It is usual after a general election to make reference to the type of campaign, and that is particularly so in those circumstances in which the Budget had to be postponed until the result of the election was known. The election and the type of campaign did, I think, a service to Irish political life. The speeches made on television, on the radio, from public platforms and in press interviews dealt with things with which the people were really concerned. None of us is too young not to remember when general elections were fought primarily on questions like the Irish language, Partition, neutrality and so on. These were matters on which we could get much more agreement than we can on things economic and things social. In the recent election all Parties were talking —some were forced into it—about the things that really matter, economic planning, housing, social welfare, health, education, an incomes policy, prices, and so on. The fact that we had this campaign in March and April of this year did a service, I believe, to Irish political life.
I listened to the Taoiseach here last Thursday. He spoke about glib phrases; he spoke about gimmicks. In particular, he talked about some of the phrases adopted by political Parties. In relation to the Labour Party, he was critical of the fact that we talked about social justice. He described "social justice" as a glib phrase. He said that, if his Party were ever to have to resort to gimmicks of that kind, he would prefer to get out of office. I shall not go too far back in the past, or dwell on it at any great length, but surely the Taoiseach must remember the main slogans of the Fianna Fáil Party in 1957: "Wives, get your husbands back to work" and "100,000 new jobs." In any case, the Taoiseach ought to appreciate that these phrases to which he takes exception are not peculiar to Fine Gael or the Labour Party but are used by all political Parties, particularly in an election campaign.
The Taoiseach, in his speech last Thursday, appeared to be a very reasonable man. He talked about co-operation between Parties to provide for greater economic progress and for a better society generally. We have never had to declare to this House that we do not oppose merely for the sake of opposition because it is evident to both sides that our attitude, not alone in relation to budgetary measures and financial proposals but in relation to all types of legislation is one of independence. We walk into the Division Lobby with Fianna Fáil when we believe it is right to do so. If the Taoiseach is asking for co-operation from those who are now in opposition, then he should be prepared to accept co-operation.
What have we found over the past 40 or 45 years? A Minister comes in here with a proposal for new legislation. Does anybody remember when a Minister sitting over there, inter-Party, Cumann na nGaedheal, or Fianna Fáil, was big enough to say "Yes; I think the section should be changed," or "Yes; I think my proposal is wrong and I believe the Opposition, even though they are in a minority, or the Labour Party, even though they are a small Party, are right and I will accept this amendment"? If we were to work on that basis, we could, I think, work in the manner in which the Taoiseach believes the Dáil should work. From experience, we know that a proposal from the Opposition side of the House is never acceptable.
The Taoiseach also referred to the fact that during the past seven or eight years the international situation was favourable. He was good enough to admit that. He did not claim all the credit for the progress that has been made as being the entire responsibility of the present Government or the Fianna Fáil Party. He was not quite so tolerant in 1956-57 when there was a grave international situation that would have upset any Government, whether Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Labour. Apart from the Taoiseach looking for co-operation, he should also have mentioned the word "tolerance".
We made our views very clear on the day the Budget was announced. I believe the Fianna Fáil Government learned something from the campaign. They learned, as has been pointed out by almost every Opposition speaker, that the people want increases in social welfare and were prepared to pay for them if the tax proposals were, in themselves, fair. On the day the Budget was introduced I commented that the Labour Party had been consistent. A pretty good proportion of the new taxation in this Budget is devoted to social welfare, but the overall picture is not quite the same. Even though they are indirect taxes— although not on the necessaries of life but in respect of tobacco, drink and petrol—we had no hesitation in voting for them. We will continue to vote for proposals to assist social welfare, health and education. These are the things we believe require to be helped. If the Minister introduces a fair tax proposal, a tax which will mean taking money from a source where it can be afforded, he will get our general support.
