When the Minister for Transport and Power goes around to functions and when he exhausts every known platitude in respect of the effect of inflation, the effect of wages and salaries outstripping production, when he exhausts every descriptive phrase he can apply, the responsibility rests on the shoulders of the Government of which he is a member and on nobody else. For the first time in the history of wage negotiations in this country, the Government deliberately, positively and expressly intervened in these wage discussions. The Irish Press heading at the time said the green light had been given for wage and salary adjustments. That green light was given and apart from the very limited effect of a certain small range of import prices, every aspect of the inflationary consequences that have followed have been directly and solely attributable to that decision. The results and the consequences of that have not been paid for by Fianna Fáil but have been paid for by the country.
Today in respect of employment which was described as the acid test of any policy by the previous Taoiseach, which was described in a series of policy statements as a plan to provide a limitless number of new jobs over a period—at one time the number capable of being provided was reckoned at 100,000, a round number; it was subsequently modified in the Second Programme to 83,000—what has been the experience? What in fact has been the result of that policy and the results of the programme that was designed, the acid test of which would be the number of new jobs created in Ireland? Today there are 14,000 fewer people employed in this country than five years ago and there are 50,000 fewer employed than when Fianna Fáil came into office ten years ago. That is the result. These are the hard facts of the policy.
Leaving aside the failure to provide employment there is, on the other front, a continuous drain from emigration over the period. Something between 300,000 and 400,000 people have emigrated. It is true that in recent months there has been some slight decline compared with the comparable period last year but does anyone believe that it is because there are more people in employment here? Does anyone believe that it is because there are more jobs available here? Is it not obvious that the reason is that credit is tight and employment opportunities are less readily available in Britain? The fact is that a great many of our people are returning home having failed to get work in Britain and they will now find they cannot get it here. The most recent figures show that there are 64,000 people unemployed but that does not give the true picture. We have often been criticised in the past for the experience and problems we had after the Suez Crisis but we told the full facts. We never camouflaged the figures. We did not write off by employment period orders thousands of people who were, in fact, unemployed but whose numbers were taken off the unemployment register in order to camouflage and mask the facts and the true picture relating to unemployment.
This serious situation was adverted to in the Department of Finance review in 1966. As one would expect from that Department, the reference is a somewhat modest one. It said that the downward trend in the numbers engaged in agriculture in recent years was expected to continue in 1967 and that employment outside agriculture should increase. Since, however, there was considerable excess capacity in the industrial and services sectors as a result of the heavy investment up to 1965 and the slow growth achieved in 1966, it was expected that the increases in output in these sectors in 1967 would be achieved without an increase in employment sufficiently large to compensate for the decline in the numbers engaged in agriculture.
That was a modest description of what is likely to happen. There was a more trenchant observation in the NIEC comment on the review of the Department for 1966 and 1967 in which, at paragraph 41 page 24, it said:
We are concerned at such relatively small increases in employment, which are far below those envisaged in the Second Programme.
They had just referred to the slow increase in industrial employment and in other areas in the domestic sectors. One of the greatest, if not the greatest, yardstick of employment is the building industry. Here the failure of the Government has been more remarkable than in any other sphere. There was a decline in 1966 in the output from building and construction of five per cent. That decline was marked by fewer houses being built, fewer local authority schemes being completed and fewer houses being built by private enterprise.
This aspect was also the subject of comment by the NIEC in its comments on the review by the Department of Finance. It is not sufficient for the Government to say, or for Ministers to answer glibly, as they do from time to time, that more money than ever is being provided for houses. Of course more money is being provided if you look at the Estimates and if you compare the number of pounds provided in one year with the amount provided a year or two before, or so many years previously. Last year alone, as a result of the wholesale tax and wage and salary adjustments, building costs were estimated to have risen by seven or eight per cent. The effect of two things, wholesale tax—and this does not apply to a wide range of commodities or materials used in the building industry—and wage and salary adjustments, was a rise of seven or eight per cent. I want to ask what has happened to the Building Council? Is it dead or alive and if it is alive, is it doing anything? It was originally a hand-picked council, picked more for the political persuasions of those on it than for the purpose of being a real council representative of the building industry.
