Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Dec 1967

Vol. 231 No. 13

Adjournment (Christmas Recess) (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That the Dáil at its rising on Thursday, 14th December, do adjourn until Wednesday, 31st January, 1968. — (The Taoiseach.)

Before Questions, we were remarking that it was extremely important that as regards the official policy towards Europe we should see what, realistically, were the limitations of that policy and tailor our future conduct towards negotiations in the light of existing limitations. I suggested that the major limitation at the moment appears to be that Britain will not be accepted into full membership in the foreseeable future, and in the light of this undoubted fact we must consider our entire European policy. If, as I remarked, the direction of our policy results in our sinking our national identity into that of Britain and if the international posture which this Government takes up leads these European countries to believe that everything we do has British interests in mind, then if Britain does not get into the EEC in the foreseeable future, then neither shall we. I also pointed out that what suits the British economy might not suit our own. Most certainly the devaluation which occurred in Britain recently did not suit us. We must adopt a policy to suit our interests. If our policy in recent years has been, as it has been, to lump our interests with those of Britain, we cannot weep if we are hurt as a result.

We cannot fob ourselves off with the idea that the complete opposition to our entry to the EEC is in the person of the President of France, and that if something happened to the President of France all would be made smooth, that Britain would gain membership and so would we. There is strong pressure in France and among the Six against the admission of Britain. The reason they do not want Britain in at this time is that Britain is seen by such people as the stalking horse for American interests. With the British economy becoming more and more dependent on the Americans, these European countries do not wish to admit Britain in this state of dependency of the US. Such opinion exists in certain European countries. It most certainly exists in France. We must give up this practice of seeing the possibility of membership of the EEC through British spectacles. If the British fail to understand the objection in European quarters to their entry, then we, with our tradition and history, should attempt to understand it. If our policy goes step by step with that of Britain, then we should not be surprised if European countries fail to understand that this is a separate country with separate problems.

This, as I was remarking, has been a year of visits which up to the moment do not appear to have produced any direct results. They have been well publicised. The Taoiseach and his Ministers have gone to various countries, but the sum total of all these wanderings to different European capitals has not brought us any nearer to Common Market membership. Even at this stage we do not appear, as far as the Taoiseach's Estimate speech informs us anyway, to have any intention of rethinking this whole policy.

The most recent visit has been that to Captain O'Neill. They discussed, and certainly this was a good thing, the foot and mouth epidemic and so on. It is three years since the last visit. There should be nothing remarkable in two people from different parts of this country meeting together and chatting about the weather, foot and mouth disease, snowballs and so forth, but the time has come to ask ourselves what do we expect from these visits.

It is no longer fashionable to refer to it, but it is no harm sometimes to be awkwardly old-fashioned and to say it should remain part of our policy, whatever about a united country and an all-Ireland Republic, to see that discrimination is ended in the Six Counties. That should be the price of these cross-Border talks. We are not there to discuss the weather or to savour Captain O'Neill's daughter's cooking. We are there to gain political results. Political results are not to be summed up in a political settlement of the whole country in the immediate future, but we should certainly seek the achievement of a real democracy in the Six Counties. That is what we are after and that is what we should say we are after. Let us be quite honest about it. There is nothing sinister in such a motive in 1967, that real democracy should operate at local authority level in the Six Counties. We shall gain no respect from anybody in the Six Counties if we ignore this problem, and hope for some kind of improvement in our relations. I would say this Government stands condemned in that they have not brought sufficient pressure on the Six Counties through the British Government, which is responsible for that part of the country and which, after all, is the most sympathetic Government ever towards Irish aspirations. We have not brought sufficient pressure on the Government to bring in changes there. As long as the United Kingdom controls the Six Counties they have the responsibility to see that the same rights which other citizens of the United Kingdom enjoy are also enjoyed by the people of the Six Counties.

It is not sufficient excuse to say that Captain O'Neill has his extremists as we have extremists around the country. There is nothing extreme in our request that ordinary democratic rights should be the equal possession of every citizen in the North. It is not easy to get these results from discussions with the Unionist administration in the Six Counties. It would be very difficult for that administration to agree to such changes because the Unionist Party administration enjoy power through the exercise of a great degree of discrimination at local authority level against the religious minority.

If we do not get results through this so-called liberal wave that is supposed to be swamping the Unionist Party, then we have our remedy in going to the British Government and looking for changes. No doubt the discussions with Captain O'Neill will cover gerrymandering, because if we are to believe some of the rumours that are going around this House, we shall be taking some leaves out of Captain O'Neill's book in the New Year in the matter of gerrymandering.

These problems must be discussed openly with Captain O'Neill. If we are to believe everything about his sincerity, his liberalism, and his desire to eradicate the abuses which exist in the area under his control, he should be agreeable to discuss these matters and see that any misgivings people might have about democracy in his area are removed. This is leaving aside the possibility of an ultimate political settlement and merely asking that ordinary human rights be respected in the area under his jurisdiction.

The Taoiseach and other people have commented since devaluation on the necessity of wages remaining static in the foreseeable future. Even on the narrowest front, I do not think you can get any number of our fellow citizens to accept restraint at this time when such does not seem to be the case when applied to other sectors. While devaluation might spell disaster for a majority of our people, it has been a bonanza for a certain minority who had money invested abroad, who switched their securities and who had a lot of shareholdings. For them devaluation has been a pretty good windfall this Christmas season. Quite a number of people made large increases on their cash incomes as a result of devaluation. I have commented before what a crazy system it is that allows such to happen by a signature at the end of a switch in securities, while devaluation, at the same time, penalises a majority of people by causing a cut in their living standards.

The trade union movement is not there to act as policemen for people who make money out of such ventures as devaluation. We have repeatedly stressed that the trade union movement can only exist so long as it answers the demands of the members who make it up. If the demand of the majority in the movement at present is for an increase in wages to make up for the increased cost of living in recent months, then nobody can stay that demand from arising. The position is that, even if there had been no devaluation, the people in the trade unions would be moving now at the end of the two-year period for a compensatory increase to offset the cut in the standard of living suffered in recent months.

If the Government take the attitude that this is anti-social behaviour on the part of these people, we must point to the lack of activity by the Government in this matter of wages, prices and the national income in general. I recall the famous policy announcement by the Government of their desire to bring in an incomes policy. The last time we heard about it was around the time of the last wage round. Presumably it will be resurrected in the months ahead again. I remember the last time we discussed this when there was some agitation on the wages front. The NIEC had suggested that it was the primary responsibility of the Government, in consultation with all the interests involved, to produce an incomes policy as soon as possible. We called on the Government to accept that suggestion of the NIEC. But there has been no action on it over the past one and a half years. Presumably, we will have a few hasty statements now in the next few months. But there has been no action in the period of relative peace during the last two years. But the idea of an incomes policy will be resurrected as soon as we have difficulties on the wages front, which undoubtedly we will have in a short time. It is a great pity that the time we had to consult with the interests involved was not availed of. Today, on the eve of another movement for wages, we are no nearer an incomes policy than we were two years ago, or even five years ago at the time of the "Closing the Gap" statement of the Government. Presumably we will now have to go through all the same old motions of strikes and disputes which gave us an unenviable record abroad about two years ago. We had so many strikes that we had international recognition for this rather doubtful distinction.

If we had a proper national incomes policy, which would show incomes advancing year by year without recourse to industrial action, nobody in the trade union movement would withhold support from such a plan. But no initiative has been taken in this area. So long as this situation continues the unions will have to use the old-fashioned, weary weapons of strike and dispute. No one is in a position to say they are anti-social when the Government have done nothing to further industrial relations in this vital area. I cannot hope that there will be any delay on the part of the majority of trade unionists moving for an improvement in their standard of living in the months ahead. The Government have done little to improve the situation facing us in the years ahead by way of improving the organisational position so as to render unnecessary strikes and disputes. They have not accepted the advice of the NIEC to produce and implement a national incomes policy.

I do not know if the prices machinery we supported some time ago is adequate to guard against the increases already occurring over a wide range of goods. I remember in that period we asked the Minister if, as part of the machinery, he would require any retailer or wholesaler increasing a price to notify the Department before in fact he put the new price on the goods. We were defeated on an amendment which would give the Minister authority to be notified of such price increases. Now we see startling increases, especially in regard to meat prices in Dublin over the last few weeks. I do not know if we can take any action on them. Such increases have taken place and have certainly added to the increased cost of living. There will be quite a number of other increases as a result of devaluation. It is a golden excuse for the many people in our community ever ready to increase prices. It is not wildcat strikes we should be worried about so much as wildcat prices, which in turn lead to the movement on the wages front to which I have been referring.

Despite the lack of activity by the Government in bringing in anything approaching an incomes policy which would make the determination of personal incomes — salaries, wages and dividends — a matter for rational decision, the trade unions themselves have secured several notable successes over the last year or so by way of productivity agreements. Despite the fact that little has been done to ensure a more orderly arrangement for arriving at incomes, union members, ordinary men and women, in their branches, have negotiated agreements with employers which allow for an increase in salary or wage over a particular period to be related to real improvements in productivity. On their own initiative they have done this, despite lack of encouragement from the Government officially or centrally. Several notable agreements have been notched up here.