This is the biggest increase the old age pensioner has ever got, but it has been marred by a few stipulations by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Social Welfare. Deputies from all sides have complained many times about the means test. They complained not so much about the overall means test but the number of means tests applied in respect of the old age pension, unemployment assistance and so on. Here we have a new means test. The unfortunate thing is that many people now in receipt of the full old age pension will assume they will receive the 10/- from 1st August next. But it appears that many of them— not the majority of them, I hope—will be subjected to this means test and will receive only 5/- a week if their income exceeds £26 per year or 10/- per week.
The task of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Social Welfare in respect of the old age pensioner is much easier today than it was in 1957. The introduction of the contributory old age pension has made things a lot easier. We all remember a time when one thought in terms of an expenditure of £1 million for an increase of 2/6 a week in the old age pension. Now I am amazed at what can be done with a relatively smaller sum of money, something like £5 million or £5½ million per year. This is because the number of contributory old age pensioners is becoming greater each year while the number of non-contributory old age pensioners is becoming smaller.
I admit it was the practice, even at the time of the inter-Party Government, to pay these increases from 1st August. But it is no reply to me to say "You did the same". Changes are made every year. In most cases they are changes for the better, particularly in respect of the people we are talking about now. If not this year, certainly next year—when we trust the old age pensioners will get a further increase—I hope an effort will be made by the Government to give it to them immediately. We can all appreciate the frame of mind of somebody aged 70 or 80 years, whose expectancy of life cannot be very great, being told in the month of April that their increase will come in August. Many of them—indeed, many of us all —will ask the question "Where will we be next August?" If the Government want to be benevolent and generous to them, an effort should be made to bring in the necessary legislation or regulations to ensure that these increases can be applied when the Budget is announced or as soon as possible thereafter. This should be so, particularly in view of the fact— although I know it is not entirely a logical argument—that the taxation raised to pay for these increases operates in the majority of cases on the very evening of the Budget or certainly the next day or week.
I admit this is relatively better treatment than the social welfare groups have received heretofore, but I would like to remind the Minister that there is still a great deal of poverty in the country. I do not think anyone can say that those in receipt of the various social welfare benefits have an income that would allow them a fair standard of living. However, we hope that this new attitude on social welfare, and the provision of the money to pay for it, will prevail to such an extent that not alone will these rates be increased in accordance with increases in the cost of living but, over and above that, there will be an effort to give them a proper standard.
Deputy Declan Costello talked about home assistance. In my constituency —there is a colleague of mine, who is a Fianna Fáil member of the county council, who knows this—the rates of home assistance paid to people entitled to sickness benefit, unemployment benefit and so on, are miserable. It is true this is sometimes paid to a person living in a household where the income is not too bad. But in the case of, say, a married couple with two children, who for some reason or other have not qualified for these benefits or have experienced some delay, they are offered some miserable amount like 30/- or £2 per week by the home assistance officer. That may be for only four or five weeks. But in the meantime the health of the children particularly can suffer, because that small amount is not sufficient to provide them with the necessaries of life.
Some people—not necessarily people in this House—may think that the taxpayers are over-burdened by the amount required to be paid by them for social welfare, health and education. You would imagine by the criticism of some people that the taxes they are expected to pay are an unfair burden or that they are paying them to provide people with something they do not really deserve. I do not have to prove why a sick or unemployed person needs to have some assistance from the community through the State. It is also well to remember that the proportion of money devoted by the Government to social welfare, health and education has declined rapidly from 1959-60 to 1965-66. Social welfare as we know it as a proportion of State expenditure has fallen from 19.8 per cent in 1959-60 to 16 per cent in 1965-66.
There is also a decline in the proportion of tax revenue for social welfare, health and education. The proportion spent on these three items, which we call social services, has declined again since 1959-60 from 38 per cent to 34 per cent. Do not let us imagine that in the Budget of 1965 we have gone wild suddenly because we gave the old age pensioners 10/- and because we made all the other improvements as well. They are certainly to be welcomed but let nobody give the impression — as somebody outside the House has stressed—that too much of the taxpayers' money has been spent on these things as would have been the case had the Minister for Finance been moved to greater generosity. It would not be entirely his generosity because the local authorities pay a good proportion of the public service pensions but £600,000 does not seem to me to be an over-generous increase for pensions when, so far as I can remember in the Minister's statement, applied to pensioners who retired before 1959. These people, as everybody knows, have been endeavouring for a long time to get what they and we regard as a measure of justice. Nobody can say that the pensions of which they are in receipt at the present time are over-generous. Perhaps, the Minister would take another look at his proposals in respect of these pensions when he comes to the Finance Bill.
