authorities. I have no firm figures for this latter expenditure but at the time the Minister for Finance did mention the question of £7 million. At that time, he also had no final or firm figures. However, I would hazard an estimate—we can always find out by putting down a Parliamentary question at this stage because the information should be available by now — that it would probably involve an expenditure of £10 million and probably cover about 100,000 people.

There you had, roughly speaking, £50 million put into circulation, affecting, say, 400,000 people. The ages of these people ranged from 16 or 17 to 70. They were all people of voting age with wives, husbands, fathers, mothers, relations. In fact, the Minister for Finance stated that he thought he had compensated about one million of our people against the rising cost of living which would eventuate from the turnover tax.

When we come to the Taoiseach's speech—I have tried to read his mind on this matter—he tells us that if he can avoid it there will be no general election in 1965, but he also told us, in effect if not in actual words, that there would be no tenth round in 1965. May we therefore deduce that before the election of 1966 we shall have a tenth round when the times are more propitious? Are we to have a sorry repetition of the same buy-out as was so successfully accomplished in Cork and Kildare?

Let us not forget that though the Taoiseach rather feebly demurred about the magnitude of the 12 per cent increase, when he went on Telefís Éireann during the elections in Kildare and Cork, there was no evidence whatsoever of any demurring then. He in effect said all workers and wage earners were to get the 12 per cent increase and he asked what was wrong with that—there would be more money in circulation, more going over the counters to traders and shopkeepers. They, too, would be happy. The people of Cork and Kildare did not think there was anything wrong about it. Now they know differently.

We seem to have had a change of front since then. What was right then is now a dirty word. It first became a dirty word when, speaking outside the House, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Transport and Power both adverted to the ninth round and implied it was the cause of all our economic difficulties. Now, apparently, the Taoiseach has decided it has again become a dirty word. They do admit that other factors contributed to the inflationary trend and to the increase in prices—increased cost of imports, increased cost of meat. I think they forgot the potatoes.

However, the main point I wish to make is that in trying to pinpoint a basic cause for these increases in the cost of goods and services which have become so precipitous, so alarmingly heavy during the past 12 months, is that undoubtedly the increases have occurred because of, in the first instance, the abolition of the food subsidies and the introduction of the turnover tax. Other budgetary measures were introduced by the Government which also added to the inflationary trend. You also had a 20 per cent lowering of tariffs and of import quotas at the beginning of 1964. You had increased retrospective corporation profits tax; you had mounting rates; you had increased costs of petrol, telephone charges, bus and train fares.

Some of these extra budgetary charges also play a part, but the basic initial operative cause was the abolition of the food subsidies and the introduction of the turnover tax. I am quite satisfied that if there never had been a turnover tax, there still would have been a ninth round increase in wages but it would have been an increase which our economy could contain. It was clear that the demands of the Congress of Irish Trade Unions, when they sat down to fight for an increase, were largely aggravated by increased taxation on the essentials of life, on food and fuel.

As the Taoiseach has said again and again, ours is an open economy—we must export to live. I do not think anyone will disagree with me that our competitive position internationally would at the moment be much stronger if we had taken some measures to control these inflationary tendencies which this Government deliberately unleashed, largely for the petty, contemptible motive of buying a couple of by-elections which were vital to the Taoiseach's continued political existence.

Speaking in the House a month or so ago, and quoting from the last report of the OEEC, I gave short excerpts on various steps that had been taken during the past year or two by almost every country in Europe to control inflation. We have proceeded willynilly as if we lived in outer space, as if we were a closed economy, in which we could do exactly as we liked when, in point of fact, we are an open and very vulnerable economy. The Taoiseach treated us to a very lengthy speech with much statistical data. Reading it, I feel sure, will be like reading a book on mathematics. He mentioned that agricultural profits have increased by 15 to 16 per cent. This was something I was very pleased to hear. It is the first year these profits have outpaced industrial profits in the past ten or 12 years. As far as my knowledge goes, and from reading statistics, agricultural income has been pretty well static, so naturally when agricultural profits increase, it is something which I, as a rural Deputy, welcome.

However, let us not forget that these agricultural profits are largely the result of cattle exports and the good prices obtaining for them. In case the Government may be claiming any credit for these two things, let us remember that these prices were due largely to the scarcity of beef throughout the world —because of drought in the Argentine and other reasons—and the price we obtained on the British market and which we have obtained down through the years has been considerably helped by the 1948 Agreement negotiated by Deputy Dillon when he was Minister for Agriculture.