We must understand that the real heroes of our economic situation and the people who have really attempted to do something constructive are such men and women who have participated in these agreements. Despite the provocation which exists all around them in our community to act selfishly, to go out on their own, to bargain for as much as they can, these people have conducted negotiations which display a high degree of responsibility. They live in a community which rewards those who are the most selfish, in which the Government do nothing to see that reward is equitably distributed over the entire community. Usually, their relations or themselves are short of housing accommodation. In many cases there are no ways by which their children when they wish to marry can build houses, purchase houses or get decent accommodation. Yet, despite such provocation, the flaunting of unnecessary wealth in this community, the way it is flaunted and the way success appears always to go to the man who makes least contribution to the economy, these people have conducted productivity agreements up and down the country which allow an increase in wage or salary over an agreed period to be related to real improvements in productivity. This, on their part, is the arrangement of order in the midst of economic anarchy. This is in a situation where the Government have not attempted to bring order into disorder. These people on their own initiative have attempted to do so and they are the heroes of the economic situation, not the Government and not the official policymakers. They have done this and conducted such agreements against a background of intense insecurity when it comes down to the matter of jobs because the most haunting fear in the minds of many wage and salary earners in Irish industry is, "Will I have my job next year? Can I see myself being in this job in the foreseeable future?"

Again, the Government here give very cold comfort to people who look to the future for any security because, as a result of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement, each year from now on our products must compete more and more on level terms with Britain. The bitter fruit of that Agreement will be seen by Irish people over the next two or three years in the situation that there will be fewer jobs and nothing in return.

Despite the insecurity in many Irish factories and places of work which, for the first time, has disturbed workers in the matter of the fundamental loyalties many of these people had to political Parties, these people have given notable evidence of their constructive attitude by participating in productivity agreements. They have had little encouragement either in their own environment or from the Government to embark on such schemes. The most dominant feeling that working people have is one of utter insecurity as to how they will earn their living next year. I question whether any of the people who supported the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement and who went into the Lobbies here in acceptance of that agreement anticipated the situation that Britain would not be a member of the EEC before 1970, which now looks likely. The excuse being made on all sides now is that the Agreement must not be considered in isolation but as part of our European membership. Events have caught up on the people who supported that Agreement, supposedly in anticipation of European membership. That Agreement was a bad bargain and the fruits of that Agreement will mean fewer jobs for our people in the years ahead. That hastily concluded Agreement is the origin of many people's fears about their job security in the years ahead. We must remember that large-scale suspicion exists throughout our community about the Government's intentions especially in respect of industrial employment. There is a large-scale feeling in the country at the moment that the Government have no longer any interest in safeguarding the employment of many industrial concerns and that, in fact, the decision has been taken at official level that many such industries will be forced to close without alternative jobs being available.

The Deputy is getting away with a lot of extravagance. That is about the ultimate.

I am referring to attitudes prevalent in the country at the present time.

The Deputy is making assertions that are completely extravagant and wrong.

I am referring to the fact that workers will lose their jobs in the years ahead as a result of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement which your Government signed and you supported. Do you say that people have not lost their jobs as a result of that Agreement?

12,000 a year increase — new jobs.

We have not provided the number of jobs that will bring us anywhere near full employment and there are people who lost their jobs in the last year and more will lose their jobs in the coming year as a result of the Agreement which you signed.

I should not have interrupted the Deputy's extravaganza.

Many of the workers in the Taoiseach's constituency know the effects of the Agreement. I have already referred to the OECD report on growth at the half-way stage, in several European countries. Is it an extravaganza on the part of the OECD? They put us as second last in the list of European countries examined as to growth rate in that period from 1960 to 1965. The extravaganza of the Irish Government was to come second last in the list of European countries recording growth over that period. This demonstrates that the present policy of the Government cannot provide the proof of adequate growth in the economy.

We will be away at the top of the league this year.

Where were we last year and where will we be next year? Anyone can choose one year and say we were good in that year. The OECD, which examined five years, produced a realistic picture. In a period when the Government here suggested that we had made most progress it was proved that over that five-year period, in relation to other European countries, we were second last. The Taoiseach was quite right; we have recovered somewhat this year but whether we will be able to maintain that recovery next year and the year after, I do not know. The experience of the last five years proves that we cannot continue progress year by year.

We have to look very carefully at the planning that we have been following up to now. None of the targets of either the First or Second Programme has been achieved. It is now suggested that we are to have a Third Programme tied, the latest statement suggests, to the possibility of our membership of the EEC. If membership of the EEC and our relationship with the EEC is, to say the least, in jeopardy for quite a number of years, it would seem to be extremely unwise to tie any economic programme to the possibility of participation in the EEC. I have suggested here before, in connection with the First and Second Programmes, that we should state honestly where mistakes have occurred and attempt to understand why none of the job targets was realised, why we have failed to achieve and barring miracles — and economic miracles are very rare here — cannot achieve the job targets we set out to achieve by 1970. Over the ten-year period we will be nowhere near the achievement of the number of jobs we set out to attain by 1970, in accordance with the Second Programme. The target set up for that period up to 1970 was not an ambitious target. It was a target of about 10,000 a year emigration and an increase of 80,000 new jobs. We are not going to approach even half of that over the period. I do not think we need go in great detail into the failure of the First and Second Programmes.

That they have been a failure has been admitted and it does not lessen the content of that failure to say that we are going to have a Third Programme in relation to the Common Market countries. It is the achievement of employment and the provision of adequate employment for the people of any country that is the acid test of the success or failure of the Government of that country. The previous Taoiseach admitted that the provision of employment was the acid test of the efficiency of a Government and I do not think that such a test can be bettered. It is on that test that this Government stands condemned as a failure at present.

We need to get the right industries to start up here and I do not think we can continue the present policy of over reliance on foreign enterprise. I do not think that foreign investment will be sufficient to give us the increase in capital for investment that is needed. Too much of this foreign industrialisation depends on conditions in their home countries over which we have no control and we can no longer depend for the provision of employment on that kind of investment. We should take a greater interest in our Irish assets at present invested in London and I suggest that the Government should take a serious look at the short term flow of Irish capital to London. In this connection we must call on Irish citizens to recognise their responsibilities to their own country. However, unless we can have more control over the interest rates charged by our Irish banks and until we give more authority to our own Central Bank we cannot say that we are going to have any meaningful control of our own economy in the years ahead.

Unless you do this, no matter how many paper committees you set up to investigate and assist this or that industry, the effect will be similar to the effects of the first and Second Programmes. Many people have said that to compel a withdrawal of investments in London would be an unwarrantable interference with the rights of the people. My own suggestion to such people is to tell them to look up the Papal Encyclical "Progresso Populo". The lesson to be learned from that is that the citizens of a country, in their capital, have a responsibility to the national economy. People who think that by investing their capital abroad they are playing the part of patriots are doing no such thing. Unless we give ourselves this monetary control and see that sufficient capital goes into our economy I cannot see how there is going to be any improvement in the provision of adequate employment.

Where a firm receives State moneys, either as a loan or grant, for adaptation purposes or otherwise, we say that the State itself must have a more direct say in the management of that concern than the State has at present. If a firm needs £50,000 of the Exchequer's money, then the Exchequer has the right to say to that firm that if they want £50,000 of the taxpayers' money the taxpayers must have some say in the decisions of that firm's board of directors. Firms who get money from the State either for purposes of adaptation of machinery or anything else must accept State participation on their boards either by way of advice or managerial direction.

In the dangerously competitive future we must no longer put our entire trust in the system of private firms which operate up and down this country. Many of these firms have been in the possession of families for years, they are not even public companies, and our future is much too dangerous to entrust it to the decisions of these families. There are too many workers and their families depending on the continuation of their jobs in this country to trust that in the future these families will continue to take the right decisions. The low standard of training and the low level of decision making in our managerial circles has already been remarked upon. If this is the case quite obviously we would be taking a big risk to trust the future of national employment to such firms and their managers in conditions of free trade.

We must have some control over them, we must have some say in the way they conduct their affairs, the State must have a more important role to play in the defence of the interests of the ordinary people who work in these firms. We do not want to have any more Rawsons in this country. One Rawsons was enough for the town of Dundalk but there can be more of them up and down the country. There are many firms which could close up for unspecified reasons just because it suits the shareholders and board of directors to close up at any particular time. It cannot be accepted that the responsibilities of such a firm to any particular town or to its employees are ended just because the conditions of business may be becoming tougher. There is no reason why a firm which has enjoyed the protection of this country for 30 years, has had a pretty easy way of living for 30 years, should now close down because the world and life is becoming more difficult.

The investment the community has made in such firms is too large to be let go. We have our responsibility to the State and the State has its responsibility to the employees who work in such firms to see that their employment is not endangered in the dangerous years ahead. That is why we insist that the State must participate in the management of these firms. If we accept as a national objective the provision of full employment we must not be afraid to take measures necessary to meet a situation which is going to become much tougher than it has been in the past.

We do not have to have a swing to either the left or the right in order to discover what the changes should be. Already in France, if a firm does not live up to its position in the economic life of the country, there are certain taxation penalties for such lack of initiative or effort on the part of the particular firm. People may say this is interference with freedom. We live in times in which there is not very much freedom for the unfortunate individual who may be out of a job next year or the year after. What we must be concerned to preserve is the freedom of people who wish to work in their own country. It is because of the possibility that many may be out of work in the years ahead that we must act now. In France, under her taxation system, it is actually possible to induce people to do even better. Various tax concessions are given. That is a wise policy. We give certain tax concessions and where a firm is not living up to its position, there should be taxation penalities.

