We approve of the Budget for what it does in a positive way, even though on a limited basis. It provides improved pensions for old age pensioners, widows and orphans and other social welfare recipients. Though it is not clear in some ways, these may be offset by reductions in home assistance payments. I hope steps will be taken to ensure this does not happen.
The Budget also provides some improvements in the pensions of retired State pensioners such as the Army, Garda, teachers, et cetera. Leaving aside these benefits, it is important to consider what the Budget does not do or how it may affect the economy generally. The picture last year, while showing some improvements in the economy generally, indicated a slowing down in the rate of expansion. The most notable features in that respect were the slowing down in the rate of employment and the reduction in the latter quarter of that year in the rate of industrial expansion.
To examine first of all the numbers in employment, particulars are given in the Economic Statistics at Table XV, and according to that Table, it would appear that the total numbers at work in 1964 amounted to 1,059,000. This compares with a figure of 1,084,000 in 1957 and 1,125,000 in 1956 but, to come to a more recent figure, it would seem that the 1964 figure is now approximately at the 1959 level, that is four years earlier, of 1,060,000.
The National Industrial Economic Council in their comments in the Department of Finance Review, adverted to this fact and suggested that certain steps should be taken in order to achieve a faster growth in employment under four headings. Firstly, they suggest we should lay greater emphasis on the establishment and expansion of employment in intensive growth industries, especially those employing workers with a higher level of skills such as electronics and engineering. I do not know whether to any extent that would require to be modified in the light of recent experience in the GEC, as far as action of that sort is concerned.
Their second suggestion, in part to facilitate the first, is:
The speedy implementation of a manpower policy so that shortages of particular skills or shortages of labour in particular areas can be remedied as soon as possible.
Their third recommendation is:
By raising public investment, though we recognise that in the light of the present high and buoyant demand of pressure on resources in building and construction and in the rapid increase in public investment in recent years the scope for doing so at this stage may be limited.
Their fourth comment reads:
By using some part of the actual increase in production to reduce prices and thus make possible an expansion in sales and open up new employment opportunities. If the full benefits of rising productivity accrue directly to the factor of production rather than indirectly by way of lower prices, there is not likely to be a sufficiently large increase in competitiveness.
They are four headings under which this body, which made a careful and critical analysis and, arising out of that analysis, give what I assume was their considered assessment of what would be necessary in order to step up or at any rate to prevent a slowing down in the economic position. In that connection it is important to examine what has happened and to try to see to what extent certain factors have contributed to the changes that have occurred or to the lack of growth.
In the Second Programme publication, which gives very full data about various developments, reference is made to the fact that the total expenditure in respect of industry, the capital expenditure, for last year fell short on the amount which was originally programmed. It refers at paragraph 308 to the total expenditure covered by a number of industrial grants and capital issues and states that it amounted to a total of £6.85 millions compared with a programmes estimate of £9.16 millions. Similarly in connection with housing—although I will refer to that later—the estimates as laid down in the capital Budget last year showed that the target was not reached. That again may have been due to some extent to the effect of the building strike, but the targets estimated fell short by over £1 million.
In connection with the manpower policy programme which has been announced, it seems to me that there is one very big problem which might be the subject of an examination by that section of the Department of Industry and Commerce. This is the continuous drift from rural employment, particularly in the West and congested areas where emigration is still a big problem, and also the fact that in the eastern portion of the country and the midlands, many farmers— although they are willing to pay not merely the standard agricultural rate but in some cases above the minimum laid down—cannot get skilled agricultural labour. There seems to be an opportunity for an investigation in order to achieve an improvement in the position.
A great number of small farmers' sons and persons on holdings in the West and other congested areas who seek employment and who have experience of farm work, would obviously prefer to get work in their own area or if that is not possible, in some other part of the country, rather than have to seek it abroad. I believe something could be done by the manpower investigation to bring these together. They might provide some opportunities for increased employment as well as providing an essential skill which is of a rare, and in many respects a unique kind, a skilled agricultural worker on whose exertions, knowledge and experience future agricultural production and output must to a very great extent depend.