Recently the Taoiseach and the Minister for Local Government referred to the shortage of building land, particularly in the Dublin area, and the fact that land suitable for building is in comparatively few hands. While that may be true, it is not the real cause of the hold-up in building. It is, I believe, only an attempt to divert attention from the underlying weakness in the Government's policy, their failure to plan and to implement the plans necessary to expand building and development. Proper planning should foresee demand and should plan for development. The great hold-up in the Dublin area, which is common knowledge to anyone with any contact with local authorities and the private building industry, is the inability of the present drainage system to cater for additional houses in most areas. It is estimated that it will be about five years before adequate drainage and sewerage facilities are available. This is the estimated time for the Dodder Valley scheme and the additional scheme necessary to drain the south county, in the Clonkeen-Killiney area. Can anything be done to expedite the completion of these schemes? There is no use criticising people who have acquired lands —some of them are not very remote from Fianna Fáil—because the real hold-up in building is the failure to provide drainage and other facilities. If necessary, the land could be acquired for use by the local authorities but the drainage and other facilities cannot be provided unless plans are made and schemes completed and put into operation quickly.
Over and above that, there is nothing in this Budget for housing. It is nonsense to say, as some Minister said a few minutes ago, that more money is being provided for housing, or something else, than last year or some other year. Housing costs have gone up and the subsidies now being paid to the local authorities bear no relation to present-day costs. The grants and loan facilities under the SDA scheme are static, and have been static for years, and are entirely unrelated to the cost of living, inflated, if you like, today. The fact is that people who want to get loans cannot get them; those who can get them have to pay seven per cent or eight per cent interest. How can we expect people who are starting life to deal with charges of that sort and repay loans of the magnitude involved in these costs and prices? There is nothing in this Budget to ease their position or simplify the difficulties facing them. The position in respect of prospective house purchasers is that the present grants and loan facilities under SDA procedure are entirely too low to enable a great many people who would avail of these facilities to avail of them.
In the Dublin County Council area and in the Dún Laoghaire area—and I can speak with some knowledge of these areas—no more than 100 houses will be completed this year by both local authorities. In the Dublin Corporation area, there are 350 applicants approved and certified as being in urgent need of houses and at least 500 applicants from the Dublin County Council area approved by the county council who have not the remotest prospect of being housed this year, next year or within the next four or five years.
If the position in regard to building and construction is bad, the year gone by was one of the worst ever experienced for agriculture and farmers. The gross value of output showed a fall of £5 million and the net output showed a decline of almost £4 million. There was a decline of approximately ten per cent in the area under tillage. While the total decline in output shows the picture as a whole, these figures have little meaning for the average farmer who naturally is more concerned with the actual prices received for the animals he sells and the produce he markets. Here is what happened last year, so far as agriculture is concerned. Store cattle prices declined by over 16 per cent, that is, the prices paid for store cattle between 1965 and 1966. Fat cattle sold at fairs in the same period dropped in price by eight per cent. Prices received by farmers for store and fat cattle showed a drop as between one year and the other of 16 per cent and eight per cent. The drop in respect of the Dublin market was slightly less in regard to fat cattle. Fat sheep declined by eight per cent, hen eggs by 9.2 per cent and potatoes by 12 per cent. There was one solitary increase in the prices received and that was in respect of bacon pigs sent to the factories. However, while rates increased steeply, overheads and other charges, such as electricity, also increased.
