Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Apr 1967

Vol. 227 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Financial Resolution No. 4: General (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That it is expedient to amend the law relating to customs and inland revenue (including excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance.—(Minister for Finance.)

Mr. Dillon

I asked the House to watch with vigilance the steady growth of the charge on the Central Fund to service the public debt, which has risen from £31 million in 1961 to £64.4 million in the current year. There is another thing the House ought to watch with vigilant care, that is, the balance of payments. It fluctuates. Sometimes it assumes menacing proportions and produces a multiplicity of Budgets in one financial year, a contraction of credit and all the hardships which our people have been called upon to bear in the past two years. Sometimes the balance of payments appears to improve. When it does, nobody asks himself: What is the source of the improvement? It is frequently the influx of foreign capital for the purchase of this country, larger and larger lumps of this country. That in itself is a very doubtful social desirability.

Without going into that large question of whether we should sell the country piecemeal to those who want to buy it, whether we should suffer them to conquer us with cheque-book where their fathers and grandfathers failed to conquer us with fire and sword, there is a more mundane aspect of it. It is that every million that comes in means a permanent charge on the future balance of payments of £70,000 a year and that charge is permanent because the purpose of investing the money here is to get the seven per cent on it which we have been foolish enough to allow many of these speculators to secure after their own Government had forbidden them to make that kind of investment in their own country.

I listened with interest to the tail-end of the discussion by the Minister for Finance on Telefís Éireann on the question of what was a Budget. In the course of that discussion, he said something that I thought was very true. He said indirect taxation is, of course, a means of shifting the burden from the rich to the poor. I could scarcely believe my ears when I heard him say it when I thought of the fact that he was a Minister of the Government responsible for the turnover tax, a Minister of the Government responsible for taxing beer, tobacco, in effect, bread, the new wholesale tax. Have we all become converts to the taxation principle that it is good to shift the burden from the shoulders of the well-to-do to the poor? It is certainly easy. It is a handy way to raise revenue but quite apart from its injustice, it brings in its wake infallibly, inevitably and inescapably the spiral of inflation. Inflation is the cruellest thief the world has ever known because it is the thief that robs the poor but can never get its hands in the pockets of the rich.

I must say this. There never was a Budget in my recollection which was heralded by such a multitude, such a spawn of green and white papers. I have the Report on Full Employment and I have the Review of 1966 and Outlook for 1967. I have the Report on the Review on Industrial Progress. I have the Report on Economic Planning and to crown it all I have the Comments of the Department of Finance Report, the Review of 1966 and the Outlook for 1967. We have come full circle. Not content with what was published in the way of White Papers, they have started to publish White Papers on one another's White Papers. Here they all are. With a diligence which I think reflects credit upon me, I have waded my way through them. Does the Minister believe the Report on Full Employment? I want to say that that is tripe and cowheel and I am astonished at the names of some of the men who signed it.

There is a strange echo in this volume. I wonder if it has escaped others who have read it? It is Table III. They are telling us all the things we have to do on the road to full employment. On page 27, you will find Table III. The numbers at work in 1961 are recorded as 1,053,000; the numbers at work in 1966 are recorded as 1,044,000. That is an interesting figure. There are 9,000 fewer people at work today than there were in 1961. Now we come to an interesting echo. Projections are made. At this stage of the publication we are talking about projections but later on they become bench-marks but I will deal with that in a moment. Then there is a projection made to 1976 on this golden road to full employment and we are told that in 1976 we will have 1,142,000, 100,000 new jobs. Do they not think there ought to be some little acknowledgment under this noble title "Report on Full Employment" in brackets "Clerys Restaurant, 1956". That would complete the document and it would give us an indication of the value we ought to set upon it.

Now I want to come to the other White Papers to which we are indebted. The first is the Review of 1966 and Outlook for 1967 and here is a classic on page 21. I am sorry if I must detain the House a little but these papers cost a lot of money to produce and they are therefore presumably matters we ought to discuss here in the House. I quote:

Before discussing the economic outlook for 1967, it is necessary to comment on the changed presentation of the economic outlook in this Report as compared with that given for 1966 in last year's Progress Report on the Programme for Economic Expansion.

We have now dropped all the talk about it being a Report on the Programme for Economic Expansion for the simple reason that the Programme for Economic Expansion has ceased to expand. It has now just become a Review of 1966 and Outlook for 1967. I resume my quotation:

In assessing the prospects for 1966, a national accounts projection of the economy was given on the basis of certain highly restrictive assumptions. The main assumptions were as follows:

(i) the maintenance of existing budgetary policies;

(ii) a total increase in wages, salaries, etc., in the non-agricultural sector of 5 per cent, comprising an increase in average earnings of 3 per cent to cover increases in basic wage and salary rates and the cost of any additional fringe benefits or of shorter working hours, 1 per cent for a rise in employment and 1 per cent for an increase in aggregate incomes arising from the movement of workers from lower paid to higher paid employment;

(iii) an average rise in profits, professional earnings, rents, etc., of 5 per cent;

(iv) no widespread disruption of the growth of output by industrial unrest.

Listen to this classic, paragraph 52:

On the basis of these assumptions, it was projected, inter alia, that the growth rate would be 3¾ per cent. It is important to stress, however, that this projected growth rate depended on the realisation of the assumptions underlying the projection. In fact, as is clear from the Review of 1966, preceding, none of the above assumptions was realised. The actual growth rate of the economy turned out to be much lower than 3¾ per cent.

The accuracy of any prediction is very much dependent on the realisation of the assumption upon which it is made. Having laid down the proposition that the document was based on four assumptions the next statement is that none of these assumptions were correct and that the validity of the whole exercise proved false.

Now we can turn to No. 2, the NIEC Report on Review of Industrial Progress, 1966. There is an interesting paragraph on page 9 which refers to the outlook for 1967 and reads as follows:

To consider the outlook for 1967 in detail, it was obviously necessary to devise a set of reasonable working assumptions. Those put to industry in October, 1966, as a basis for the forecasts were—

(i) a resumption of growth in the British economy in 1967;

(ii) no decline in the relative competiveness of Irish industry vis-á-vis its main competitors;

(iii) no change in prices in 1967 as compared with the fourth quarter of 1966;

(iv) a growth in 1967 of some three per cent in GNP.