It had been mentioned—there is no point in my trying to over-emphasise it here—that the allowances in respect of income tax are out of date. I cannot say what the new costings would be if bigger personal allowances, bigger allowances for children and different other things, were conceded. The Minister should make some change in these allowances because they are a very heavy burden on many people.
Our progress in the past five or six years may be explained, if we bear in mind what the Taoiseach said, that the international climate, so to speak, has been favourable. There has been progress indeed. The main theme of many speeches from my Party during the election campaign was that whilst prosperity had been created we were concerned about the distribution of this prosperity. It seems, in any case, that economic progress is being maintained. I do not believe that anybody could claim it was spectacular or was in any way significant. Our criticism of the two programmes for economic expansion was they were not ambitious enough. If we had done the normal thing the four per cent increase in gross national production would have happened in any case. I suggest the Government have just done the normal thing without any spectacular effort and without, as other speakers have said, any plan.
The two programmes for economic expansion are, as has been said, merely forecasts of what could have happened. The increase in industrial production has been significant. It slowed down, according to the Government figures, in the second half of the year. The fourth quarter of the year can be explained by the introduction of the 15 per cent levy by the British Government but the slowing down in the third quarter needs some explanation. I cannot remember any particular event that would have slowed down industrial production in the third quarter of 1964. So far I have not seen or heard any comment from either the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Minister for Finance with regard to this. The increase in agricultural production was one of the heartening things in the year 1964. That is a trend which I know everybody in the House will want to see continuing.
The Minister for Finance, when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce, used to become very annoyed with members of the Labour Party when they spoke about prices. I heard a comment by Deputy Declan Costello with which I do not entirely agree. He was, or seemed to be, in agreement with the Government that price control is a bad thing. The Minister, in his Budget speech, said something to the effect that prices must remain stable. It is not sufficient for the Minister merely to say that. He has got to take the necessary steps to ensure that prices will, in fact, be stable. It seems to me there is a lack of concern by the Government about prices.
The National Industrial Economic Council are concerned about prices according to their publication in which they commented on the progress made in relation to the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. We were told on very many occasions that price control is wrong and that prices will reach their own level by dint of competition. Of course, this has not happened, when we have regard to the percentage increase in prices over the past 12 months and when we remember that between August, 1963 and February, 1965 the consumer price index rose by 11.4 per cent.
I should like the Minister for Finance, who is a former Minister for Industry and Commerce, to tell us what is the difference between the Government's action in controlling the price of petrol, flour, various soaps and tinned goods and the action he took as Minister for Industry and Commerce in respect of these things? Surely that was in effect price control? He controlled the price of petrol when he told the petrol companies: "You cannot increase the price." He merely had to say that to them. He caused an investigation to be made into the proposed increase in the price of flour and he had an investigation made into the price of various other commodities, two of which I can remember now, tinned goods, tinned foods and soaps. What was that? Is it to be inferred here that there is a ring in regard to the price of petrol, flour, bread, soap or tinned foods and that that is what he was going to get after? I do not think we have ever had an adequate explanation as to the action he took, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, in respect of certain commodities and what he refused to do in respect of others. These items could be regarded as vital items in the economy and in the running of a household.
We do not want the Minister to attempt to control the price of every single commodity but we say, in respect of those essential commodities, that there should be concern by the Minister and the Government to ensure that the people are not exploited, as they have been, in respect of the price of certain commodities. I mentioned here before, and let me mention it again, that if there is no atmosphere, and the least thing the Minister could do is to creat an atmosphere, in respect of the price of important items to cause them to come down, those who are dependent on wages and salaries —one might say all the income groups —will take the steps, themselves, to ensure that they will be compensated, particularly with respect to the trade union movement.