One of the matters referred to by the Minister in the course of his speech and also by the National Industrial Economic Council was the continuing high rate of emigration. It would appear from the figures published, as well as from the Minister's statement, that the emigration rate is running at around 25,000 a year. I do not in any way wish to exaggerate this. To some extent there has been an improvement compared with other years but it is difficult to reconcile the British employment permits granted for the first time to Irish people seeking work in England which would appear to indicate a higher figure than the 25,000 a year, which is the figure which appears to be generally accepted. Unemployment is still high and, of course, some of those on the register are obviously unemployable, but a great many of them seek employment either in their own areas or in the cities and towns.
The data which have been published indicate that last year, in the latter quarters, the export expansion appeared to be declining. It would appear from the first three months of this year that that tendency has continued. Coupled with that, the volume of production of manufacturing industries for 1963-64 to base 1953, shows a significant drop in the third and fourth quarters. The first two quarters showed a satisfactory rise compared with the first two quarters of 1963. The first quarter showed a rise of 11.1 per cent and the second quarter a rise of 13.2 per cent. The third quarter dropped to a rise of 8.7 per cent and in the fourth the rise was 6.6 per cent. It is possible that to some extent the last quarter was affected by the introduction of the British levy and to some extent by apprehension at the probable effect rather than the actual consequences of it.
Very considerable sums have been spent in recent years in encouraging industrial expansion and it may be that the time has arrived when we ought have a more critical examination of the system of providing incentives for industry. The schemes for giving direct grants and subsidies to industries were initially introduced by the Industrial Grants Act in 1956. Those grants were introduced to meet an urgent need at the time. It was generally recognised that only by some form of unusual incentive, either by way of direct grant or by what might be described as a subsidy, could the development programme be given that necessary incentive and there was a general recognition that the prospects of a satisfactory industrial expansion depended not merely on the skill and knowledge of our own people but also on the attraction here of outside interests with capital and know-how.
As a result of the Industrial Grants Act, and the tax remission on exports, very considerable expansion of industry was achieved and within a very short time, to such an extent—and I have referred on many occasions to the remarks of Professor Carter of Queen's University—that he believes that the biggest technical factor in industrial expansion and in increasing industrial exports was the tax remission. That has been the subject of comment in the Second Programme and reference has been made to the extent to which the Industrial Development Authority and the other bodies charged with the responsibility for grants as well as for investigating the possibilities of new industries and providing markets, have contributed.
That situation now appears in some respects to be changing. There is, on the one hand, a much greater confidence that some of the economic problems which confronted the country were not insoluble and that the country could be developed and made more prosperous. External interest also increased and there has been a recognition and a realisation that this country offers worth-while possibilities as a place where stable economic and political conditions existed and where there was a readily available pool of labour, adaptable and capable of being trained, with natural abilities and skills, capable of being moulded in any direction necessary. It was appreciated that close to this country we had a market which presented no difficulties and to which, by and large, there was free entry and where a common language existed, from the point of view of trading arrangements.
Therefore, the system of providing industrial grants achieved a very considerable expansion but it appears that situation is changing to some extent, that some of the firms that have established either separate companies here or branches of the parent company, with increasing competitiveness in Britain and on the Continent, now find these marginal or fringe portions of their undertakings either no longer necessary or, because of the increasing competitiveness and transport and other charges, no longer capable of being worked on an economic basis.
While this industrial grants system has attracted and has proved attractive to foreign investors, there are certain ways in which it may be harmful and to that extent it is now time to examine in a critical way not merely those that have been established but certainly any new undertakings that may be contemplated for this reason, among others: the fact that a number of these industries acquire machinery and materials outside the State and that while they are established here, a great deal of their machinery and equipment is bought elsewhere with little practical benefit to the economy, whereas, in contrast, investment might be directed more towards a very substantial increase in educational opportunities as well as in those industries that are based here on home production and the prospects of raw materials being available from home sources.