The projections for 1967 must accordingly, be seen in the context of these assumptions and of the continuation of the ten per cent tariff cuts under the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement.

Here again, observe that we are given four basic assumptions. The only experience we have is that on the previous occasion when four such assumptions were provided they all turned out to be wrong. But everybody proceeds on exactly the same basis and a further four assumptions are given. This document is of peculiar interest because it is signed by a number of respectable gentlemen who offer the advice on these given assumptions. Its introduction is signed by Mr. T.K. Whitaker. Mr. Whitaker, of course, on this occasion is wearing his NIEC hat but he doffs his NIEC hat and hurries back to the Department of Finance and when he gets back to the Department, certain of the assumptions and conclusions which he has accepted as valid in the NIEC hat he rejects when he assumes his Department of Finance hat.

Now we come to the third report, the NIEC Report on Economic Planning. This is signed by Mr. Whitaker who is the Chairman of the NIEC and he sets out the background of the Report on economic planning. He says:

During 1964, two sets of discussions were held between officers in the main economic departments and representatives of managements and the workers in the industrial sector. The objectives of the first set of discussions were to agree on the 1970 targets for individual industries, to clarify the assumptions on which they were based and to discover the problems which would be posed, and the obstacles which would be encountered, as attempts were made to achieve the targets. The results of these discussions were published in November, 1964, in our Report on Results of Discussions with Industry on the Second Programme Targets (Paper 7987). In the second set of discussions in the autumn of last year, the progress of each industry during 1960-63 was reviewed and attempts made to estimate the outcome for 1964 and to forecast the prospects for 1965. The results were summarised in our Report on Review of Industrial Progress, 1964, (Paper 8109), published in March, 1965.

Neither round of discussions was completely successful—perhaps not surprisingly. The fault lay not so much in any major deficiency in the procedures which were followed as in the fact that many of those engaged in the processes of economic planning were not fully aware of its nature, aims and methods. This lack of full awareness carried with it the danger that effective action will not be taken to achieve the agreed targets for 1970. We have accordingly prepared this report which attempts to describe the meaning of economic planning and to define the relative roles of government departments and agencies, managements and workers in the planning process.

Now, as I understand it, we have been told by the previous Taoiseach, by the present Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance, that planning was proceeding in the most energetic way and that we had two plans, the First Programme for Economic Expansion and the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. Now, however, we are told in 1967 by Mr. Whitaker that nobody knew what the hell they were doing, with this disastrous result that he now has had to publish a booklet in order to tell people what they will have to do if they hope to engage in any successful planning.

That does not end this astonishing documentation because we have the NIEC "Comments on Department of Finance Report: Review of 1966 and Outlook for 1967". This is a most interesting document because this shows that the NIEC is presided over by Dr. Whitaker and he has now produced and published comments on the Department of Finance Report. We picture Dr. Whitaker clapping on his NIEC hat, jumping on to his bicycle and dashing up to the council's offices to make a report on himself as Secretary of the Department of Finance, and then clapping on his Department of Finance hat and answering the NIEC and then correspondence being opened between himself and himself ad infinitum.

Wait until you hear the contents of this document. It is getting deeper and deeper. When I read paragraph 6, I am reminded of Teilhard du Chardin who when referring to original sin started talking about the "noosphere". We now find the same technique being used in Government publications in regard to the introduction of new words, what I can only describe as the "noo-sphere". For the first time we have a new term, it is not a prophecy or a plan, but a bench-mark. Paragraph 6 says:

The bench-mark projection assumed no change in budgetary policies.

Listen to this, because this is beyond praise. Dr. Whitaker is now in his NIEC hat and he says that the bench-mark projection assumed no change in budgetary policy and he goes on to say:

In the budget which was introduced on 9 March, 1966, income tax and the duties on petrol, tobacco, beer, spirits and motor vehicles were increased.

The fantastic part is that in his NIEC hat, he was assuming there would be no change in budgetary policy and then up on his bicycle and back he pedals to the Department of Finance and radically changes budgetary policies. This is one of the most distinguished public servants not only in this State —and I am saying this intending no disrespect—but in Europe. He preserves the absolute confidence of his Minister. He springs on to his bicycle again and cycles up to the NIEC office and they proceed with their investigations and projections on the assumption that there is going to be no change in budgetary policy which he has just settled with the Minister for Finance in his Department of Finance hat. Such is the skill and immense esteem in which he is held.

This body included such distinguished names as Dr. F.H. Boland, Mr. Haughey—not the Minister—Mr. Pat Kelly, Mr. Fintan Kennedy, Mr. James Larkin, Mr. John Conroy, Mr. J.C.B. McCarthy, Mr. Charles McCarthy, Mr. W.J. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Macgougan, Mr. Dominick Murphy, Mr. J.C. O'Connor, Dr. W.J.L. Ryan, Mr. James Stacey, Mr. Ruaidhri Roberts and Mr. Donal Nevin. These attended under the chairmanship of Dr. Whitaker who was asked to proceed on the assumption that there would be no change in the Budget proposals, he just having agreed with his own Minister to increase the duties on petrol, tobacco, beer and spirits and increase income tax in order to achieve a budgetary balance in 196667. The fruits of these deliberations are presented to us in a whole series of booklets which are now to be printed and distributed in published form.