The National Industrial Economic Council took note in their report of price increases and certainly, by inference, showed that they were concerned. By mentioning it at all, I am sure they must have had in their minds the directive to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, particularly, to try to ensure that price increases will be in accordance with the increases in costs, wages, import prices, and so on, and that there will be no exploitation. There was another comment by them in which they said that price changes in the past seven or eight years were not caused by rises in import prices but by internal effect. Many people are inclined to think—those who have not read, for example, this report of the National Industrial Economic Council—that wages are entirely responsible or are in the main responsible for the increase in prices. This is certainly not so because, over the past 12 to 15 months, the increase in the consumer price index contained a 30 per cent increase in respect of wages.
However, I wanted in particular to talk about something I mentioned here when this Budget was introduced. I think it can be well said again that, whilst we can measure our progress in gross national product in terms of an increase in national income, whilst we can get an indication of our progress and prosperity with reference to the balance of payments and different things like that, with our peculiar background here in Ireland, the best test is employment.
If we judge the Second Programme for Economic Expansion in respect of the past year as against employment, we must say that it has failed or, to be kind to it, has certainly not succeeded. This Second Programme for Economic Expansion envisaged 78,000 new jobs by 1970. That was not an over-ambitious objective in 1960. This forecast of an extra 7,800 new jobs per year was made having regard to the fact that we still had a pretty big flight from the land. All these things were considered. Still, this Second Programme for Economic Expansion forecast an increase in jobs over those ten years of 78,000. The Government told us in their pre-Budget booklet that, in 1960, we had 1,055,000 people in employment and that in 1964 we had 1,059,000 people in employment. That means that between 1960 and 1964, we created an extra 4,000 jobs, which represents about 1,000 extra jobs per years. We had anticipated an increase in jobs of 7,800 per year. We now have five years left in which to get the balance. We now have five years in which to get 74,000 new jobs, which represents about 15,000 new jobs per year. Therefore, if we are to judge the Second Programme for Economic Expansion, I think we can judge it already and say that it seems to be a formidable undertaking to get anything like 15,000 new jobs per year between now and 1970 or a total of 74,000, in all.
I say this about employment but still give credit for the fact that there has been a pretty good increase and a fairly consistent increase in manufacturing industry, in industrial employment. Between 1960 and 1964, industrial employment in manufacturing industry rose by 24,000. As I said, this was a fairly consistent increase over the years from 1960 to 1964. Included in this extra employment are 15,000 in building and construction. I thought at one time that this would be a declining figure. I had hoped during the past six or seven years, that building, as far as houses are concerned, would be nearing completion by now or in another year or two years' time. Therefore, as far as that figure is concerned, it seems that there is still a job to be done by the 72,000 at present employed in building and construction. On the other hand, one would hope that that would increase substantially in order to ensure that the thousands of houses needed will be built as rapidly as possible.
The Second Programme for Economic Expansion also talked about unemployment and a decrease. In the past three or four years, we find no decrease in the unemployment figures. I believe that, as far as the countries in Western Europe are concerned, we have one of the highest, if not the highest, rate of unemployment, standing as it did in the year 1964 at 5.7 per cent of insured persons. It was exactly the same as it was in 1961 and in 1962. Therefore, let what praise may be given or can be given to the Second Programme for Economic Expansion be given to it, but as far as jobs are concerned, it has not been of any use as far as overall employment, agricultural and industrial employment, is concerned in the whole country.
The Second Programme for Economic Expansion also envisages an emigration rate of 10,000 persons per year by 1970. I think that may not be an impossible task but the trend of emigration gives one to fear because it has been increasing in the past three years. About three years ago, it was at the rate of 20,000. Last year, it was about 25,000. For the year up to the end of February, 1965, it is 27,500. Those, therefore, who want employment in their own country can certainly not be cheered by the Second Programme for Economic Expansion and are certainly not impressed by the claims made for it.