In addition, the extent to which the capital programme involves heavy capital commitments means that the State incentive to establish these industries should be directed towards permanence rather than the mere purpose of providing a temporary relief in unemployment, although that is obviously desirable. One of the attractive opportunities which the country can provide is that we have in the main, compared with other countries, relatively low transport charges and relatively low power costs and an available pool of workers.
To what extent the increased tax on petrol will affect transport charges it is difficult to say. Certainly, so far as CIE and large freight undertakings are concerns they are mainly run on diesel or other hydrocarbon oils not affected by the Budget proposals but a great number of smaller concerns, leaving aside the distributive trade which is almost entirely run on petrol-driven vans and lorries will be affected by it and consequently will have to bear increased transport costs.
The extent to which it will in future be possible to attract here other industrial concerns and enhance prospects of future industrial expansion must, to a great extent, depend on our ability to get into the British market and on the consequences which the present levy may have, not so much on the immediate concerns but on the extent to which it may affect the faith and confidence which industrialists have, and which foreign enterprise has, in our economic prospects particularly in the export market.
I believe we must continue to press, and I hope the Government will continue to do so, for a change in the present levy arrangements. I know it has been announced that it is proposed to repeal the levy as soon as possible and that one reduction of five per cent has been made. We recognise the fact that it would be difficult for Britain, with her EFTA arrangements as well as her arrangements with other trade groups, to make an exception of this country, but it is significant that in the circumstances in which levies had to be imposed some years ago, we made a specific exemption and gave preferential treatment in accordance with our trade agreements with Britain to goods imported from Britain. On this occasion no such exemption or exception was made in our case. I know representations were made at the time but this is a matter we should continue to press because it may have a reaction on the extent to which this country can be regarded as a safe base from which to export, a position which, up to now, gave us very considerable preferential advantages compared with other countries and particularly compared with countries that had a pattern of trade and especially of trade with Britain.
I believe, therefore, that it is important for us to ensure that in future whatever industrial grants are provided should be provided in cases of exceptional national importance as part of a co-ordinated plan of national development where particular projects, although economically possible for maybe a temporary period, are clearly beyond the scope of private enterprise or where it is obvious that private enterprise is incapable of carrying them out or unable to do so. These industrial grants should be directed to the extent that we should exploit wherever possible the processing of agricultural products and the utilisation of materials which are readily available.
I know that there has been one very considerable effort made in that direction by Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann and although many initial difficulties had to be overcome and I think it is true to say that a number of them have not yet been satisfactorily surmounted, there is a belief based on the confidence which that organisation has shown and the skill and ability of the personnel concerned, that, although they are endeavouring to break into a sphere of activity for which others are already highly geared elsewhere and are competing with companies that are long and well established, nevertheless, if they once make a breakthrough, it will be possible for them to expand considerably. For that reason it is more than ever important that we should impress on the British authorities the effect which the breach of the Trade Agreement has had on our trading position as well as on our future prospects.
I do not know whether or not the Taoiseach will be in a position to say at this stage what general changes, if any, he envisages in our trading arrangements and whether any developments have occured in connection with our application to join the EEC. As I understand it, the application is still in a state of suspension and although there have been some discussions between EFTA and the EEC the position is still rather fluid. By way of parliamentary question recently I asked whether it would be possible to consider, as distinct from membership, which may well be postponed for some time, a trade agreement with the European Economic Community. I understand that the possibility of trade agreements has been the subject of consideration by the Community and it may afford us some temporary arrangement which would act as an interim solution of the difficulties until the ultimate membership problem is resolved.
It is difficult in present circumstances to be precise or definite about what approach we should adopt to trade matters and difficult to be firm in one direction or another but there has been the recent experience of the effect of the British levy. While it was possible, by considerable exertion on the part of a number of industrialists and because of the fact that the State was prepared to meet 50 per cent of the effect of the levy, to prevent any serious dislocation, nevertheless, we have the experience here that a number of low cost imports are still possible in certain categories. At the same time, our manufacturers are expected to compete with industrialists and manufacturers elsewhere who have available to them raw materials at a lower price and have access to the British market without having to bear the effect of the levy.