Young Deputy Molloy takes these things home, wraps a wet towel round his head and studies them by candlelight to imbibe and absorb them. The poor fellow does it in the discharge of his public duties and in the belief that it is gospel and that it is almost heresy to question the contents of these wonderful, beautiful publications. That is only the beginning of it. The dilemma that Dr. Whitaker has got himself into is beyond description. Mark you, to the elderly Members here, reference to a distinguished public servant by name in the House comes as a shock. We instinctively recoil against it. I recoil against it. I recollect the first time the Grey Book was published and Dr. Whitaker was asked to sign it. I remember saying to the then Minister for Finance, Dr. Ryan; "You are doing a very wrong thing. You are breaking through the well-established anonymity of civil servants and we shall find ourselves instead of attacking you as Minister for Finance, animadverting on Dr. Whitaker who cannot answer." It is a most distressing situation for me because I honestly hold Dr. Whitaker in the highest esteem as a distinguished public servant and I recoil against mentioning his name here in the knowledge that he cannot answer. But what can I do while this deplorable system obtains?

I recollect that a highly respected officer in my Department when I became Minister committed the indiscretion of giving a Press interview and although I was a new Minister and he was an old and established civil servant, I felt it incumbent on me to send for him and say: "You have offended against a most sacred rule in the Civil Service in that you have abandoned your anonymity and you are now liable to attack and you cannot answer." I am now in the deplorable position that I have to speak of Dr. Whitaker, something I would much prefer not to do when he, with his incisive mind, is not here to comment on the observations I conceive it to be my duty to make.

Paragraph 7 of this document says the bench-mark projection also assumed the continuation of the existing money policies.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy realises that NIEC is a council and the reports are reports by the council, the full council?

Mr. Dillon

I think the Minister will agree with me that it is a fantastic situation to find the NIEC forecasting facts or making projections, which, to the knowledge of the chairman presiding, are false.

Mr. Haughey

I do not want to get involved in an argument with the Deputy but NIEC is a council consisting of trade unions, management and Government. It is a tripartite body.

Mr. Dillon

And presided over by Dr. Whitaker?

Mr. Haughey

That is an agreed report of the whole council.

Mr. Dillon

With Dr. Whitaker as chairman. He signs the report.

Mr. Haughey

Yes, as a member of the council.

Mr. Dillon

As chairman. I think it is deplorable. It is a bad procedure and it is now coming home to roost and producing fantastic and idiotic results. Let me summarise Paragraph 7 by saying that it foresaw no substantial increase in credit but strangely enough, they came to the conclusion by hindsight that if that projection had been realised, it would have had an even more catastrophic effect than we experienced, but the bank strike intervened and many enterprising gentlemen kited cheques and the result of the kiting of cheques was that about £40 million of extra credit was issued by the banks which the banks did not know they were issuing. When the clearances came to be made, the cheques came along and with very few exceptions, the banks accepted them, with the result that some £43 million extra credit had been created which had not been provided for.

Paragraph 8 made certain assumptions about the magnitude and timing of increases in wages and salaries. These also went down the drain and proved to be wholly false. We then come to Paragraph 9. The benchmarch projection assumed that the growth of output in the non-agricultural sector would not be disrupted during March to December, 1966, by major disputes. Listen to this: "In fact, industrial disputes in 1966 resulted in a loss of 783,635 man days compared with 552,351 in 1965, 545,384 in 1964 and 233,617 in 1963. Of the total man days lost during 1966, 19,500 or 2½ per cent were accounted for by the Dublin dock dispute in January, 323,300 man days or 41 per cent by the bank dispute, and 153,860 man days or 20 per cent by the paper dispute." That did not disturb them and they turned to the occupation of projecting the weather and in Paragraph 10 they say:

During last year, the assumptions that weather conditions would be "normal" and that the price level for agricultural output as a whole would on average be the same in 1966 as in 1965 were not fulfilled. In fact, weather conditions in the Spring were abnormal, and agricultural prices on average over the year were probably about 1½ per cent below the 1965 level, mainly as a result of a fall in cattle prices which originated in export markets.

Paragraph 11 deplores, after some preliminary hubbub that their projections in regard to the United Kingdom economy were unduly optimistic. All I can say, when I have waded through all that junk is: Is it any wonder that Professor John Jewkes of Manchester wrote his book, "Ordeal by Planning", if these are to be the fruits of planning operations? When in reality we find all the plans are founded on certain strictly restrictive assumptions, all of which appear to be in retrospect wrong, where will the planning carry us? As far as I can see, planning is carrying us from one economic catastrophe to another and I do not think we shall reach the end of it as yet.

Deputies should remember that while the homeless are seeking houses in this city and the unemployed are seeking jobs, the Government believe they are grappling with this situation by putting forward White Papers and Green Books and by announcing a new departure in the public life. Not only are they going to call to their aid those distinguished men whose names I have read out as signing those books but they have also established a new organisation to be known as Taca. I have seen a lot of people showing their belief in the Irish language. I know the Minister wears a fáinne and I also know that Deputy Boland wears one. I tried to find out what the new development was. I knew what the NIEC was and I knew what the Department of Finance was but Taca was a new one on me so I turned to Dinneen. There I found as usual that he gives a number of meanings which I am sure the Minister will know and I am sure the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, coming from a maritime county, will recognise the meaning here. Taca, according to Dinneen means a piece of rigging. Now, I said to myself, we are on to a new thing. Dinneen, being the excellent lexicographer he is, never stops at that.

Mr. Haughey

Surely Deputy Dillon remembers the Taca Síochána.

Mr. Dillon

He goes on and he gives a number of examples, as he always does following the definition of a word. He says that one of the phrases which is very typical in rural Ireland is: "Sé mo thaca anois é." I am sure the Minister for Finance knows what it means and I am also sure the Leas-Cheann Comhairle knows what it means but in case there are any of my colleagues who do not know what it means, it might be interesting for them to learn that the translation of that phrase is: "It is my turn now." I must say when I read that, I said: "This is a most interesting development in our public life." It seems to me that it calls to mind the classic which I read when I was young. It was called "Animal Farm". If Deputy de Valera has not read it, I hope he shortly will read it.