One would have expected that in the Taoiseach's speech this morning we would have been given some idea of the direction of Government policy in the year ahead. As I said, the speech was disappointing in that respect. It was a mere repetition of clichés about what I described as the "non-happenings" of the past year. I have referred to the necessity of an incomes policy. On the very important front of labour and wages in general, the Minister for Labour has of late been behaving in a fashion which, to say the least of it, is extremely irresponsible.

The trade union movement and organised labour in general were for some years calling for the establishment of a Ministry of Labour. We saw it as a means of having a member of the Cabinet who would specialise in the particular problems of the working people. In the last few weeks we have seen a completely different version of the Ministry of Labour. The Minister has, in fact, descended to political catchcries. I consider this the most extraordinary, irresponsible behaviour for a man in his position. He was charged by the Dáil to carry out a very delicate and difficult job, to improve relations between employers and employees.

Whatever the exigencies and difficulties of a Fianna Fáil Árd-Fheis, or the idiosyncrasies of delegates, and whatever may be the demands in the approaching by-election in Clare, I believe the job of the Minister for Labour is far more important than the fortunes of any particular political Party. That the Minister should so misuse his position as to actually name prominent leaders of employee organisations is, I think, the height of irresponsibility especially in view of the fact that we are now approaching a period in which we will be considering with far greater emphasis relations between employers and employees. The unions are on the verge of moving towards an improvement in the standard of living of the working people or compensation for a cut in the already existing standard of living. That the Minister should in such circumstances himself initiate a campaign of abuse is highly irresponsible. If the backroom boys of the Party feel it necessary to initiate such a campaign they have a number of supporters better equipped mentally and in every other way to organise the mudslinging. It was not necessary for the Minister to descend to mudslinging. There are quite a few front and back bench Deputies who have a greater degree of proficiency in political mudslinging and the Minister could have left the job to them.

One would have thought that the Taoiseach would have given us some new policies for the coming year. In fact, the Government seem to think that our problems are located exclusively in the matter of election to this Dáil. That is an extraordinary verdict to have reached after the failure of the First and Second Programmes, the shortfall in jobs at the moment, the lack of growth in the economy over the last five years, the problems raised by freer trading, and the postponement of our application for entry into Europe. If we believe the rumours floating around and the news on RTE today the Government believe that the root of all our troubles lies in the system of election to this House. That seems to me to be an extraordinary conclusion for the Government to come to at this time. Ten years ago the country was plunged into a campaign initiated to decide the manner in which representatives should be elected to this House. The suggestions of the Government at that stage were rejected. Indeed, the period is not even ten years because the decision was actually made in 1959. Now, apparently, the people are to be asked to make a decision again, and that at a time when all the pointers call for action on the economic front, on the provision of more jobs, for the need to spell out what we mean by an incomes policy and for a redrafting of our whole policy in relation to both Britain and Europe. It is at this stage that the Government consider the No. 1 priority to be the preservation of its own Party in power. The job of any Government should be the running of the country to the utmost advantage of all sections and the ensuring of economic progress. I do not know how a change in the electoral system will affect the number of new jobs to be created next year. Obviously, what we should be concerned about is management of the economy and not management of Government Deputies' seats. This Government have got their priorities completely wrong when they consider the electoral system the No. 1 priority for 1968.

Perhaps there are things which are far more essential but which have shown themselves to be less easy of solution. There are gaps in our economy which have manifested themselves over the last five years which call for early action next year. Instead of such action this country will be plunged into another bout of constitutional talk. One would have thought that the Taoiseach would have availed of this opportunity to let people know that they were seriously grappling with realities and tackling problems in the hope of finding early solutions. Despite all the economic indices to the contrary, the Taoiseach suggested his Government are doing extremely well. The time has come when we must consider the whole attitude towards Europe, when we must consider sinking everything we have in the British ship in the hope that Harold Wilson will steer us into the EEC. Such a policy must now be seriously questioned. Many of the EEC member countries seem to think that Britain will be in later rather than sooner and our Government have been over optimistic about the possibility of Britain becoming a member in the very near future. Various policies have been conceived on the assumption that Britain would become a member in the near future. At the time of the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement it was assumed that Britain would become a member and we would be in Europe by 1970.

If all these assumptions are now proven, by the facts revealing themselves, to be misplaced, we should reconsider our whole policy. The Taoiseach's speech should have been made the occasion for announcing this reappraisal, for stating where the policy was leading the Government and where it would be changed. We have had several occasions in the last few weeks which made such a restatement of fundamental policy necessary. Devaluation was possibly the biggest calamity to hit this country since the devaluation in 1949. Far from having an excess of honesty in discussing devaluation and all the problems it must bring in its train, the Government attempted to suggest that nothing extraordinary had occurred.

The Taoiseach certainly did not elaborate on the fact that our greatest need now is to attempt to diversify our export markets. If devaluation has been such a calamity for us it does also provide us with the possibility of entering into new markets in the United States, in North America generally, and in certain parts of Europe. One would have thought that this should certainly have been explored and announced. In regard to this matter of looking for export outlets for our produce there has been a little bit too much optimism in relation to the British market. The British market is going to be subjected to extreme deflation in the next year or two, to the order of some £800 million. Deflationary policies will be inflicted on the country over the next year or two. An economy in which they are attempting to dampen and lessen home demand does not provide a market on which one can make new demands. As I said, we should be concentrating on European and North American markets. Devaluation should give us the green light to tackle these markets seriously.

The Taoiseach's speech did not give any evidence that the Government are aware of this necessity. Time is very valuable in this matter of seeking diversification of such markets. I have also suggested that we should explore the possibilities in Eastern Europe. We can easily see that the time has long departed when one, by suggesting that, could be accused of favouring such regimes. It in no way implies support for any Communist regime to suggest that we should try to increase our trade with it. It is a matter of economic commonsense. Whether we trade with them or not they are not going to disappear and they do not show any evidence of disappearing.

Italy, Spain and many other countries which disagree with these countries have, in fact, very great trade relations with them. One need just look at the position of West Germany and East Germany, two countries which could not differ more ideologi cally, and both have vast trading relations with each other. Only last week the chairman of Irish Ropes Limited — and it cannot be suggested that he in any way favours Communist countries — suggested that there should be a greater concentration on East European markets. I would suggest that initially we should open up a trade mission with one or two selected countries. I have suggested on another occasion that we should open up a mission with Poland which has traditions more or less like our own and with which in the past we have so many things in common. In cases where diplomatic recognition is a bar to opening these missions we should also reconsider that question.

Over all, the most important thing we must attempt to do if we are going to allow for independent initiative in the future, which should be the objective of all our policies, is to diversify markets. This is going to call for great attention on the part of the Government. Certainly we should increase the organisations of the State which deal with exports. I do not think that Córas Tráchtála is sufficiently equipped at present to cater for opening up new markets for exports. It would have been a touch of real leadership, something that is lacking at the moment, if the Government had nominated next year as "Export Year" in order to drive home to the people the necessity for seeking new markets and to bring home to them the fact that their standard of living is undoubtedly involved in getting new markets. The more we diversify trade the more independence we give ourselves in making economic policies. Certainly we will be giving ourselves more independence in relation to the next devaluation of the pound. It is not a fantastic thought that there may be another devaluation within 12 months. Admittedly France is saying that it may come within three months. Certainly the pound which was shaky before devaluation is quite wobbly still, despite all the efforts of the British Government. Those who say that we cannot depart from complete dependence on the British Government's policy should understand that in the near future they will be brought once more into the dock and suffer further devaluation as a result of being tied too closely to Britain.

I do not see any evidence in the Taoiseach's speech that the Government are aware of any of these possibilities. If the Taoiseach is aware of them then it is a secret between himself and the civil servants of his Department. The most essential thing before us, as I said, is the gaining of new export markets. This is what we should be looking for in 1968 instead of looking at our own navels which we will be doing if we are looking at the method of election to this Dáil. We will be dealing with the old receipes about the Party in power and so on, but it is not the method of election that is wrong with this country but the policies that the Government in power have been pursuing over a number of years. It is the policy that is in question not the method of election.

I am extremely disappointed with the Taoiseach's speech and it is a compliment to the Taoiseach that I feel it necessary to express my disappointment. It could have been the occasion for an announcement by the Taoiseach to the Dáil and to the whole country of new policies but instead he treated us to the old, tired clichés with no evidence of fresh leadership in regard to the economic needs of 1968.

This Estimate gives the House an opportunity to discuss the position within the country and also external matters, if we wish. I do not think anybody could disagree that our economy is on a very sound footing. It must also be agreed that things look well in regard to our balance of payments position and that the arrow is pointing in the right direction. Some time ago when the Government saw that the growth of the economy was not what it should be and the balance of payments not as they liked, they took certain measure which they knew were not popular and which they did not like taking and which they were criticised for taking but which have now been proved right by the trend of events.

The past year has been good both in the industrial and agricultural spheres. In the agricultural sector we have had a record intake of milk at creameries and consequently farmers have got a greater amount paid out to them for milk than ever before. It was a very good year for grain although the harvest in the end was not so great. In the main, it was very good, and now the country is very well stocked with food stuffs, barely and so on. We also had an excellent beet harvest. It is thought there will be a record yield per acre which will, of course, benefit the farmers. This year also we succeeded in selling the surplus cattle held over from last year and in selling them at very good prices. It was a good year in the cattle trade. Prices held well and at present there is no bother in selling stock of any fair quality.