Up to the promised changes in the present Budget, what effort has been made to implement the undertakings given in the second Programme in respect of agriculture? Other Deputies will speak at greater length on this matter with regard to these undertakings but the only thing the Government have done is to keep farmers' organisations divided, to promote dissension and disunity and to refuse to give representation to agricultural interests in the NIEC. Recently we had the National Agricultural Council established and time will show how it will work. Some relief has been given to the really hardpressed sections, particularly to farmers affected by the substantial decline in prices, by the drop in farm incomes and by the economic problems created by the sharp decline in prices while rates and overhead costs have mounted up.
There is nothing in this Budget for the urban communities, with the limited exception of the increase in old age pensions and the promised free electric light and free travel for old people. One of the most persistent advocates of free travel for old age pensioners was a former Fine Gael Chairman of Dublin County Council, Councillor Palmer, who brought the matter forward repeatedly at council meetings but it was turned down then as impracticable by CIE. Why is it possible to devise a scheme for free travel now on the eve of the local elections when it was refused in the past when brought forward by people who had an interest in the matter?
The urban community, the small shopkeeper, the self-employed, the small trader or businessman and the small business operated by the proprietor, his wife and family, get nothing from this Budget. Their position has been grievously worsened by the increase in rates and overheads and by the substantial increase in the cost of living. There is no relief here for the small trader and the small shopkeeper. We had a reference by the Minister for Finance to the need for savings and investment, to the need to save more and invest more. What positive contribution does this Budget make to people who run their own businesses, people who are anxious to save and invest?
Two years ago, for the first time in this country, a scheme was brought in under which an insurance policy taken out to meet death duties was aggregated with the rest of the estate. That has caused and is still causing serious problems for small business people. There is no relief proposed in this Budget to deal with those problems, although the scheme has been adverted to time and again as a serious and retrogressive step. If a person has a salary of £3,000 a year and his death benefit is estimated at £15,000, the total value of the estate is taken at £12,000. Prior to the change in the law, the total duty on that estate would be £1,920; now it is £2,400. If the salary is lower and the death benefit is lower, naturally the duty will be lower but in one case where the salary was £2,000 a year and the death benefit £10,000, the rate of duty went up from £640 to £1,520. What is the use of advising people to save if the incentive to do so is being taken away by Government legislation and policy?
Leaving aside the position of pensioners who got some increases, what about the large section of non-State pensioners who are retired and living on pensions or on fixed incomes? What about these people who have been employed in insurance companies, retired bank officials and others employed by private concerns? In most of these, there is now some form of pension scheme in operation but a considerable number of people had to retire when it was not normal for such firms to establish pension schemes. It is more normal now for firms to make arrangements in advance and to pay contributions so that their employees may have a pension scheme at the time of retirement but there are a great many people who have retired because they are no longer capable of working, who have no pension, who are living on past savings and who will get no relief from the Budget.
They are not entitled to the old age pension and they will not qualify for any increase in pension under this Budget because they were not State employees. Even for retired State personnel, the increase given in this Budget is only 12 per cent while the increase in the cost of living is 16 per cent. A two-year period between May, 1964, and May, 1966, was taken and during that period the cost of living increased by 12 per cent. Since May, 1966, there has been a further increase of 3.9 per cent and that does not take into account the increase in the price of bread and other increased costs so that the practical position is that the cost of living has increased by not less than 16 per cent.
These small business people and traders find it increasingly difficult to meet the increasing rate burden and competition from larger concerns. The position has been adverted to in the NIEC report which expressed the view that the most serious aspect of this problem is the rise in prices. This aspect of the matter was commented on because of the effect it would have on the future expansion of industry and it was stated that a continuation of the recent serious trend in prices would be most disquieting in view of the possibility that prices and money incomes in the United Kingdom would not rise substantially in 1967. It went on to refer to the prospect facing industry in this country and to the danger of the trend of money incomes to rise faster than national production. This is the result of attempts by certain groups to get a greater share of the national output.