"Animal Farm" describes how the animals on a farm in England determined they would get rid of all human intervention. They evicted the farmer from his farm. They painted on the end of the barn, just as Taca might do, the seven commandments. Those were:

1. Whatever goes on two legs is an enemy.

2. Whatever goes on four legs or has wings is a friend.

3. No animal shall wear clothes.

4. No animal shall sleep in a bed.

5. No animal shall drink alcohol.

6. No animal shall kill any other animal.

7. All animals are equal.

Then the story goes on. I will not trouble you with the whole tale but it emerged that the pigs, Napoleon and Squealer, became the dominant animals in this animal kingdom. The horses were workers and they worked themselves to death. The rest of the animals were rather shocked to discover by this stage that the pigs had established contact with the local knacker.

As the horses dropped dead with work, the pigs actually started to work but they had taken the precaution to train the sheep to work. The sheep had been drawn to one side and they were told that if anyone asked an awkward question, they were all to bleat in unison: "Four legs good, two legs bad," and to keep shouting it until the awkward fellow shut up. Squealer was put in charge of the sheep and right enough, when some of the animals asked awkward questions, all the sheep said: "Four legs good, two legs bad, four legs good, two legs bad." It is as good a thing as: "Up Dev; Up Fianna Fáil."

On one occasion the animals were a little disturbed to find that the sheep were not to be found. They had disappeared. When they inquired, Squealer said that they had gone away for tuition but that they would be back on the farm shortly. He said they were in a remote field. The following morning the animals came out to tend to their chores and they were considerably consternated to find that there were signs of intoxication among the pigs.

Mr. Moore

May I ask if all this in order?

Mr. Dillon

It is. I am just coming to the final part in this story which is a quotation from the Minister for Education. It will not take very much longer.

Mr. Moore

It is a painful tale.

Mr. Dillon

The animals were amazed to find that Squealer pig was walking on his hind legs. They were further amazed when Napoleon pig emerged not only walking on his hind legs but wearing the farmer's hat and carrying a whip. Somebody approached them to ask why they were like this. Then the sheep were called on to bleat and to the astonishment of all the beholders, they now bleated in unison—I thought of Deputy Molloy here—"Four legs good, two legs better, four legs good, two legs better."

As Napoleon pig walked round the yard on his hind legs and wearing the farmer's hat—this is the end of the story—one of the animals said: "Something has gone wrong and we had better go down to the barn and have a look at the seven commandments. One of the commandments is: `Whoever goes on two legs is an enemy', but the sheep said: `Four legs good, two legs better.' The next one is: `Whoever goes on four legs or has a wing is a friend,' and the next: `No animals shall wear clothes.' Napoleon pig is wearing the farmer's clothes. `No animal shall sleep in a bed' but Napoleon and Squealer are sleeping in the farmer's bed. `No animal shall drink alcohol' but we can smell whiskey. We will have to go down to the barn and see what is wrong."

Their eyes were bewildered to see that the first six commandments had been blotted out but the seventh was still there. It read: "All animals are equal" but there is now the addition: "Some animals are more equal than others". Do you remember the Minister for Education telling us that he saw no objection to contracts being distributed or favours done by the Government of the day, that they should be done to their friends, all things being equal. A placard for your coat collar surrounded by a green, white and orange label would be provided for the payment of £100 which would ensure that that particular certificate is a little more equal than the others. I would recommend the booklet to Deputy Moore. It is not a big booklet.

Mr. Moore

I think the booklet was banned.

Mr. Dillon

No. There is not a line in it that would shock the conscience of a sensitive man. Therefore, I am safe in recommending it to Deputy Moore. I will make a present of it to him if he will conduct seminars among the backbenchers of Fianna Fáil. Tell them from me that it is not as fat as the other green one but it is of a better green. You might go on to read Orwell's other book entitled "1984".

I should like to say, in conclusion, that our people will get the Government they vote for. If it is "Animal Farm" they want, they should vote for Fianna Fáil, but if it is democracy and decency they want, I suggest they will have to look elsewhere. I think the acceptance of corruption as the norm in public life is shocking. Why pretend that in this island of saints and scholars there is no corruption and bias, if it has come to be accepted as the norm?

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy has been shouting corruption for a long time now, for as long as I am in this House.

Mr. Dillon

Would the Minister agree with me that corruption in any country is evil but that an infinitely greater evil is when the people as a whole begin to shrug their shoulders and say: "What else do you expect". I want to press on Dáil Éireann that that is coming to pass in our time in our country and I am ashamed. I can see at once that we cannot remedy or control that without a joint effort.

Mr. Haughey

I think the Deputy said all this 20 years ago.

Mr. Dillon

Taca did not exist then.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy was saying it then. You led a corruption campaign during the war, as far as I remember.

Mr. Dillon

I say this. Up to recently we had no Party in this country who ever set up a corruption machine. I think you learned that from somebody who I wish had never come here. I am not saying that everyone in this country is impeccable.

Mr. Haughey

May I ask the Deputy a question?

Mr. Dillon

Yes.

Mr. Haughey

Is it not another form of corruption to take people's character away, to spread false rumours about them?

Mr. Dillon

I am only stating the facts as I know them.

Mr. Haughey

I am telling you the facts of my own situation at the hands of the Fine Gael Party.

Mr. Dillon

Personalities must be avoided. I do not think the Minister can suggest that I have ever pursued this, nor do I intend to do so. I am merely stating the facts as they appear to me. I am saying what infinitely more shocking than individual venality, from which none of us can claim to be utterly exempt, is when that venality comes to be generally accepted by the people as normal. It was a lie when it was said of our people in the United States of America. They were called the Tammany gang. They did join Tammany to fight against corruption and the exploitation of the poor by the rich. I glory in the contribution that our people made to the conquest of such exploitation of the poor by the money power and in the fight for that they had to use such an instrument as Tammany. But there is no such power, no such threat and no such defenceless people here as there was in the nineteenth century on Ellis Island and on the streets of New York and every city of the United States and on the railroads of the West.