It is amusing to think back to 12 months ago to the campaign launched by the Opposition Party against the Minister for Agriculture who was held up as the man responsible for all the bad prices for cattle and for everything wrong in agriculture. The boot is now on the other foot; prices have increased and these same people are racking their brains to explain that the Minister was not responsible for the increase in prices. They cannot have it both ways: if he was responsible last year he is also responsible this year or else he was not responsible in either case.

I am very disappointed that relations between the different farming groups are not on a happier footing. Many farmers are at logger heads about who should represent them and things have not improved in the past 12 months in that regard. A group that has come in for a lot of talk recently is the Beet Growers' Association, which has represented growers since they started factories in this country. Now seeing that Heinz-Erin are going ahead they will have an even bigger task as more vegetables will be required and more farmers will be needed to produce them. There will be more acreage under vegetables, especially peas. Now efforts are being made to eliminate this group and this move has come in from a political angle which is very bad for any group organisation.

There have been assertions that we have a problem in regard to the flight from the land. We definitely have; it is there all the time, but it is also in Britain to the extent of about 40,000 a year. In the U.S. the figure reaches about 400,000 every year.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present: House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,

The flight from the land is being thrown at us and the fact that it still continues. I was pointing out that the same applies in Britain and in the U.S. This movement is not always of necessity; some of it is of a social nature. No matter what some people have in the country they prefer to go into the towns. Nobody can deny that the Government have brought great aid to the small farmers in many ways. Further plans are being made for their benefit. The National Agricultural Council has been established by the Minister for Agriculture. It is a body in which he wanted to discuss agricultural matters in detail so that they could reach some good decision. He reserved the right to choose some of the members but left the majority to be chosen by the farm organisations. Most of them accepted this, but one organisation did not. That was a matter for themselves. Everything was going along well until once again the political angle intruded.

It is no secret that the shadow Minister for Agriculture in the Fine Gael Party, before he makes any pronouncement on agricultural matters, has to go down to see some members of a certain farming organisation. He is not doing that for the benefit of that organisation. He is doing it because he is in dread that that organisation would become political and do his Party a great deal of damage. This was further borne out when the leader of that organisation gave an interview to the Cork Examiner correspondent and did not emphatically say “no” that they would not go into politics, as his predecessor always said “no”. I can well imagine the Opposition worry over this, because they know if this organisation goes into politics it is from their pool of votes they will be drawing and not from ours.

There was also a meeting of the Council of the County Committees of Agriculture at which the Chairman completely overrode standing orders, after which that body proceeded to withdraw the two members from the NAC, even though in the previous year those two members had been appointed for a two-year term. That is what is ruining Irish farming. The political hand is moving into the picture.

We had the Opposition here discussing education and decrying the closing of certain schools. Everybody knows that when it was proposed to close the one and two-teacher schools and to replace them with larger central schools, it had the backing of all Parties in the House. Then some Deputies opposite thought it was not popular in their area, so they retracted what they had previously said. Let me say no school is closed anywhere without the manager being consulted, and if the parents ask for an interview they will get it with an official of the Department and, to my knowledge, they get not alone one such interview but often two or three.

This past year has been a milestone in the Department of Education, because it was in the past year that the Minister for Education introduced his free post-primary scheme. This was a great leap forward. It was the nearest we had come to the ideal of Pearse "to cherish all the children of the land equally". I think the nation should be, and is, very grateful to this Government for that scheme. It is the first time that a child, no matter what circumstances it is born in, whether its parents are rich or poor, has an equal chance of climbing up the ladder.

There has been the usual talk from the Opposition to the effect that nothing is being done about housing, social welfare, and so on. In the past 12 months we have seen further increases in social welfare benefits. None of us think they are enough, but they are as much as circumstances allow. These people are happy to know that as long as this Government stay in office they are sure of further increases.

As regards the complaint on housing, one has only to read the report of Irish Cement to see there are larger sales of cement every year. More cement is being used, and that is the surest sign that more houses are being built and that more of our people are being housed. We must remember that our population is increasing and that there are many more people being housed than there were ten or 12 years ago.

I was listening to Deputy O'Leary speaking a while ago, and I suppose he is a man who likes to be tagged the socialist of the Party. That Party of late declared itself a Socialist Party, but it is amusing to look at their activities and decide how many of them could be called socialists; I think many of them could, without any question, be termed capitalists. They are a Party pulling at odds and ends. They are at the moment very upset that the Minister for Labour has spelt out to them what a trade union should really do and what they should work for, that trade unions were established for the protection of the workers, for the making of agreements on behalf of the workers, regardless of their political affiliations. Now if you join a trade union you are liable to be told that you must pay a political levy. This is because the Labour Party are trying to take over the union's functions.

I would ask anybody who has a job in any factory in this country who really started the industrial drive here. It was the Fianna Fáil Government and, in particular, the former Taoiseach, Deputy Lemass. We in the Fianna Fáil Party have always treated the workers in a proper manner, and let it be said that the workers have returned this by treating the Fianna Fáil Party properly, returning them to power almost continuously for the past 35 years.

Deputy O'Leary has been telling us that people will lose jobs if we join EEC and that they will lose jobs if we continue in the British market. He does not want the EEC or the British market, but he does not tell us where we are going to sell all our produce. He mentions the North American market, but he does not spell out what they are going to take from us in the way of industrial or agricultural commodities. It is very easy to talk about these things, but it is not so easy to prove what you say.

At the moment we are in a very prosperous position. We are keeping our fingers crossed that we shall escape the scourge of the foot and mouth epidemic that is sweeping Britain. This is a very serious matter, because not alone would it affect us for the time being but it would affect our sales of meat and cattle in American markets for the next three or four years. We are fully behind the Minister for Agriculture in any measures he takes to see that the disease does not come in here. There are always the smart "boyos" who will go abroad saying they are going to a certain place and when they get there travel around freely. I would appeal to the Minister to insist that heavy penalties be imposed on such people. No mercy should be shown to them when through their own selfishness they endanger the livelihood of thousands.

As regards the decentralisation of the two Government Departments, one to Castlebar and one to Athlone, I as a rural Deputy welcome this. It is about time this was done. We were getting to the stage of asking whether you belonged to Dublin or the rest of the country. I am glad a State body has taken this step, and I would urge other State bodies to follow that example. I see no reason why the Sugar Company could not move further South. They have none of their factories north of Dublin. There is one to the West and three to the South.

I wish to congratulate the Taoiseach on his recent meeting with Captain O'Neill and on the continuation of the good work which was started by the then Taoiseach, Deputy Lemass. This is a matter on which I do not intend to dwell. It is a subject on which one should tread carefully. We must realise that on both sides of the Border these two leaders are representing people who are all Irishmen.

There is one appeal I would make in this debate. It is in relation to the survivors of the War of Independence, men who have got medals for the part they took in the Rising of 1916 and, subsequently, for service between 1917 and 1921. Many of these people are not being properly treated, and a certain amount should be set aside so that each would get so much per year. This should not be subject to means test. From what I know of the operation of the means test, it precludes them from getting anything. There are not many of them left. They are getting fewer every year. They should be treated by us in a better fashion.

Our economy is sound and our balance of payments is good. We can look with confidence to the future for the coming year. This Government has the confidence of the people. This was never demonstrated better than in the past 13 months when we had four by-elections. One was in South Kerry, a completely rural area; one in West Limerick, also completely rural; one in Waterford, part rural and part urban; and one in Cork city. In each case the Fianna Fáil candidate had no bother in getting elected. That shows that the country is behind the Taoiseach and this Government. The Opposition try to lead us on this side of the House to believe that we are afraid of losing our seats. I wonder is it their own seats they are afraid of losing?

This adjournment debate offers an opportunity of reviewing, critically and objectively, the events of the year. Today the Taoiseach, in introducing his motion for the adjournment, indicated that things were brighter than they were this time last year. Our trading position has improved and progress has been made this year as compared with last year. That, of course, is perfectly true. Indeed, it would be a very sad and desperate thing if the Taoiseach had to report this year as he had to do last year, because 1966 was a year in which we fell backwards almost on every front, with our trade position declining, industrial and agricultural production declining and generally our position was at an all-time low. So that we could not afford two successive years with a bad result and any improvement is to be welcomed.

But I doubt if the improvement that took place this year can in any way be due to Government activity or policy or any settled plan of action by the Government. In fact, the outstanding thing in respect of the year just concluding has been the remarkable lack of policy by the present Government. I do not believe there is any Minister, indeed any member, of the Fianna Fáil Party who could consciously say what policy this Government are pursuing. There has been reference in this debate to the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. I do not want to turn this debate into another inquest on that programme. It is dead, it is buried, and let it rest in peace. But with the death and burial of the Second Programme there is also dead and buried the pretensions to policy by the present Government.

Since 1963 this House and the people were accustomed to hear from Ministers and from the then Taoiseach declarations that in this Second Programme there was contained a well thought-out and well-planned policy to conduct the operations of this country over the seven-year period so that by 1970, at which stage we were to be in Europe, we would have strengthened our economy, provided jobs at home for our people and at least ensured that 78,000 more men and women would be in insurable employment. That is all gone now. The Programme fizzled out because of incompetence in the Government. There was nothing wrong with the targets laid out in the Second Programme. All that was needed was a team of efficient Ministers determined to see that these targets were attained. That was lacking. The incompetence was there in Government, where competence was required. Without the competence to do the things necessary to achieve the targets in the Programme, we just slipped back.