The National Industrial Economic Council certainly had something to say about employment. Whilst they did generously concede that industrial production had risen, employment in industry had not increased at the same rate. The National Industrial Economic Council made certain recommendations. They recommended:
that greater efforts should be made to achieve a faster, sustainable increase in employment. In our view, this might be achieved in four ways. First, by laying greater emphasis on the establishment and expansion of employment-intensive growth industries, especially those employing workers with a higher level of skill, such as electronics and engineering.
I should like to know what message the Government take from that, what directive the Minister for Finance takes from it. This recommendation in itself is somewhat vague. It says: "by laying greater emphasis on the establishment and expansion of employment-intensive growth industries". As far as the Labour Party are concerned, two years ago we advocated that grants should to some degree in industry be dependent on employment or the numbers that would be employed. I should be glad, therefore, to hear from the Minister for Finance that the emphasis for the future, as far as the establishment of industry is concerned, will be to a very large degree on employment.
In that report certain types of employment are mentioned — electronics and engineering. I do not know what can be done in respect of those two particular branches of industry. Will the Government now give increased grants for the establishment of industries like those? Will the Government try to persuade Irish industrialists, or foreign industrialists, to establish those industries? Or will the Government take the initiative themselves and establish those industries as semi-State bodies? This, I believe, is the line the Government should take, if there are not people prepared to do this job either from the country or outside it.
The second recommendation of the National Industrial Economic Council for an increase in employment 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.
I am informed that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce is to establish a manpower policy. I do not know whether or not there has been an official announcement on this. The Parliamentary Secretary is to be in charge of that particular section under the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I have no criticism to make of the Parliamentary Secretary or the post given to him, but I am sure this policy will be established in consultation with the body already in existence to deal with this particular problem. The sooner the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce makes some proposals, or says what is in his mind, regarding a manpower policy the better.
The third recommendation of the National Industrial Economic Council was to the effect that public investment should be raised. They make some qualifications there. But the most interesting recommendation is the fourth which is to increase employment. It reads:
by using some part of the annual increase in productivity to reduce prices and thus to make possible an expansion in sales and open up new employment opportunities.
I read from that an inference that prices can be reduced. I do not know how the Minister regards this comment of the National Industrial Economic Council. In any case, I believe it is a recommendation that certainly should be examined, if it is to open up, as they say, new employment opportunities. I would regard this general comment by the National Industrial Economic Council as one that could not be called over-enthusiastic about progress in 1964. Therefore, the Government should have regard not alone to the comments of the Council but to their recommendations. If we are to go along as we have been going over the past few years and be satisfied with results in unemployment, in employment and in emigration, we ourselves cannot be over-enthusiastic about the programme either.
I should like to mention just two other matters. I have said that, as far as progress is concerned measured in statistics, one would have to admit that the results are pretty favourable. I think we also have to think in terms of social policy. I do not mean a social welfare policy, but a social policy. The Taoiseach also referred to this in his speech last Thursday. He said there will be certain changes in social policy. He said, first of all, side by side with the economic policy, there ought to go a social policy. We have been saying that for a long time but I do not think the Taoiseach will take it too seriously, even though he did say it on Thursday last.
The Taoiseach said there would be changes in social welfare, education, health legislation and health administration. The peculiar thing is he went on and told us about the sort of life we should be living. He said:
There is no evidence anywhere in the world that the growth of affluence necessarily means greater human happiness. There is indeed much evidence to the contrary, even in the very wealthiest countries. We, as a nation, now, for the first time in our history, have to consider the implications of steadily rising national wealth, steadily rising living standards for our people, and to think about the social problems which in this situation will certainly be generated for us. This is the kind of study I should like to see beginning and it would have far more significance in relation to the country's future than the commitment of money in future years to the expansion of the State social services.