I believe that some consideration should be given to the prospect of concerted action by this country and other countries, say, members of the Council of Europe or other European countries that are, like ourselves, anxious to join the EEC, so that some concerted or united effort might be made to achieve either more stable trading arrangements or a trade arrangement with the EEC.
The position so far as trade is concerned would indicate that the drop in the value of our exports for the first three months of this year is a warning that we cannot be complacent about this or cannot be satisfied with the present position. For that reason I believe some concerted and united effort should be made both by ourselves and by any other countries with which we can secure common ground in this matter.
I now want to turn to the question of housing. As I said earlier, the Government programme of housing falls far short of the need, even of the limited target which was announced in the White Paper, Housing Progress and Prospects, published last year by the Department of Local Government. In that White Paper it was estimated that between 12,000 and 13,000 houses a year would be required to meet the demand. For the year ended 31st March, 1964, the numbers completed amounted to about half that figure, about 7,500. The capital programme which was announced in the Capital Budget last year showed that £1.28 million less was spent than was originally provided for. As I mentioned earlier, the figure may have been affected by the building strike. While it is true that the Capital Budget this year proposes an increase in expenditure of £4.25 million, there is a very heavy backlog to be overtaken and the progress of our time in Government has not been maintained although at that time we did not consider it adequate and we were certainly criticised, not merely in the House but outside it, for the fact that more houses were not being built.
This is primarily an urban problem. It is to a very considerable extent a problem affecting Dublin, Dún Laoghaire, Cork and other cities but even leaving the cities aside there are great rural areas where new houses and reconstruction are necessary. In the main, however, the real housing problem is in the cities. For that reason I believe that a much more imaginative approach is necessary and that it ought to be possible for the local authorities to plan on a different basis.
In the past, the arrangements for housing, so far as I understand it, have been that there was a waiting list of persons who made application; that periodically the local authorities concerned, whether corporations or county councils, made a survey and planned a certain number of houses. So far as I am aware, there is no carefully worked-out programme of a certain number of houses each year. The Dublin Corporation may have a limited plan over an extended period but in regard to the other local authorities there is no long-term planning. The basis on which housing programmes are carried out is on an examination of the waiting lists and an effort being made by the authority to acquire sites, very often on a short-term basis. That situation is entirely altered so far as a number of local authorities are concerned because sites are no longer readily available. Certainly in regard to Dublin and a number of other urban authorities it is impossible to acquire sites. I know from my own constituency in Dún Laoghaire and the Rathdown part of it under the jurisdiction of the Dublin County Council, the possibility of sites being available within reasonable proximity is now out of consideration. They must go much further out and that involves a great deal of consequential planning, both physical and technical planning which makes it difficult in many cases to provide houses quickly or in proximity to places of employment. It is not sufficient, therefore, to put a figure in the Capital Budget or in the Budget Statement of the Minister for Finance that when these targets are agreed they must be adhered to. In fact, putting figures into the Capital Budget and then falling short of them is progress in the wrong direction.
Similarly, in connection with hospitals and the health scheme, the hospitals construction target that was laid down fell short of the figure proposed. The target for last year was £2.9 million but only £1.8 million was spent, a drop of £1.1 million. This year, according to the Capital Budget, it is proposed to spend only £1.7 million, which is less than the amount spent last year and less than the target that was announced by the Government in the Capital Budget last year. If the targets as originally set were arrived at after full and careful examination of the needs and requirements—and we can only assume they were—then there is something wrong. Either the targets have had to be hastily revised or the commitments elsewhere make it necessary to cut back on them.
In that connection it is worth emphasising—although it does not directly affect local authority housing except possibly to a very slight degree —that there is at present, particularly in the city of Dublin, a definite credit squeeze on housing loans. A number of building societies have announced or have indicated to their borrowers that they will not provide loans for houses in excess of a certain price. That has consequential disadvantages. It puts out of the category the applications of persons who would normally apply for those loans; they in turn apply under the Small Dwellings Act and force persons who are possible Small Dwellings loan applicants to seek accommodation from the Corporation which is already overburdened and incapable of dealing with their own applications.