The Taoiseach seemed to be very sensitive about the sallies made sometimes on politicians by newspaper political commentators. He singled out the Irish Times particularly in this regard. This comes rather strange from the head of a Party who have three national newspapers behind them, a Party to whom I must say even the Government-sponsored services like Telefís Éireann, the Government Information Bureau and Radio Éireann, have not been unkind, a party who dispose of various economic and pseudo-economic writers commenting in various supposedly objective journals and who have never been unkind to the Government. I hope the Taoiseach has not got any intention of giving bloody noses to the Irish Times and its commentators. The Irish Times is an excellent paper and the freedom of the Press is something we should all regard as a precious thing. There was once a famous editor of the London Times and his guiding rule to his reporters was “Facts are sacred but let comment be free”. I would commend that maxim to the Taoiseach.

When we are speaking about our economy in the spirit of euphoria which is now common place with the members on the opposite side, and comparing the present with the "black years" as they call them—I think that was around 1957—let us not forget one important matter, what we call terms of trade. The Taoiseach said that our terms of trade improved by 4½ per cent last year but he was less hopeful about the coming year. We are passing through an era of relative international prosperity and we have passed through a pre-election era in Britain in which there could be no cutting back, an era in which conditions were very much different from the conditions obtaining in the "black years" so often mentioned from the Government benches when we had international crises such as Suez and Government revenue on such a money-spinner as petrol was radically reduced, and our general trade with our chief customer Great Britain adversely affected.

Coming back again to the question of price control, it would seem from Government speeches that price control is being shelved for the moment, even consideration of limited price control—and I suppose nobody would suggest across the board control—on essential things is not to be considered. If I am to judge from the speeches made here, we have to adopt a wait and see policy; if Britain can do it, we will do it. We have to wait and see how Britain will go about it and what success attends their efforts. If Britain is successful, we will possibly introduce some price control. If Britain is successful in introducing a workable incomes policy, we may also consider it here. This, however, is a more simple economy than the economy in Britain. The question of modified price control and an incomes policy should surely lend itself to a more ready examination in this country than in the more complex economy obtaining across the water.

Our health services have been mentioned in this debate. It would seem from the statement of the Taoiseach that any real worthwhile improvements in the health services are not to be considered because they are either too costly or are not suited to conditions here. Are we to continue then with 30 per cent of our population, 800,000 people, treated from the point of view of general medical services under an outmoded dispensary system, without free choice of doctor and without free choice of chemist? It is socially unsound, I think, that 800,000 of our people should be treated to a form of medical apartheid, an apartheid which obtains in no other white community.

It is agreed by practically everybody, including the Fianna Fáil members on the Select Health Committee, as well as by all who came before us, that free choice of doctor is most desirable. While the Minister for Health was prepared to acknowledge its desirability, he was at great pains to refer to all the difficulties the implementation of such a scheme would entail — financially, administratively, geographically. It just could not be done. But it has been done in the North of Ireland. It has been done in Scotland where population distribution and geographical conditions are not very dissimilar from ours. One cannot help but feel that his reluctance to come to grips with this matter is dictated largely by political considerations and not by any consideration for the welfare of the people. I cannot understand how this could ever have been a political matter, but it appears to have taken on that complexion and it is now no longer what is good or right but rather what is expedient.

For a considerable time in this House, Deputy Cosgrave and other members of the Fine Gael Party have been arguing about imports from countries which bought nothing, or next to nothing, from us. Last year we had a situation in which we bought about £1 million worth of offals from Russia and Russia bought from us a few hundred pounds worth of Waterford glass; I believe the glass was bought for the British Embassy in Moscow. There might be some reason for persisting for a limited period in that kind of trade imbalance, in the hope that, in time and on representation, the position might improve. Under pressure from this side of the House, some of that undesirable form of trading is, I am glad to say, now being rectified. The Government has imposed quota restrictions on textile imports from 16 countries with which we have had a trading deficit. These quotas came into operation on 1st January and will continue to 31st December. They will affect such farflung countries as Japan, Hong Kong, Czechoslovakia, Nationalist China, Rumania, Bulgaria, India, Poland, Malaysia, East Germany, Pakistan, Communist China, Yugoslavia, Hungary and the USSR. Truly we have an international outlook. There are probably some other trading countries in relation to which similar treatment would be justified. Perhaps some may think this is a narrow approach, but it is ridiculous to continue trading with a country which is quite happy to send its goods in here but makes no attempt whatsoever to buy any commodities from us.

Earlier today the Minister for Education gave us a virtual summary of the activities of his Department. It was almost a pre-election speech. He dealt with the increasing expenditure for which his Department has been responsible in the sphere of education. He gave us the increases for secondary schools, universities, vocational schools; he gave us the figures for attendances, all of which necessarily imply increased Government expenditure in the form of State support— university grants, capitation grants and so on.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share