Let us not assume that to survive in public life we must be corrupt. I do not believe it; but we have a very heavy responsibility to persuade the rising generation that that is not true, that it is not the accepted norm; that it is revolting for those who have given their lives to politics to hear it suggested or that there is even a similitude of truth that it has ever become so. I told that story of "Animal Farm", and I do not think that I have been unfair in the parallel I have made, since the Minister for Education spoke those revealing words "all things being equal". In a spirit of mischief and indiscretion, he opened something to our eyes which I think even shocked himself. The point we have got to and the future of the country which belongs to us and to which we all belong is in great peril if such standards are generally accepted and, therefore, it is necessary that these facts should be canvassed publicly in Dáil Éireann. They can be destroyed by dragging them into the open and exposing them to the light of day, but if this is a new standard our people are being asked to accept, they should know in detail what they are being asked to accept. I hope no one in public life in Ireland will attempt to drag them down, to accept the proposition "that some people are more equal than others" because that is the writing on the tombstone of a free democracy.

Mr. Moore

First of all, may I congratulate the Minister on a very fine Budget? From the remarks made by the Opposition speakers, it would seem that any good in the Budget came of their policy and anything less good they want taken out. I think I have the right to refer to Deputy Dillon's deplorable performance here this evening. For a man of his calibre, one expects good and clear criticism. In so far as he criticised the Budget, I want to say to him that the fact that he ridiculed a civil servant who cannot defend himself and further that he abused the NIEC Report, ignoring either deliberately or accidentally, the fact that the NIEC Report came from workers, trade unionists, employers and the Government, that it was not the work of one man but was an agreed report, and a very good one, in my opinion, is deplorable.

Deputy Dillon also referred to an organisation attached to the Party to which I belong and its corruption. I might mention that before the advent of Hitler in Germany, the Nazis brought down democracy by decrying it, by saying it was corrupt. Deputy Dillon is doing the very same in this country by allowing corruption in here that cannot be taken to task except in the House. I represent a part of the city where very few people would have £100 but each year I go round and collect some money from them for this Party. It comes from people who can afford one shilling, not one pound, people who, probably, in their whole lives never save £100 for themselves or their Party but who over the years, believed in what we believe in here. If there are people who have paid £100 out of their pocket, I can assure the House that none of them is in my area.

Mr. Dillon

You put on a very good advertising display for the general election, I must say.

Mr. Moore

The money came from the people.

Mr. Dillon

I am glad the Deputy repudiates Taca.

Mr. Haughey

Fine Gael started this for the Fine Gael election campaign in my constituency. Deputy Paddy Belton organised champagne parties and the devil knows what to raise money.

Mr. L. Belton

That did not cost £100.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would Deputies cease interrupting and allow Deputy Moore to make his contribution?

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear.

Mr. Moore

I suppose the very fact that Deputy Dillon devoted most of his time to a slanging of our Party shows how little he had to criticise in the Budget. First of all, I take the opportunity of repudiating his criticism. He is a Deputy for whom I have the greatest admiration.

Mr. Dillon

May I say it is reciprocated?

Mr. Moore

All I can say is that he is believing Fine Gael propaganda, and very few people do that.

Mr. Sweetman

Tell us about the increase in the price of butter.

Mr. Moore

The Budget is one of the best Budgets ever brought in here and the present occupant of the Ministry has shown an example of businesslike presentation. Apart from that, he has shown the deep social thinking of the Party and the Minister. I have watched him as a young man emerge in politics. I always felt and hoped that one day he would be Minister for Finance and he has completely fulfilled my confidence in his ability. Last year, the previous Minister—now Taoiseach —had the very unenviable task of coming in here with a Budget, when outside influences contributed very much to a credit squeeze, but let it be said of this Party that they faced the difficulties then with honesty and candour and they presented, in that year, two Budgets. The people realised the honesty of this, the fact that we will not seek popularity for a bubble reputation and, in two by-elections, the people endorsed the stand taken.

Last year I heard from the Opposition benches a cry to resign. I have not heard it so far this year. The Minister, in his Budget Statement says:

For the development of Ireland's full potential there is no more fundamental or important investment than that in education.

Nobody can doubt this year will mark the beginning of a new era in education. The people are ready to accept taxation in the cause of education and the Government, by good government, have been able to make money available so that we can offer to every boy and girl in the country at least full education at secondary school standard. We hope, in the not too distant future, the way to university education will be open to all our people, irrespective of their social background or the financial position of their parents. In September, when the new system comes in, it will be of great benefit, although most people felt it should have been done long ago but, in a small society like ours, we have to cut our cloth to measure. However, the Government have gone ahead at the earliest possible moment with their plans. If I might offer one word of criticism, I had hoped the Government would have been able to raise the capitation grant in secondary schools to £35. Had this been done, we would have all the schools in, that is, the non-residential schools. I hope next year this may be possible.

The allowance given for medical expenses against income tax is widely welcomed by many people. It is something most people hoped would come sooner or later. It has come sooner than most people expected but public comment since the Minister introduced his Budget has been unanimous in praise of the Minister for this relief. It is very welcome indeed and I think, in future, we will see an extension of this allowance. Nobody becomes ill of his own will. It is something each one of us must endure some time and the knowledge that one is getting some help through income tax, helps to speed recovery.

When I came into this House first, I was appalled to hear Deputy Dillon talk about the Dublin housing situation. I have no intention of going back on the arguments I made then. At the moment we are housing families with three children, in fact, families with two children and, at the end of the month, we will house many hundreds of families with two children. But I would ask Deputy Dillon, or any other Opposition speaker, not to take the argument I put forward on Dublin housing in 1957 but simply to read the records of that period and he will find out who is telling the truth. I shall not take that matter any further, because it is something which happened some years ago, but Deputy Dillon, each year, persists in putting forward the legend that the housing situation, when he left office, was in good order.

Mr. L. Belton

Was it not? Were there not plenty of houses?

Mr. Moore

As I mentioned before, there were houses but too few people.

Mr. L. Belton

There were houses but they are not there now.

Mr. Moore

I shall ask the Deputy's colleagues why we had to stop huge housing developments because of the emigration figures. Deputy Dillon now criticises us for not housing our families but remember that for the first time in 100 years, the population of the country has increased. Our people are marrying younger and there is much less emigration, so do not try to make capital out of people who have no homes. Our people are marrying younger, there is less emigration and we have got to solve the housing problem. I am convinced, if it is to be solved, it must come from this side of the House, from this Government, because I certainly would not trust the housing problem in the hands of the Opposition again.