Some examination of the present credit position is urgently required. I know it is not within the competence of the Government to decide entirely the credit position. We are affected by conditions in Britain and, according to a newspaper report today, it would appear that the restriction of credit there is having repercussions here. It is always recognised that a credit squeeze in Britain will sooner or later have effects here. I notice from another newspaper report today that the proposed hatchery in Bandon, which seems to me to be a worthwhile and sound enterprise based on exploiting what we have in abundance here, agricultural produce, and which was regarded as suitable and capable of being established there, has now been deferred because of the credit squeeze in Britain. That is the conclusion that one must deduce from the report because the company has announced that the financial arrangements which were to operate in order to establish the undertaking are not now possible. I hope it will be possible both in that case and in other cases to ensure that the effect of this credit squeeze will not impinge on persons anxious to purchase houses.
I want to refer now to a suggestion that I made here some time ago. With the present serious shortage of houses of nearly every category, we ought to plan on a long-term basis the total building potential and not have the situation in which capital and labour are being used to build offices or other buildings that could take their place in the queue. This idea was discussed here previously and I suggested that it would not in any way interfere with the building worker, that it would result in a better prospect of continuity of employment which is the one thing building workers and skilled tradesmen wish to have, and that, in addition, it would enable us to devote our resources of skilled and unskilled personnel as well as our capital resources, to fulfilling the most necessary part of the whole building programme, houses and hospitals, in an order of priority, then dealing with offices, warehouses or other undertakings that could take their place in the queue.
That possibly means some measure, if not of control or direction, certainly of goodwill on the part of industrialists and traders which is not at present in existence. However, some time ago the Minister for Local Government or the Government established a National Building Agency. There was a certain amount of talk and publicity about it when it was established but so far it appears to have done little. This is an eminently suitable assignment for a body of that sort, to get the builders' organisations together, to initiate discussions with the Builders' Federation and the various local authorities, and to get together representatives of the Federated Union of Employers and other organisations concerned.
Whatever justification there was for this when the suggestion was made a year or two ago, when money was more readily available and when there was a backlog not merely in housing but in offices and warehouses, there is certainly a very cogent reason for considering this matter now when credit appears to be getting tighter and when it is not merely a political assertion but an economic fact, a fact founded in experience by applicants for loans to building societies which those societies will not sanction or are not prepared in present circumstances to give for houses above £3,000. That situation is one that may have and possibly will have serious repercussions.
If there is one thing we want to avoid in this country—I should have thought that, so far as Britain is concerned, measures would have been taken before this, but we have, perhaps, enough to do looking after our own affairs—it is "Stop-Go" policies and the "Stop-Go" situations that have occured at pretty regular intervals ever since the end of the last war. Initially, these may have been inevitable in the sense that experience did not afford any guide lines or headlines as to what action might or might not be taken, but we have now had almost two decades in which at intervals of varying duration, not precisely defined or regular, repeated "Stop-Go" policies have operated. These have operated particularly in the case of Britain and have in certain respects also affected this country. We have been undoubtedly affected by the British position. We ought now to endeavour to minimise that influence, if not eliminate it altogether, in so far as we have within our own control and our own direction certain spheres of activity and influence.
I believe that the Government through the National Building Agency should exercise, or endeavour to exercise, some measure of direction or give some indication, not to use a stronger word, of the pattern the Government, through its contact with local authorities and with other responsible organisations, consider to be not only in the national interest but, in the long run, in the interests of all those concerned.
I want now for a moment to refer to the position of prices. Speaking here last year, I mentioned that it seemed to me that the prices position in this country had been to a very considerable extent in the last couple of years the result of an internal price inflation. I am fortified in that view by comments made in the Economic Statistics published prior to the Budget. At page 16 of that publication, having reviewed the position and given data of the consumer price index and of the wholesale and import price index, the publication goes on to say:
Thus the price changes in this country over the period——
that is over the period 1963-1964 particularly——
have not been caused by rises in the price of imports but by internal factors.