I do not think that is the job of the Government, the Taoiseach or anybody else. In any case, he seems to suggest that there is so much money floating around that people will have to decide on the proper way to spend it. He does not mean Government expenditure, on food and clothing, and so on. He is afraid people will go crazy with all the money they have—dancing, smoking, drinking, and so on. He thinks we will have to change our way of life. That may be a problem in time to come. Still, the Taoiseach ought to realise there is poverty in the country, that there are people unfed, and people with small incomes. Before we think in terms of what sort of society we should have in the situation he described, we should ensure that these people are looked after.
The last point I should like to make is in relation to housing and health. There does not seem to be any stir as far as the building of houses is concerned. Is there any Deputy from Dublin, Cork, or anywhere else in the country, but particularly in the towns, who is not approached about housing more than about any other single subject? I think, therefore, the Government, and particularly the Minister for Local Government, will have to see that there is some breakthrough as far as housing is concerned. It may be—and I know this is a big part of the problem—that we have not sufficient operatives to build the houses. Even where we have them, there does not seem to be the dynamic interest that any Minister for Local Government should have in the situation in which we find ourselves as far as housing is concerned.
I heard the Minister for Local Government making a comment recently in answer to a parliamentary question. He suggested that the onus was on the local authority. That may be so in theory, but, as far as the provision of houses is concerned, in our circumstances where we need so many houses, where there are so many difficulties, leadership must be forthcoming from the Minister for Local Government. All we are doing, as my colleague, Deputy Mrs. Desmond, recently said, is merely keeping our heads above water in the provision of housing. The problem in Dublin is far bigger than it is in other parts of the country. Even if there were only one person condemned to live, sleep and live in one room, we would have a problem, but there are tens of thousands of people living—not entirely in those circumstances—in condemned houses, in bad leaky houses, and in slums. As part of their social policy, the Government should initiate, at least in 1965, the same sort of drive and enthusiasm as there was in 1948 when the late Deputy T.J. Murphy was Minister for Local Government.
There is no use in the Minister sitting in the Custom House and telling us what the law is, what the regulations are; and saying the local authorities have the initial responsibility. The member of the Labour Party who was Minister for Local Government in 1948 knew what the problem was. He went to every local authority and spoke with the public representatives about housing, because at that time 100,000 new houses were required. He visited every single local authority, and he made decisions on the spot, whether in Gorey, Cavan, Macroom, Bandon, or elsewhere. I do not say this disrespectfully, but we are getting much more talk than houses from the Minister today. We need more action. I believe the main responsibility lies with the man who presides in the Custom House, the Minister for Local Government.
The Taoiseach said the other day that there was criticism from someone in Opposition to the effect that there was stagnation so far as the health services were concerned. He went on to say that expenditure had increased from £16 million in 1957 to £30 million. That was because there were increased costs. There has been stagnation, and there has been no improvement in the health services since they were introduced away back in 1953.
The Taoiseach talked about co-operation in order to achieve progress, but there was no sign of co-operation from the former Tánaiste when members of the House gladly agreed to become members of a Committee of the House to inquire into the health services and make a report as to how they could be improved. That co-operation was gladly given by members of my Party, members of the Fine Gael Party, and one Independent, but there seemed to be a determination by the then Tánaiste, and Fianna Fáil members of the Committee, that nothing would be done. They succeeded in ensuring that nothing was done, so much so, that in his last speech in the Seventeenth Dáil, the Taoiseach wrote off that Health Committee without consultation with the Minister for Health.
I think the new Minister for Health must know the feeling in the country that new and improved health services are required. We have given our ideas on a health programme; Fine Gael have given their idea of what the new health services should be; but we have heard nothing from the Fianna Fáil Party. We do not want them to commit themselves in any great detail. We had a comment from the Taoiseach during the general election that there should be an improvement, but we had no indication of what the improvement might be. I have confidence in the new Minister for Health. I think he will produce something new, and if he wants the co-operation of the Labour Party in order to ensure that we will have better health services, we will gladly give it, as we will give our co-operation to the Minister for Local Government in regard to housing, and to any other Minister, so long as we are assured that the changes to be made will be an improvement in the services for which they are responsible.