Mr. L. Belton

The Deputy agrees there is a problem?

Mr. Moore

I agree there is a problem the same as the Deputies are talking about in Westminster and Washington. The only city with no housing problem is a dying city, and this is not a dying city. Let us face and overcome the problem and stop making political propaganda out of the misery of some of our people.

In four years social welfare benefits have been increased by 37 per cent. One is tempted to compare that progress with what happened under a previous Government, but I will not do that. The Minister recognised the need of old age pensioners, blind and widows, as this Party have always done.

Mr. L. Belton

You did not do it last year.

Mr. Moore

In each year of office we have given them something. This year, the Minister was able to give an extra 5/- all round, plus two innovations for the old aged—free electricity and bus travel. I know that the bus travel concession has been looked for by many people. I accompanied a Fine Gael member of the corporation to CIE seeking it. CIE admitted the social wisdom of it but said they had a deficit and were not able to do it. However, the Minister has been able to formulate this scheme, and at least the Opposition should pay tribute to him for that.

We cannot be complacent about our social welfare benefits. At present, pensions are too low; but I am hopeful that next year, when we have made further progress, things may have eased sufficiently to permit of giving something extra to the old age pensioners and the infirm. The Minister should think of the many elderly people in this city who have not reached the age of 70 but who live on very slender means. They are worthy of some social help. We should plan our future Budgets to enlarge the scale of social benefits.

The Minister has derated the land of farms of a certain valuation. I hope that some day he will get around to revising the outdated and archaic rating system we have. Surely a man has a right to have a house in which to live? This Act is over 100 years old. It is time we reviewed it and distributed the rates burden in a more equitable manner. I realise that at present for the servicing of this city the rates carry only 40 per cent of the cost, while the Government and central funds carry the rest. But it has become a terrific burden on young couples buying houses in the suburbs. We might start by abolishing the stamp duty on houses. This would be a help to people starting off on marriage.

The Minister covered a wide field in his Budget Statement. He referred to the possibility of exploration for oil and natural gas in the country and on the sea-bed in our territorial waters. This is something we have not investigated sufficiently. Look at the countries which have discovered these commodities on their land or in their territorial waters. It has changed their entire economies for the better. There is an excellent chance of oil or gas being found here. The oil giants, who seem to have money to burn, would be quite willing to carry out this exploration. It should proceed at all possible speed. Our native fuel, turf, will soon run out. Apart from the hydro schemes, we will not be able to find a substitute. Here, on our very doorstep, there may be natural gas or oil. We should consider this prospect very carefully and go after them.

The Minister mentioned also the distribution of incomes policy as advocated by the NIEC. The Taoiseach stressed yesterday that coupled with any control of wages and salaries, there must be control of profits and dividends. We cannot stress that too strongly. Our opponents have dishonestly tried to suggest that we are trying to control wages just for the sake of controlling them. We must bring our costs into line with those of other European countries. If we cannot sell at competitive prices, we must face the fact that the first to suffer will be the workers and not the wealthy person.

Today, in our search for full employment, our first step must be to preserve existing employment. The Taoiseach has warned that unless there is increased production, we will not tolerate increased profits. Let this go for the masters as well as the workers. Perhaps it will bring some sense to all of us and we will realise there are not two sides to industry but only one. A house divided against itself cannot stand. Neither can an industrial economy if it is torn with dissension.

An incomes policy is difficult to achieve. Even across the Channel, where they have been at it for longer than we have, they have not succeeded in having a fully comprehensive incomes policy. But it is absolutely essential in a complex society like ours or in any urban society. We, on this side of the House, seek by all means to bring forward the day when we will have full employment. One of the essentials for this is a sense of responsibility on the part of all sides of industry. We must realise we are a very small and not over-rich country. Our resources must be used to the full, and by that I mean the skill of our tradesmen and management. They must be used in the best possible way.

I am convinced that we, like the Danes, the Dutch and the Swiss, have sufficient brains to build up our society so that each person here can have a full life and be guaranteed full employment. These European countries did it because they were prepared to work for these things. They were not afraid of work. They built up their economies, first, by their hard work and, secondly, by their genius. I do not hold with any man who says that our ability or genius to perfect our society here is any less than that of these other people.

It may be said that last year's Budget was a bad Budget, but I do not hold with that. There came a time, as has happened in most countries, where we had to take account of the fact that money was no longer freely available. Many countries found it hard to press ahead with their economies at full steam. On one occasion there was a public body here which thought of borrowing on the continent because they needed some money for development, and they were told by a representative of an industrial concern in another country that they might save their time, that they were in a worse way than we were for capital. One thing we have failed to realise in this House is that we are so terribly sensitive to outside pressures, and that until we make the economy much stronger, this will continue. I am confident that while this Fianna Fáil Government are in power the weak, the lowly-paid and the infirm will be looked after to the fullest possible degree of our resources. This is something which is comforting.

The public reaction to the Budget has been tremendously favourable. It has been said the Budget has been so framed as to help the Government candidates in the forthcoming municipal elections. That is so much nonsense. The Government candidates can stand on their own feet in an election, and there is just no connection between the Budget and those elections. Could the Opposition not come forth for once and say: "This is a good Budget. You have helped all the weaker sections. You have provided for expansion of the economy"?

Mr. Sweetman

But he has not.

Mr. Moore

He has. The papers you support came out with a big banner headline saying "Plans for Expansion".

Mr. L. Belton

What paper is that?

Mr. Moore

The one that supports you.

Mr. L. Belton

Which one?

Mr. Sweetman

I am not referring to what the newspapers say. I am saying there is nothing in the Budget for industrial expansion.

Mr. Moore

Giving people confidence in their own economy, that is how you expand industry. By showing outside industrialists that our economy here——

Mr. Sweetman

I went to London a week ago and asked an industrialist to come here, and he said: "Not until you have cleared up the mess that exists in your telephone system. It is the joke of Europe." That was his answer.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will Deputy Sweetman allow Deputy Moore to continue his speech?