Take this figure of 78,000 new jobs in seven years. What a distressful country we are when we find at the end of the year 1967 — a good year, according to the Taoiseach — there are now fewer people at work in Ireland than there were before the Second Programme was launched. If that is progress, it is progress in the wrong direction. It is about time Government Deputies faced these facts. Listening to the one Fianna Fáil Deputy who had the courage to speak in this debate, I felt sympathy for him. He does not know what is wrong. He does not recognise the facts. Instead of making progress in the last few years under this Programme, we have slipped backwards.

There is to be a Third Programme now, but it is not to contain targets, according to the Minister for Finance. It is not to contain any engagement by the Government as to what it sets out to achieve. I do not know what the Programme is going to be. I would like to see from the Government some dedication towards achieving as rapidly as possible for our people full employment, a decent standard of living and an undertaking to bend all our activities towards achieving those ends. Full employment — that means the provision of gainful employment for school-leavers, for the healthy and the strong, the breadwinners, those who are striving to rear a family, contemplating the continual movement of population from rural areas — all that is involved in full employment. That will require a great deal of planning, a great deal of hard work, a great deal of competence and efficiency from the Government, and, above all, a discipline imposed and accepted by the people, to work hard towards the achievement of these tasks.

In a few weeks time we will be starting a new year. We had the complacent attitude of the Taoiseach here today— things are not as bad as they were last year. So what? The Second Programme is dead and buried. By what star do we seek to guide our country in the coming year? What will be the purpose put before the people? Will there be any target, any aim, any direction in which we will go or are we to drift into 1968 happy and complacent because 1967 was not such a bad year and, Micawberlike, something will turn up in the 12 months ahead? I very much fear that with the destruction of the hopes expressed in the Second Programme, with its disappearance, we will now embark on the old policy of drifting along hoping that things will get better.

There is evidence that we are going to do it because the Taoiseach has already mentioned some six or eight weeks ago that there will not be any review of the progress or lack of progress made under the Second Programme, that a Third Programme will appear some time next year and that meanwhile we will have what he euphemistically called interim planning. What does interim planning mean? It means going to bed at night and hoping you will be there in the morning to get up. That is what it means. It means starting on a Monday and hoping that things will be all right by the end of the week. Interim planning is just another way of saying that we are not going to do anything; we are not going to have any aims, express any hopes; we will carry on as best we can.

Here is the situation now in this country, with its endemic problems of emigration, instability in employment, with its great difficulty in maintaining viability economically, challenged by powerful economies outside. Here we are at the beginning of 1968 apparently going back to the outmoded operations and courses of action of years ago where governments supposed to be in charge of an economy just carried on from day to day and week to week.

I suppose there are civil servants at the moment busily engaged on the Third Programme. I do not know what they are going to do. I do not know what kind of programme this will be because it will contain no targets, the Minister for Finance says. In other words, they are never going to have it to say again that progress is not being made as laid down because nothing will be laid down. This programme, the Minister for Finance told us, will be identified, associated, with our expected accession to the Rome Treaty, with our hope of entry into Europe. I do not know, I remember in 1963, when the Second Programme was announced, the then Taoiseach said precisely that. He said the Second Programme was drawn up, its targets were realistic, carefully considered, with one date in mind, 1970, the year we were to be in Europe, and the Second Programme was identified with the vision of our being a member of the European Community by 1970 and it was so designed, we were told, that it would direct national effort economically towards European integration eventually.

Now we are having the same old story again. This Third Programme— whether it will be stillborn or not we will have to wait and see—is to be drawn up with one eye on the clock and the other on Europe. The people are so disillusioned by the lighting of so many hopes and the breaking of so many promises that they will regard a Third Programme with the gravest possible suspicion.

In relation to this Third Programme there was reference made by either the Minister for Finance or the Taoiseach that there was also to be included a social programme. May I say: Má's maith é, is mithid é? A social programme was advocated by this Party in the General Election of 1965. Not only was it advocated but it was drawn up and it is there to be seen today in the document called Towards a Just Society—a social programme containing social advances and progress associated and linked with the growth in real wealth in the country and with increased production. That social charter which we drew up, which we advocated in the last election and have advocated since, that idea of ordering our social affairs so that the problems of want, distress, poverty, poor housing and poor social conditions could be attacked and dealt with in an orderly and progressive way, was sneered at by the then leader of Fianna Fáil, Deputy Lemass. He said it was impracticable and that he did not see any sense in making advance commitments so far as the State was concerned in relation to social reform. Apparently, there has been some rethinking now and what was sneered at two years ago is now being produced as the carrot for 1968 to be held in front of the people in the hope that they will forget that in this as in many other respects it was Fine Gael who pointed the way.

I have no doubt that we should have a social charter. I have no doubt that when a small country such as ours decides to plan economic progress and expansion an effort should be made to get the ordinary people to understand what the fruits of economic expansion can be. If we have social targets, desirable and worthwhile targets, based on social justice, then some meaning can be given to national effort. We must not forget—I am afraid that at times it has been forgotten—that the achievement of mere material success does not answer the problems of any community.

There are other values and other things which are much more important and which, if properly ordered and laid out, can give a meaning and a sense to the national effort. That is what a social charter should be. I hope the reference to it is not mere verbiage, that we will see in the early months of next year a document prepared that will point the way to a revolution of our health services here, a document that will point the way towards providing for our people a comprehensive medical service similar to that enjoyed by people in one part of Ireland and by people in the rest of Western Europe.

I hope this programme will contain an up-to-date and Christian approach in relation to the whole field of social welfare, a field in which there has been little or no thinking in this country in recent years, where we seem to regard a man who has been out of work because of sickness as a person to whom we can pay a pittance regardless of what his pay had been and not in any way related to the standard of living which he had enjoyed while in health and at work. It is part of the Just Society proposals of Fine Gael that social welfare will envisage graded benefits related to wage income.

Let us know what is going on in education. Let us not have sudden decisions taken as were taken during the past 18 months, decisions produced overnight and thrown out in the hope that everything will be all right. Let us know where we are going in education. We are a small people. Our real assets are easy to count but one of them must be the intelligence, the vigour and the independence of our young people. We should plough money into educating our people in relation to whatever difficulties they may have to face afterwards but, above all, so that we can get the most from community effort here. We will not do that by having free secondary education in some schools or by having free buses running here, there and elsewhere. What we need here is a plan for education which would start down in the primary schools, run throughout the secondary schools and on to the universities, and to the schools and centres of advanced studies and knowledge.

There should be a comprehensive plan. Fine Gael suggested a comprehensive plan. We drew one up and handed it to the Minister for Education, Deputy O'Malley, and let him study it but there has not been any evidence that the Government are going to deal with education in a proper and comprehensive manner. Let us have that put into the social programme that we are told is being prepared.

While the Third Programme is being drawn up, there are certain imponderables that will continue and one of them is: Where are we going in relation to Europe? There has been a great need of putting into practice of the idea: Live horse and you will get grass. We have been living from year to year, from programme to programme, on the basis that we are going to get into Europe. This morning the Taoiseach said, in effect: "Wait and see; wait until the Ministers meet in Brussels next week. It is too early yet to say." Possibly that is a fair attitude to adopt at the moment but it is not an attitude that can be tolerated if, in fact, Europe continues to be an imponderable. We cannot afford to be waiting in the wings; we must have some policy in this regard.

We entered into a free trade agreement with Britain just three years ago. That Agreement was debated in this House in January, 1966. That Agreement, in its preamble, was based on the fact that it was a contribution towards further progress towards European economic co-operation. It was in this sense that the Agreement was to be considered a stepping-stone and a preparation for Europe, that we in the Fine Gael Party debated it in this House. In view of a remark made earlier in this debate, I want to put on record what our position was in relation to that Agreement. In that debate, as reported in volume 219 column 1226, I, speaking on behalf of this Party, said:

From 1970 on, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce indicated, it will cause increasing harm and damage to Irish industry. If it continues after 1970, and if we are not in Europe, if we cause the transformation of Irish agriculture back to the situation in which a man and a dog looked after large areas of ranchland and, from 1970 on, we shall very quickly turn back into the situation in which we are the suppliers of cheap beef for the British market. Our people will have lost and will lose, without doubt, any opportunity for expansion of employment and, from 1970 on, we must face the certainty that employment will recede and emigration will increase.

Later, in column 1243, I said:

Therefore, I regard this Agreement as depending for its validity as an Agreement between Britain and Ireland on the fact that we are going to be in Europe in 1970. I believe that is the basis upon which it was negotiated, that that was the spirit of the negotiations. I believe neither side is in any doubt in that regard. If it happens that in fact by 1970 Europe is no longer a possibility for us, if it happens that by 1970 that the idea of the dream of a greater Europe will have receded and we are left with an agreement of this kind, which in those circumstances we would never have negotiated or signed, we, on this side of the House, in those circumstances, if we have responsibility, certainly will have no hesitation in telling the British that we are going to end it.

I do not say that that stage has arrived now, but I want to utter this word of warning: if we find in 1968, that Europe has receded and has no longer any immediate validity in relation to our planning, then, so far as Fine Gael are concerned, we will demand the revocation of this Free Trade Agreement. We could not afford to continue a trading arrangement with Britain divorced from Europe under which British goods, goods coming from a comparatively powerful economy, would have completely free access to our markets. We could not afford that for it would suck our economy dry and push our people like autumn leaves all over the world. The only basis for the Free Trade Agreement was associated with Europe and, if that ceases to be a possibility, then we must consider our position and the position of our country. I cannot see that the British would have any grouse about it because, in accordance with the Preamble, the Free Trade Agreement was negotiated in the belief that both countries would be in Europe and it was towards that end it was ratified.