At page 17 it refers to this situation and I find the comments somewhat difficult to interpret. It says:
Of the remaining margin of about 4 per cent only about 0.6 per cent can be attributed to the changes in import prices so that a residual increase of 3.4 per cent can be attributed to other causes, mainly the direct effects of the ninth round of wage and salary increases. In considering the full effects of the ninth round on consumer prices everyone must take into account as well the effect on prices of the taxation of commodities occasioned by the necessity to increase the revenue of public authorities, to meet the increased wage and salary bill in the Public Service generally, including Education, Health, the Army, the Civic Guards, etc. It is not, of course, possible to earmark certain taxes to particular expenditure so that the overall effect of the ninth round cannot be precisely determined.
Now that comment highlights the great problem a number of local bodies and institutions have had in meeting the effect of the turnover tax. There is not much point now, I believe, in dwelling at any great length on this tax because the tax is in operation, but I believe the adverse effects of the tax have entirely obliterated any Exchequer advantages achieved by the revenue derived from it. I believe also that, if it were to be faced now, it is obvious from the fact that it has been possible in two years running to tax and get, because of the buoyancy of the revenue and the fact that these particular commodities were capable of bearing it, additional revenue from beer, tobacco, spirits and so on such a tax would not have been adopted. But the effect of this tax has had repercussions that have affected not merely our industrial costs but seriously affected, for want of a better description, the housekeeping bills of local authorities and institutions such as hospitals and so on.
One of the very big problems—it is one to which I believe attention should be directed and for which there is no measure of relief proposed in this Budget—is the increased costs health authorities have to meet and which generate a whole range of disadvantages, not the least being the rise in rates. The phenomenal rise in the Dublin city and county rates is due to the added charges the Dublin Health Authority has to meet. Some of these charges may have been caused by factors other than turnover tax but, in the main, they have been caused directly by the turnover tax. I know one college in proximity to this city in which there are about 300 students. The bursar of that college has told me that the turnover tax meant an increase of £1,500 a month in his outgoings to cover the effect of the tax for that limited category. So far as the Dublin Health Authority is concerned, and I can speak in this connection from experience in my own constituency, a hospital like the one at Loughlinstown or St. Kevin's has had to meet very considerable additional charges.
That is also true of other bodies. These charges have had to be borne to a considerable extent on the rates, but they have also had to be borne by the patients and their families. A great many relatively poor patients, particularly elderly persons living on pensions, have had to meet some portion of these costs. Undoubtedly, the Authority itself has had to meet the greater proportion and that is, in turn, borne by the ratepayers. The high cost of drugs has an important bearing. The effect of the turnover tax was to increase still further the cost of medicinal preparations. These charges are presenting a very serious problem to a great many people and it is one to which, I believe, the Budget should have adverted.
There is a welcome for the long overdue improvement in social welfare benefits, covering the different social welfare categories such as old age, widows, and blind pensioners. Leaving those aside, there is a pressing need for an improvement in health services. Again, leaving aside any political argument or any disagreements we may have here, I believe that need for improvement was generally recognised during the course of the election; it was certainly recognised in the closing stages of the election by the Taoiseach in his speeches. The fact that the last Select Committee did little or nothing about the problem except assemble data and get information is a certain rebuke to that Committee and the last Dáil. I hope the present Minister for Health, whom I believe to be a person of energy and initiative, will do something, and do it quickly, to alleviate the position of these classes.
Over and above that, there are middle-class people and white collar workers who for one reason or another, because of age or family circumstances, are unable to meet these costs. These are people for whom some attempt must be made to solve their problems if they are not to be put into a much more serious position than they have been in up to now. The cost of hospital treatment, particularly the cost in local authority hospitals and institutions under health authorities, requires urgent investigation with a view to alleviating some of the charges on these people.