Mr. Moore

Deputy Sweetman may be driven mad by the telephone, as I am, but that is a small point.

Mr. Sweetman

This man would not come here on that account.

Mr. Moore

If Deputy Sweetman has made calls in other countries, he will find——

Mr. Sweetman

The international service is good.

Mr. Moore

It may be good: I do not use it very often.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The telephone service does not arise.

Mr. Lalor

It is an unjustified allegation.

Mr. Sweetman

It happens to be true.

Mr. Moore

It is a small point anyway. I do not think that would keep people away.

Mr. Sweetman

Come and tell us about the price of butter.

Mr. Moore

At least people can buy butter now, not like in your day.

Mr. Sweetman

It is going up 2½d in this Budget.

Mr. Lalor

There are more people using it.

Mr. Moore

The point I am trying to make, despite Deputy Sweetman's interjections, is that if we want to encourage industrialists to come here, they must see that we are a responsible people. If these people come to the country, it is not because they like our blue Irish eyes.

Mr. Sweetman

Hear, hear.

Mr. Moore

They must have confidence in the economy to come here, knowing very well they will not have to meet a sudden imposition of import levies one morning, as happened in the past and threw thousands of people out of employment.

Much has been said in the debate which does not seem to be relevant to it. Deputy Dillon referred to the fact that there were people in the city who are pulling down houses and building office blocks. That is quite true, but he gave London as an example. It is no duty of mine to criticise people across the water but as regards that city, because of bad planning, they made deserts out of a large part of it from Friday evening to Monday morning. The previous Minister for Local Government, by his plans for this city, has ensured that will not happen here.

In conclusion, I want to congratulate the Minister and the Government and to pay tribute to the Minister for Finance who, last year, introduced a Budget which was not as popular as this one. But it was a very honest Budget, and in recognition of this man's honesty, he has been made Taoiseach since then.

Mrs. Desmond

The Labour Party's voting in favour of the proposals for increased taxation contained in this Budget should be an indication of the sincerity of repeated statements that we will support taxation, particularly on non-essential items, for the purpose of giving relief to the weaker sections of the community. While we give that support, we are under no illusion as to the magnitude of the reliefs which have been given. We believe that these reliefs are much more attractive on paper than they will prove to be in practice.

While supporting the proposal for increased taxation, we are also under no illusion about the steps that have been taken to eliminate the social and economic ills that beset our community and our economy. We are keenly aware that no worthwhile proposals have been forthcoming from the Government or are contained in the Budget Statement for the elimination of those ills. In the few proposals that have been forthcoming only the surface of the problem has been scratched.

I do not think we can feel happy about any relief that might be given while at the same time the prospects for employment, which, in our opinion, is the acid test of the progress of a nation, are so gloomy. We on these benches have vehemently opposed the terms of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement before now. I have no intention of going back and saying: "I told you so". I would prefer to be in a position now to say: "We are glad our forebodings were not true", but I am afraid our worst forebodings have proved in this instance to be correct.

This is particularly the case in rural Ireland, and the constituency which I represent is predominantly a rural one. We cannot be content with fringe reliefs while we know that no additional steps have been taken to arrest the exodus of the productive sections of the community in rural Ireland. We cannot be content while fathers of families come along to us, as they do frequently, seeking employment of any kind, seeking our help to secure that employment, while we know our best efforts on their behalf are doomed to failure because the type of employment they are seeking is not available.

We cannot be content while boys and girls — and this will probably apply more to boys than girls because the opportunities for them appear to be even poorer than they are for girls —leaving school trained for a type of job which does not exist, are approaching us seeking our help, when we know that because of the total lack of career guidance, the total lack of employment information of any kind, the best these people can hope for is unsuitable employment, very small wages, with no prospects, and the worst they can hope for is emigration, as is the fate of far too many. In the past year it has been the fate of more than it was in the previous year. This is an unhappy situation. It allows no room for complacency.

We cannot rest content when we see stagnation and, very often, slow strangulation of the economic and commercial life of our rural areas. Yesterday at Question Time reference was made to the town of Bandon. In one week in that town, employment decreased by no fewer than 100 persons. We know the majority of those procured employment elsewhere. We know the situation may be due to circumstances outside the control of the Government, but no Government can close their eyes to the fact that this is happening, not alone in the town of Bandon but in towns elsewhere throughout the country. These people may procure employment elsewhere but they are lost to their home towns and these towns suffer in consequence.

As far back as I can remember, Bandon has been seeking some industry. I am sure the situation was the same years before I became capable of remembering. It has had its hopes raised on numerous occasions, only to have them dashed. The need in this town, as in other towns, is greater now than ever before. There is a point beyond which the business life of a town must not be allowed to sink. Industry is urgently needed.

There are far too many industries employing a number of young girls with—I say this without any hesitation —slave wages, girls who are replaced by younger girls when they come to an age at which, because of increased proficiency, they can command higher wages. This is not the type of industry Bandon wants, or any other rural town, for that matter. We want an industry with a good employment content and proper wages. I hope the Government will bear the needs of this town in mind and do everything they can to ensure that it is not overtaken by a slow death.

The estimated increase of 4,000 employed in industry is 1967 as against 1965 is a depressing figure, particularly when it is accompanied by a figure of 10,000 leaving agriculture between 1965 and 1966 and a figure of 7,000 fewer in employment at the end of the year as compared with the beginning of the year. One fears the estimated 4,000 will not be achieved. We do not want to be pessimistic but all the forecasts in the past two or three years give no cause for optimism. We hope that this year, because of increased incentives, the Government will be able to maintain a balance. But even that is not good enough. A great deal more will be needed if we are to stand up to competition from Britain and possibly Europe.