I want to say something now about the cost of living. Prices are going up. They went up consistently last year. The year which is just concluding has been in no way exceptional. Prices have risen under Fianna Fáil at the rate of five per cent per annum. We are now facing a situation of some complexity. The Taoiseach said this morning that devaluation would, in effect, give us new opportunities on the export market. That is perfectly true. In relation to the countries that have not devalued, our cost of production by the mere expediency of devaluation are 14 per cent lower than they were and that gives us an opportunity of selling our goods because they are 14 per cent more attractive from a price point of view. But how long will that continue? The Taoiseach went on to say that he hoped the situation would not be changed by wage increases. It is very easy to hope. It is very easy to have pious aspirations, but they do not achieve anything.

Deputy O'Leary talked about a prices and incomes policy. The idea of a prices and incomes policy is contained, as is every worthwhile idea, in the Fine Gael policy, Towards a Just Society. We advocated such a policy in 1965 and it was subsequently taken up by the NIEC. In their report in June, 1965, they supported a prices and incomes policy. In the autumn of 1965, or the beginning of 1966, we debated a Motion here to have such a policy and that Motion was accepted by the Government. What have they done about it since? Nothing whatsoever. We have a bit of ineffective price control machinery and we now have a Taoiseach, like so many other members of Fianna Fáil, saying: "Oh, for God's sake, do not let us have another wage rise because it will ruin it all. It will destroy the 14 per cent differential and we will be back struggling on the export market." It is all very well to say these things, but what have the Government been doing for the last two years? They should have been working to achieve an orderly developed wage increase. They should have been working to achieve a development which would ensure that an increase in wages meant a real increase and that it was not, as it always has been up to this, immediately eaten away and frittered away in consequential increases in prices.

We have already had a five per cent increase in prices this year. What is there in store? The price of bread will go up. Because of the bountiful harvest this year some extra millions must be found and those extra millions will be found by increasing the price of bread. CIE fares are going up. Freight charges are going up. That will have an effect on distributive costs. Coal is going up. We buy 60 per cent of our coal from America and some 20 per cent from other countries. We buy only 10 per cent from Britain. As a result of devaluation some 90 per cent of our imports of coal will go up in price. No doubt it will be said that we will cease to buy Polish or American coal and go back to buying British. Even if we do that we will still pay more. That is why we have bought less British coal in recent years; it was dearer than American and Polish coal. Coal will go up. We know we will have to meet an increase in the price of petrol. It is no good the Government hoping that these problems will get smaller, or disappear, if we close our eyes and do not look at them. The Government are facing a serious situation from the point of view of a rising cost of living and rising prices, prices which may have an effect on further wage rounds. Quite clearly there has to be some determination to bring into operation as quickly as possible a prices and incomes policy which will bring some order into what may otherwise be economic chaos.

There is only one other matter to which I wish to refer. It is the matter of town planning appeals. It has been pointed out from these benches from time to time that there is considerable public uneasiness as to the basis on which town planning appeals are allowed in one case and refused in another. We have referred to that many times. Not only did we refer to it but we brought into this House a legislative proposal to provide for the holding of these appeals in public so that everything could be seen to be done correctly and properly. The Government used their majority to prevent our discussing that Private Members' Bill. They voted it out on the First Reading.

That is not so.

I want to know what the proposal is going to be.

That Bill did not come up for Second Reading yet.

Can the Minister say whether it will be accepted?

We will wait until it comes up.

Certainly there is a great need for some sensible provision in relation to these appeals because they affect so many people. It seems only right that they should be heard openly, in a way established by law, so that everything can be fully seen and clearly understood.

As I started by saying, we are now at the end of this year with the Second Programme gone and with the Third Programme not yet born. I do not know whether it has even been conceived, but it is promised for some time next year. The danger is that we are going to drift along without a policy and we cannot afford to do that in relation to the coming year.

Deputies on the opposite side in this debate have been talking about the desirability of a social programme. They have been alleging that they have put forward a social programme and that this Government have not. Of course, the public know that the idea of a social programme without having arrangements to ensure not only the health of the economy but also to ensure that there will be economic expansion is nonsense. For this reason the document Fine Gael speakers have been making such a song and dance about is looked upon by the public in general as no more than a joke. What we on this side of the House have done is that we have given continuous, practical evidence that our policy is to use the increasing prosperity which results from our guidance of the country's economic affairs for the benefit of the community as a whole.

The people know from past and present experience that it is only from a Government composed by the Fianna Fáil Party that social progress can be expected. This has been shown to be our policy on the occasion of every single Budget because every Budget introduced by Fianna Fáil has been demonstrably an exercise of collecting a reasonable percentage of the increased national income in order to distribute it for the benefit of the community as a whole and for the weaker sections of the community in particular. This is shown in all our social welfare schemes in the Department of social welfare itself where in every year since this Government came to office the social welfare benefits have been increased, in most cases the whole range of benefits.

We have at all times taken steps to ensure that the rates of payment under all these different schemes have more than kept pace with the increase in the cost of living. There has been a continuous relative gain by all sections catered for by the different social welfare schemes over the cost of living. This is to be seen in the improvements under the Department of Health and in regard to education, that the policy of the Government operates to utilise more and more the increasing prosperity for the overall national benefit. Probably more than in any other Departments it is seen in the activities of the Department of Local Government.

I propose to deal mainly with criticisms made in this debate regarding the allocations the Government make to the different activities carried on by my Department. The Opposition Parties have had a comparatively clear field lately in dealing with these matters and in particular, in dealing with housing. This was because of the through manner in which their speakers were deployed in the delaying action we saw here last week on the Estimate for the Department of Local Government. As a result of that, they have succeeded up to now in avoiding having many of their incorrect statements and allegations corrected. Many of these were repeated last week and just in case Opposition Deputies, from hearing and making these misstatements so often, might come to believe them themselves. I think I should just set them right about some of these matters. I will, of course, deal more comprehensively with the matter when the debate on the Estimate for my Department is resumed next year.

To present a true picture of the present position with regard to house in the city of Dublin would be as good a way as any to start. Various figures have been quoted as to the need for houses in Dublin city and indeed so many different figures have been quoted that as far as I can see the Opposition just take them out of their heads. The fact of the matter is that a statutory assessment of housing needs has been carried out by Dublin Corporation under Section 53 of the Housing Act, 1966. According to that, there is a total accumulated need for 8,518 dwellings. This includes all types of housing needs, such as unfit and overcrowded dwellings and families living involuntarily with other households. The total approved waiting list of Dublin Corporation at present is 4,752 families. I am not trying to suggest that the situation is satisfactory or nearly satisfactory, but I am saying that the exaggerated statements made here are completely unjustified.

Dublin Corporation, to meet this very big need for houses, had, including the Ballymun scheme of 3,021, 1,217 of which have been handed over, at 31st October of this year, 2.723 dwellings in progress. This included 1,804 dwellings in the Ballymun project. In this year, since 1st April, up to 31st October, a total of 1,338 dwellings had been completed. In addition to this, there are proposals to accept tenders for the erection of another 237 houses at Coolock-Kilmore and another 146 also at Coolock-Kilmore, and these have been approved.

In addition, tenders have been approved for 32 flats at Powerscourt and 128 flats at Charlemont Street. Tenders have been invited for another 84 flats at Queen Street and there are schemes at various stages for a further 2,927 dwellings including 1,210 houses and 288 flats in the Kilbarrack area. In addition the Corporation propose to acquire sites for 1,370 dwellings to accommodate persons on the approved waiting list. The position therefore is that there are at present in progress, against this accumulated need of 8,518 dwellings and against an approved waiting list of 4,752 families, at Ballymun 1,804 dwellings and other dwellings in progress amount to 919, making a total of 2,723. Tenders have been approved for another 627 making a total of 3,350 and as I said there are at the planning stage 2,927. That gives a total, between those in planning, those for which tenders have been approved or invited, and those in progress of 6,277 which is considerably more than the present approved waiting list of the corporation. Another 1,370 sites are in the process of acquisition, which is continuing, so that between all, the corporation may be said to have in hands at present plans for the provision of 7,647 dwellings against this accumulated need of 8,518.

The normal experience is that something over 500 vacancies occur each year in corporation dwellings so that if the position was to remain static the need at present existing is covered by present corporation plans. Of course, the position cannot be expected to remain static and there will be a continuing need to acquire more sites, and prepare more plans so as to be ready to proceed with further developments.

I think that shows the situation is by no means as bad as has been represented but it is not a satisfactory situation as yet. It shows that the Government have been alive to their responsibilities in this regard and have been doing everything possible to remedy the position. The maximum possible amount of our capital resources each year has been devoted to this purpose but there was a period when the house building programme, particularly in Dublin City, was much lower than it should have been. That requires some explanation, I fully agree, and I propose to give that explanation. To do so, it is necessary to go back and find out the reasons why the production of houses fell so low in the late '50's and early '60's. It certainly should not be necessary to remind the House how that situation developed but it cannot be denied that in 1956/57 the whole building industry came to a halt and building activities of practically all kinds stopped because of the disastrous economic situation that arose then. This was the situation we found when we came into office in 1957.