In that connection, one of the disappointing aspects of the Budget is that no relief of any sort is provided for what have been described as white collar workers. The income tax allowances in respect of children and dependent relatives have remained at the existing level for a number of years, while, at the same time, the cost of living has risen sharply and consistently. These categories include not merely married people with families but people with dependent relatives, particularly persons over 65 who are in most cases no longer able to supplement their incomes. For instance, nurses have a very heavy burden to bear in providing the absolutely essential services which they, and only they, can provide in our hospitals and institutions. They find income tax a very heavy burden, in addition to meeting the other charges that have arisen.
There is one matter I wanted to refer to in connection with State companies. It is a matter that has been the subject of consideration over many years. Some system of review is required. By and large, there is general recognition that these companies have been satisfactory and are doing a good job. At the same time, there is some public uneasiness that the present system is unsatisfactory. While it is difficult to institute an effective system which will not interfere with the freedom of action of those companies, there is a growing volume of opinion that whereas in all these cases, in some more than others, considerable public investment is involved, some method of review of the capital programme and policy should be established. I do not believe there is any desire on the part of Deputies or of the public that these companies should be the subject of annoying scrutiny or tedious investigation of details. That should not be permitted in any circumstances.
The matter has been under consideration in Britain for many years because of the greater number of State undertakings established there since the war. Therefore, there is a view—not confined to here—that it ought to be possible to devise some system, either by a Select Committee of the Dáil, a Committee in some way analogous to the Public Accounts Committee or even a Committee consisting of a certain number of Deputies and officials selected by interested parties, of examining how the general policy in regard to capital and otherwise of these companies could be the subject of full investigation from time to time, if not on an annual basis, then certainly over a period.
I know one of the arguments that have been brought forward by the Taoiseach and others is that the annual accounts of these companies are presented and, if a Deputy wishes, he can table a motion. But that involves a full debate in the Dáil which in many cases is likely to be the worst kind of investigation, because somebody interested in some aspect of his own constituency will raise that and not the general policy. We have, therefore, a diffuse debate that does not pinpoint the essentials but rather concentrates on local matters.
There is one other aspect of our general shake-up, that is, the telephone service. The Progress Report on the Second Programme adverted to this and said:
Capital expenditure amounted to £6.1 million as against a Second Programme estimate of £6 million. The number of subscriber lines had grown by 31 December, 1964, to 150,560, an increase of more than 100,000 over the 1950 figure. Nevertheless, there has been no reduction in the number of applicants on the waiting list and the telephone system in this country is still relatively undeveloped compared with the major Western European countries. For the present, however, the development programme must continue to be concentrated mainly on the task of overtaking arrears of development works, i.e. the expansion of the trunk network and the provision of further automatic exchanges.
Here is a field in which there is a vast potential for improvement, a field in which we can employ the skilled personnel that can be trained in our vocational schools.
In that connection, I would be interested to hear from the Government what part the vocational schools are expected to play in training personnel under the new manpower proposals. I understand it is intended to establish a separate either statutory or other body to deal with that problem. I do not know whether that is the right decision or not. We can only await the definite proposals before commenting on them. There is widespread appreciation of the manner in which our vocational schools are conducted. It is one of the most satisfactory features of the whole educational system, a feature that has expanded out of all recognition.
The vocational schools provide skills, training and knowledge and have enabled boys and girls in various parts of the country to avail of education that would not otherwise be available to them. They have provided them with the technical training on a practical basis so essential in so many spheres. That particular aspect of our educational system should not be bypassed in any proposals the Government may have for a manpower policy. In fact, these schools and the knowledge and experience of the teachers should be harnessed to a general scheme of education for boys and girls. That in no way reflects on the other very admirable educational schemes carried out at primary, secondary and other levels. The vocational system has generally proved more than its worth and it has been so recognised by the people in general.
I want, before concluding, to make a few general comments. I would like to say, so far as I am concerned, that I propose to provide from the Fine Gael Party a constructive opposition. We will criticise, where necessary or justified, but, so far as I am concerned, there will be no opposition during the lifetime of this Dáil for the sake of opposition.