We hear a great deal about redundancy payments and the resettlement of our workers. This is very essential and effective legislation in relation to it is a matter of urgency. Resettlement implies rehousing. The estimate for local authority housing is up by only £200,000 this year. That will leave us in a position precisely similar to that of the last financial year. Grants for new houses are down by £490,000 and the total for private housing is down from £3½ million to £3 million. Surely the Government realise that there is a tremendous backlog, quite apart from the question of the resettlement and the rehousing of workers? Bad housing conditions and the tremendous backlog in building are one of the greatest social evils we have.

We welcome the aids designed to help the smaller farmers. We are, however, under no illusion in relation to the relief in rates up to £20 valuation. Already there is four-fifths relief and I do not think an additional one-fifth will work out at more than 4/- or 5/-a week. Despite the first reaction in the press, this relief would not appear to be of the magnitude anticipated. There is evidence of failure on the part of the Government to come to grips with the problem of agriculture. There are proposals for grants for coolers for milk. Anybody who lives in rural Ireland knows that the first requirement for a cooler is a supply of water. Farmers all over the country do not know where they stand in regard to the installation of water.

There is an increase of £90,000 for water and sewerage this year. That is an insignificant figure when one remembers the tremendous backlog there is in the provision of water and sewerage. Farmers who might be in a position to claim grants for coolers do not know what they should do. They have been told a regional water supply scheme has been passed, but they have been waiting five and six years for the scheme to be put into operation. They do not want to embark on a private water scheme, pending the possible provision of water on tap. With the small amount of additional money made available this year and the little work done last year it looks as if lack of water will prevent many of our farmers availing of the grants now being made available for them.

There is no real proposal for the speeding up of land reclamation. This reclamation is, in my opinion, fundamental. Thousands of acres of land are unarable because land reclamation has been slowed down. No major scheme has been embarked upon. At county council meetings we have deputations from farmers seeking financial aid to reclaim their land. I know one farmer in my own area who has 30 acres of land and 20 acres of it are under water. Land reclamation should be top priority and I cannot understand the Minister standing up here, talking about schemes to enable farmers to make the maximum use of their land and make the maximum contribution to the economy, when thousands of acres of their land are allowed to remain under water and no major schemes of land reclamation are initiated. Nothing definite is being done to finance these schemes or to enable farmers to carry them out.

We come now to coast protection. Last year we had a sum of £5,000 for coast protection. This year we have precisely the same sum: £5,000 for coast protection in an island like this. Those of us who live within reasonable distance of the sea and who visit our coast know that many acres of land are being lost because coast protection is not being carried out. This is very shortsighted policy. It is something which successive Governments will not be able to remedy because any land that is lost in this way is lost, and that is that. These are major impediments to increased production by the agricultural community, production which might improve this country if the Government were a bit more realistic about the problem and tackled it instead of giving piecemeal relief here and there. These are major problems which should be tackled at once.

There is an increase of £171,000 this year for fisheries. As a child at school, I learned that the fishing industry was a major industry in an island country such as ours. It must be the most potential source of wealth untapped in this country. I believe it is completely undeveloped and that no concrete proposals or plans have ever come forward to date for the exploitation of this source of wealth in the seas around Ireland. It is disappointing to see such a small increase—£171,600—which can make no appreciable difference between what will happen next year in regard to fisheries and what happened last year and the year before.

We welcome the increases in social welfare benefits. We welcome the relief from ESB charges for old age pensioners living alone and the relief from transport costs. We are conscious that these will only apply to a very small number of our old age pensioners. There is something of which I would like to remind the Minister for Finance with regard to giving relief from ESB charges. There are, in many parts of rural Ireland, many old age pensioners and many families in various walks of life who have not got ESB services at all because of the exorbitant charges being demanded by the ESB in recent years for the installation of service. It has placed what should be an essential in any home in this year of 1967 outside the reach of many of our people. They would require probably five or six poles to reach their house and sums of £400 or £500 or even enormous sums added to their two-monthly bills were required. I know there are many old age pensioners living alone who will not be afforded an opportunity to avail of those services because they have not got electricity supply in their homes and by virtue of the fact that the policy of this Government is that unless they can produce £300 or £400, they will not be afforded a service.

Any of us reading the papers will have seen recently the case of an old age pensioner being brought to court for not paying rates. Frequently the rates work out at £10 or £12 a year and are a burden on an old age pensioner living alone. That is a concession the Minister could have included for old age pensioners. In saying all this, of course, we are appreciative of what has been done.

We understand, of course, that this applies to all old age pensioners living alone and that the rigid rules applied by the Department to qualify for a 5/- increase will not apply again. We understand the concessions with regard to electricity and transport apply to all, but in view of our experience last year, when we discovered when the Budget was over that increases did not apply to the numbers we were led to believe in the first instance, we might be pardoned for asking the Minister to clarify the position. I think we can take it they apply to all old age pensioners living alone.

The Minister, during the course of his Budget Statement, made reference to the fact that in view of the rise in the cost of living index, 2/- would compensate an old age pensioner for that rise and that in fact they were getting 5/- so that their position would be improved to the extent of 3/-. I do not think the cost of living index can be brought into the argument. There are many things on the cost of living index that these people could never afford. I do not think we should apply the cost of living index at all to people who still have not got enough money to sustain them in comfort.

The Minister has increased social welfare benefits. I would have liked to hear in the Minister's statement a reference to children's allowances payable to widows. I have often talked about the fact that these allowances are withdrawn when the son or daughter of a widow reaches the age of 16, while allowances to better off sections of the community continue while that child remains in fulltime education. It gives the impression that the thinking of the people who framed this is that the child of a widow should be out at work at 16. We have been trying to increase the participation of these people in education and the fact that they take away that meagre allowance at 16 is not conducive to that participation in the educational system.

Special allowances have also been increased. We recall last year when old age pensions were increased these allowances were reduced. We hope that this year one allowance will not be played off against the other and that there will not be a maximum above which they cannot go. We hope the increases they have been promised, both in old age pensions and special allowances, will be paid.

The Minister made a point that since 1964 the cost of living has increased by 12 per cent and because of that, public service pensioners are being given an increase of 12 per cent. Twelve per cent of a pension of £500 is £60 and 12 per cent of £1,500 is £180 a year.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 18th April, 1967.