It has been alleged here that at this particular time the housing problem, in Dublin city particularly, was solved. Deputy Dillon stated that there were more houses available than people to go into them. I do not disagree that there was widespread emigration and that, for that reason, a greater number of vacancies developed in local authority houses generally than is normal. But the fact is that any public representative who had any contact with the public in Dublin was well aware that at no stage was the position reached in which Dublin city's housing needs were solved or nearly solved. During all the time when it was found impossible to fill vacancies or when vacancies in Corporation houses were slow to be filled there was a large number of people seeking accommodation who could not get it. Everybody knew that. The fact was that when a vacant house was offered to an individual on the waiting list, because of the high emigration, the first persons on the list would not be available and no reply would come to the offer. It might be only on the third, fourth, fifth or sixth attempt that an offer would be accepted with the result that an accumulation of vacant houses developed while at the same time hundreds and thousands of people were still seeking accommodation in Dublin City.

It has been alleged that there were more houses than people to go into them but I have here a housing review published by Dublin Corporation in November, 1956, not just a type-written document submitted to the city council or a sub-committee but a printed booklet published by the corporation under the signature of Mr. T.C. O'Mahony, Deputy City Manager and Housing Director. From Page 7 of that booklet I take the following quotation:

It will be noted that the provisional figures drawn up by the survey indicate a requirement of 14,114 houses....

Further down he points out that the provisional requirement figure of 14,114 houses referred to above "does not contain any provision for improvement in the over-crowding standards which are dealt with in Mr. Codd's report." The overcrowding standards were that families living in rooms, including families in a single room, were not to be regarded as in need of rehousing except in cases where living conditions existing were such that two or more persons, being persons 12 years old or more, of opposite sex and not being husband and wife, were sleeping in the same room and that further where air space in any room used as a sleeping apartment for any person was less than 400 feet.

The Housing Director went on to say:

I understand that 2,611 families of three persons or over found by the survey to be living in single rooms, and 1,225 of five persons and over in two rooms are excluded from any provision in the provisional requirements figure on the grounds that they are not overcrowded within the meaning of the Act or bye-laws.

Therefore, that is another 3,836 families to be added to the 14,114 which were the provisional requirements, not making any provision, as I said, for an improvement of the the overcrowding standards. That is a total of almost 18,000 people who were in need of housing accommodation and whose needs could not be met in Dublin city in November, 1956.

In that year the total number of houses completed by Dublin Corporation was 1,564, but the Opposition speakers would try to have us believe, that in spite of this need of 18,000 houses and only 1,500 provided—and most of them would have been occupied at any rate before November, 1956—the housing needs of Dublin city had been solved in 1956-57. I know there was this high rate of emigration at that period, that people were running out of corporation houses faster than vacancies could be filled, but there was never a time when there was not a huge number of people in Dublin seeking accommodation and unable to get it. That was the position then, when all housing activities in Dublin stopped in 1957. That was bad enough, because when an industry collapses, when the work force is scattered out of the country when a number of firms engaged in it have to go out of business, this is obviously going to be a difficulty in getting activity going in that industry again.

(Cavan): It took you four years to start it. In 1960 it closed down.

That happened on this occasion because it was not only that the industry had collapsed, that the workers were scattered, that the money was dissipated, but in addition to that, during the three years previous to that, all the essential preliminaries that must take place before a local authority housing scheme can get under way were neglected. The result was that not alone was work stopped on existing schemes, but it was not possible to start on any new schemes because no preparations had been made.

There is a long process that must be gone through before a housing scheme can start. Land must, first of all, be acquired, and that cannot be done overnight. It involves either negotiations on an agreed price or, if agreement cannot be reached, it involves the process of making a compulsory purchase order, and that again involves a public enquiry and arbitration with regard to price. All this takes up time, and when the land is got, it must be surveyed, the layout must be designed, the houses have to be designed, the contract documents have to be prepared, advertisements inviting tenders have to be inserted in the papers, and when the tenders are received they have to be examined, and finally the contract has to be placed and then it obviously takes some time before the contractor can get the work under way.

The most disastrous thing that operated from 1957-58 on was the fact that none of this work was done and that all of it had to start from scratch. In addition to that there was the misinterpretation of the position by the Dublin Corporation. There was the fact that local authorities generally had lost confidence, and it was difficult to rouse them to action again. There was also the situation in Dublin City of the high number of houses that were vacant and that were slow to fill because the people were gone, which led the Dublin Corporation, for some reason I cannot understand, to misinterpret the position, and it was found very difficult to get them to tackle the problem with any sense of urgency at all. It was not only, then, that the money was gone and that the industry was decimated but, in addition to that, there was no land available for the building of houses and no plans prepared.

(Cavan): Perhaps the Minister could explain why 1960 was the valley year in house building, three years after he came back to office.

Yes, I have already explained that, but this was a gradual process, and it took a considerable time to get this whole process under way again. Eventually, by dint of continuous pressure by the Fianna Fáil Government, it was got going again. In every year since we finally got things under way, the total number of houses built has been increasing. From 196162 the total number of houses has risen from 5,976 to an estimated, at least, 11,500 but probably nearer to 11,700 in the current year, and that despite the fact that last year we met a situation somewhat similar to that which the Coalition Government had failed to deal with in 1956-57. Because we took the necessary steps in time, we managed, in similar circumstances to avoid anything approaching a collapse of the building industry. Under the present Government there was only a slight reduction in output of less than 2½ per cent from 11,255 to 10,984, and this year, as I said, the upward trend has been resumed, and all the indications are that the target figure we have set ourselves, of 12,000 to 14,000 every year by 1970, which was announced by the Government in 1964, will be achieved.

It has been alleged that there has been widespread delaying of housing projects because of lack of money. I have admitted that there were some financial difficulties last year, that there was some hold up in the housing programme and that there was a slight decrease, but that was only a temporary thing because of the responsible manner in which it was handled. We have never reached anything like the position which was reached in 1956 when the then Minister for Local Government speaking in the Dáil on the 6th December, 1956, had this to say at column 2026, Volume 160, of the Dáil Debates:

I never said that "funds are available ad lib”, but I have said that, of the funds available, one particular local authority has been guaranteed a capital allocation that is sufficient to meet the needs as estimated....

He went on to say:

I never said that adequate capital was available to meet the unrestricted demands of all housing authorities for the immediate financing of housing contracts, S.D.A. loans and supplementary grants.

He repeated that later when he said at column 2027:

That does not mean that I can sanction immediately all pending housing projects or give an assurance that the money to finance them will be available as and when required.

That, of course, was the understatement of the year—that he could not sanction every housing contract. Anybody who was a member of Dublin Corporation at that period, as I was, knows quite well what the position was, knows quite well that in that period the members of the city council spent a most unhappy and apprehensive Christmas in the shadow of the process-server, when it was not possible to meet commitments in regard to existing building schemes and when in fact it appeared from day to day to be quite likely that Dublin Corporation would not even be able to pay their own direct labour staff. But we eventually succeeded in getting building going again. In every year since 1961-1962 the output of houses has increased until it is now almost double what it was in that year, and this despite the slight falling off there was last year.

The same thing is true with regard to the amount of money made available for housing from the State's total capital resources each year. That has gone from £9.03 million in 1960-61 to a record total of approximately £25 million in the present year. That £25 million must be considered in the context of the total State capital programme of £109 million. Therefore, almost a quarter of the total State capital expenditure is spent on this essential work of providing houses. That is a clear indication that this Government realise the importance of this problem. It certainly has been my experience every year in Government that the overall extent of the State's capital programme is decided after as close an estimate as it is possible to make of the total amount it will be possible for the community to provide. Out of that we have provided £25 million for this purpose, and in fact a total of more than a quarter of the capital available is provided for all the purposes of my Department— a sum of £29 million.

With regard to the allegations made that there was a surplus of houses at one stage, I think I should refer to an alleged quotation given by Deputy Dillon here last week, just to show the type of irresponsibility that prevails when the Opposition are dealing with this subject. Deputy Dillon said in column 1770, Volume 231 of the Official Report of 7th December, 1967:

In 1957 Fianna Fáil took office after three years of the inter-Party Government. The then Taoiseach, Deputy Lemass, addressed the House in July, I think, of that year on the Adjournment Debate.

Further on, Deputy Dillon said:

He said that Dublin Corporation told him they had too many houses in 1957. I am quoting Deputy Seán Lemass.

At that stage I asked Deputy Dillon for this quotation and he promised to send it to me. Later on I pointed out to him what he was saying could hardly be true anyway, since Deputy Lemass was not Taoiseach at that time, but he still insisted that this statement was made by Deputy Seán Lemass in 1957. But Deputy Dillon did promise to send me this alleged quotation and he did send me a letter purporting to give the quotation. Take note he had stated that this happened on the Adjournment Debate in July, 1957. He sent me this quotation, which is to be found in Volume 194, No. 11 of 11th April, 1962, almost five years after the date he said it was made. The alleged quotation he gave was:

There was a stage two or three years ago when Dublin Corporation had 1,500 empty dwellings available for people who needed them.

I do not know whether Deputy Dillon thought I was foolish enough to accept that, because he sent me this, it was in fact a quotation. In any case I did take the precaution of looking up this Volume and just seeing where this statement occurred. I find that it was made by Deputy Lemass when he was Taoiseach, not in 1957 however but in 1962, and that the quotation given by Deputy Dillon was wrong. The quotation is:

There was a stage two or three years ago when Dublin Corporation had 1,500 empty dwellings available for people who needed them...

But there is no full stop. It continues:

... but, with the very rapid return of population from England to Dublin and the substantial reduction in emigration, that picture has now changed completely.