Earlier on I adverted to the fact that this attitude which was adopted by some groups is a natural consequence of the rise in prices and the declining value of salaries and wages in order to pay for the rise in the cost of living. The inflationary situation was aggravated and worsened by the decision of the then Government that the green light was showing and that there was no restriction. In fact, the amount granted exceeded that which would have been negotiated by the interested parties because of the intervention of the Government at that time— an intervention in a direct way for the first time by the Government in settling wage and salary adjustments.
This aspect of the problem of rising prices was also adverted to in the OECD report where it commented on the effect on prospects for the future. It also said that the problem of rising costs may, therefore, have to be tackled by further efforts to develop an incomes policy. In the course of our speeches, and laid down in our policy Towards a Just Society, we have consistently advocated the need for an incomes policy. Some time ago there was a debate in this House in which the report of the NIEC on an incomes policy was generally approved. Since then, can anyone point to any single action, or any single instance in which the Government have taken action, to implement that policy, or done anything about it? In fact, it is quite obvious that so far as the NIEC report on incomes is concerned, and so far as the implementing of an incomes policy is concerned, nothing whatsoever has been done.
It may be that the previous Taoiseach influenced opinion to this extent against it. He said so in the course of a speech in Mullingar prior to the last general election, and he was a reluctant convert when he eventually assented to the motion passed here in January of last year. Nothing positive in relation to an incomes policy has been done by any Government decision, or action taken by any Government Minister. Now, when the Budget comes around again, it is suggested that the Minister should include a few paragraphs on an incomes policy to show that it has not been forgotten, and to give the impression that something is being done about it. Nothing whatsoever is being done about it. The NIEC and the OECD reports pointed to the gravity of the situation and the urgent need to take action. An incomes policy cannot be implemented without taking account of the problems of the workers in industry, not merely the problems of wage and salary adjustments but the problems of incomes of all categories. Over and above that there is a problem to which, with the exception of promised legislation, there has been no reference whatever in the Budget, and no proposal, financial or otherwise, to deal with it, that is, the problem of redundancy, the problem of unemployment, the danger of unfair competition. It is pertinent to inquire again what has been done by the State to deal with these problems. This business of passing over responsibility to the trade unions and employers is the easy method. It is passing the buck from the Government and then blaming them for failing to reach agreement, and nothing being done about it by the Government.
This problem is so serious that a specific reference was made to it in the NIEC report. This, of course, is of vital concern to every industry in the country. Irrespective of what may become ultimately of our application for membership of the EEC, with that drop in protection, with keener competition in British and other markets, the problem of redundancy and unfair competition is so acute that it was referred specifically in two paragraphs in the recent NIEC report which state:
The small size of the Irish market renders Irish industry particularly vulnerable to dumping from highly industrialised countries in freer trading conditions and to the unloading of surplus stocks of goods which are out of fashion, of bankruptcy stocks, etc. The problem will become progressively more acute as protection is dismantled and Irish industry is in the process of adapting itself to conditions of greater competition in home and export markets. Unless preventive measures can be found the repercussions in this critical period might well negative the adaptation measures taken by Irish industry. The Irish market is so small that the output of a relatively short production run by a large firm would be sufficient to saturate it, with a consequent disruption of production and employment here.
The second and probably the most important comment is:
On this matter considerable vigilance and speedy action by the Government would seem the only way of mitigating the severity of the problem.
I know from discussions that a great many industrialists are gravely perturbed at the diffident manner in which anti-dumping legislation is being proceeded with, and at the delay in implementing what they believe is essential to mitigate or prevent hardship, loss of employment and unfair competition. I also know that lowpriced imports from countries such as Japan, and places of origin such as Hong Kong, have a very serious effect on certain industries, and this effect can be well-nigh catastrophic. It is vital that the delay and procrastination which have characterised the activities of the Government should cease. Legislation should be enacted which will enable action to be taken before, not after the problems created by dumping have been dealt with.
This Budget is obviously designed for the purpose of winning the local elections. Over the past two or three years, we had a succession of easy Budgets before elections, and increased taxation the minute the elections were over.