It is on that type of misleading information that this bogus case of the Opposition Parties is being made. In fact, the evidence shows that throughout the whole period of this Government's office we have been continuously aware of our responsibilities to devote as much as possible of our national resources to the solution of this problem. We have been doing everything possible in that regard, so much so that we embarked on a completely new method of helping local authorities where the problem was particularly acute by the State through the National Building Agency taking a hand to carry out schemes beyond the scope of local authorities to carry out for themselves. As I say, we have this year got to the stage where almost a quarter of the total State capital expenditure is being spent for this essential purpose.

This talk of the Opposition about neglect in this regard will not have any effect. The people know exactly what happened in 1956-57. The people know that during the period of this Government we have had the longest period of sustained rate of building at a high level we have ever had in this country. The people have learned the lessons of the past.

It might be appropriate for me at this stage to refer to the little homily that Deputy Dillon delivered last week on the past and on the importance of learning from the past. He said that there is no use in going back into past history except in so far as it is a lesson for the future and he asked is that not right. Since he addressed his question to me, I answered him and agreed with him and said that it was right and I promised him that when I got the opportunity I would deal with the period that he was dealing with from the point of view of learning a lesson from the past.

I assure him that I did learn from the Coalition past and, as can be seen from the general elections of 1957, 1961 and 1965, from the by-elections in Waterford, South Kerry, West Limerick and Cork and as will be seen in the by-election in Clare if and when the Fine Gael Party muster up the courage to have that by-election, the public also have learned their lessons from the past and the lesson they have learned is that to allow the people opposite back to handle the country's affairs again would be at their peril.

I do not know whether in the winter of 1956-57 when this collapse of the building industry took place or in any of the immediately succeeding years, Deputy Dillon or any of the Opposition Deputies ever had occasion to travel on the Navan Road. If they had, they could not fail to see there the most perfect visual example of the fruits of Coalition government in so far as the building industry was concerned. In case Deputies do not remember this, I will describe it to them.

(Cavan): One of the builders went bankrupt.

It was on the Navan Road. They left a row of houses behind them. As Deputy Fitzpatrick refers to it, I would say that he probably does remember this because I assume that he would have occasion to travel on that road. This monument to the Coalition's mishandling of the economic situation of this country was to be seen just as you leave the Dublin city area on the way to Navan, on the righthand side. It covered about two hundred yards of the road. It was an example, I suppose, of what you would call incipient ribbon development. It started off with a pair of semi-detached houses, completed and occupied. On the adjoining site there was another pair of semi-detached houses with the roofs on, with doors and windows but not completed, not completely plastered or glazed. The next pair of houses had the roof on but had gaping holes for windows and doors. In the next set was a pair of houses with the roof timbers only and these roof timbers, as Deputy Fitzpatrick may remember, and as even Deputy Dillon possibly may remember, gradually turned green with age as the months lengthened into years and the roof tilers never came. The next pair were just up to wall plate level. The next pair were somewhat lower; the first-floor joists were in. Another pair on the next site were just up to sill level, and so on.

It was a perfect example of ribbon development but, also, a perfect example of a small builder with a well-organised approach to his work. You could see there along the road continuous work for the various building operatives—excavators, concretors, block-layers, carpenters, joiners, plumbers, electricians, plasterers, rooftilers, painters, glaziers—the whole lot perfectly organised. Everything was going smoothly until suddenly, without warning, the Coalition chickens came home to roost and Friday arrived but the pay packets did not. From what I have heard, the builder succeeded in scraping up his fare to Canada.

That is Coalition performance that has been lauded here. Deputy Dillon described it fairly eloquently when he said that there was a lesson to be drawn from this. He said:

First let me say that, to the eternal credit of the inter-Party Government, in which the late Deputy Norton was Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Corish was Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy P. O'Donnell, Minister for Local Government and Deputy Sweetman, Minister for Finance, we had so manipulated the resources of the State that, despite the great economic difficulties at that time, we had more houses in the city of Dublin than we had tenants to put into them.

This, as I have said, was a perfect commentary on the handling of the country's affairs by this team which Deputy Dillon has listed for us and from which, of course, he has modestly omitted his own name, but the implication is that the whole magnificent performance was presided over by himself. This was an example of where a builder had been driven to Canada and his little work force scattered all over England——

(Cavan): He managed his business so badly that he went bankrupt and the official receiver went in.

——because of the fact that finance dried up completely because the Coalition Government allowed the economic situation so to deteriorate that good sound businesses, well-organised businesses, collapsed and the people who were conducting these businesses went bankrupt and the work force was scattered.

This was the decimation of the industry that I referred to. This monument was left there for all to see the performance of this team presided over, presumably, by Deputy Dillon himself since according to the list that he gave here, he did not give any credit for this magnificent achievement to the Taoiseach.

We have had talk here about our glorious Georgian heritage and national monuments. This Coalition monument that I have referred to lasted for some time. It provided the theme of many a speech from myself and my colleague Deputy Burke in areas contiguous to it —Blanchardstown, Clonsilla, Mulhuddart, Castleknock. Eventually, the legal complexities that follow bankruptcy were unravelled and a new builder moved in in the more salubrious climate of a Fianna Fáil Government. The houses were completed and they are now occupied. This may be regarded as a happy ending and, I suppose, it is because waste and desolation and the results of criminal folly are never a nice thing to see. I must admit that I often think that it might have been more in the national interest if those skeletons of houses had remained to bear more or less permanent witness to the efforts of the team that Deputy Dillon listed for us so that people could continue to learn the lesson from the past which Deputy Dillon says it is so important should be learned.

However, despite the fact that this evidence of the results of the Coalition performance in government is no longer visible to the people, I can assure Deputy Fitzpatrick and the other Deputies opposite that the lesson from their past has been well learned and that the workers of this country will not allow the same thing to happen again.

I suppose that Deputies opposite and, in particular, the Labour Party who claim to have the interests of the workers at heart, will ask what harm was this and say that this was one speculator less. But this was only one of the many iniquitous speculators who were driven to Canada or Australia and each case resulted in many workers being driven to England. The Labour Party have given no indication that they do not intend to go about their current plan for the liquidation of speculators in the same way as they did before, that is in such a way that the liquidation of one evil speculator would result also in the liquidation of many workers. I can assure them that the workers remember well what their fate was before at the hands of the two Parties opposite when men, who had never found themselves idle for a single day, had to emigrate if they wanted to keep in employment, when tradesmen who, by their own industry, had built up good businesses, found them falling about their ears because of the fact that money which they had a right to expect would be available was not available.

The workers have learned the lessons of the past and even if, through blackmail, intimidations and chicanery, the money of the workers has been sequestered, their votes are still their own and they will ensure that the disaster of 1956 and 1957 will not be repeated. I will deal more exhaustively with the matter of housing when replying to the debate on my own Estimate later but I think that since the last speaker, Deputy O'Higgins, saw fit to repeat some of the charges made in regard to town planning appeals I might possibly say a few words in that respect.

The number of town planning appeals is fairly high. During the period from 1st April, 1966, to 31st March, 1967, there was a total number of 1,229 appeals submitted, of which 1,125 were valid. During that period, 237 of these were allowed, 339 were allowed subject to conditions, 420 were refused and 302 were withdrawn so that a total of 1,298 were dealt with in that period. When I say "allowed", what I mean is that the actual proposal was allowed. Some of the cases are those in which third party appeals were rejected and the decision of the planning authority upheld. Some of the cases which I have described as refused are cases where permission was refused and some might be cases of third party appeals against permission which were granted by the authority which means that the permission actually sought was refused.

A volume of appeals of that nature is naturally going to give scope to people who wish to make the type of allegation that Deputy O'Higgins has been making. I would like to point out that it must be fairly obvious that the whole field of planning control is one in which there is bound to be widely opposing differences of opinion. The exercise of planning control involves a conflict between two very important principles—between the right of private property and the interests of the common good. It is quite clear from the Constitution that the right of private property can be subordinated to the interest of the common good. The Planning Act provides for this to be done where it is necessary to do it. That does not mean, as some people appear to think, that the right to use one's own property to the best advantage has been withdrawn. There remains an obligation on the Planning Authority to try to reconcile these two important principles, if possible, and it is only when it has been clearly established that a proposed development cannot be reconciled with the common good that it should be completely prohibited.

It has been stated that there is not sufficient consultation at local level in regard to planning applications, that in many instances there is no effort to co-operate with people wishing to carry out some development of their property but that the attitude of the local authority is to reject any proposals which are not completely acceptable in the form in which they are originally submitted. It is my experience that this criticism is justified to a certain extent in respect of some planning authorities. I have tried to impress on all these planning authorities the importance of trying to arrive at an agreed solution at local level if possible. There will always be cases where proposals will be submitted which are so obviously contrary to all planning principles as to call for immediate rejection but there will also be many cases where if discussions were held with the applicant or his professional advisers, the proposals could be so revised as to conform with planning requirements. I am quite satisfied that many of the cases which arrive on my desk could have been solved at local level.

The influx of appeals to me is running at the rate of about 1,600 per year. I believe this is far too many but, in saying that, I do not wish to imply that a large proportion of them arises because of lack of co-operation at local level. However, some of them do and I would like to see a greater effort made at local level to solve these difficulties instead of referring them to me. A greater number of appeals arise from a lack of appreciation by people of the right of the community to prescribe that development must conform to an orderly pattern which will ensure that the general environment will not be despoiled and that the country as a whole—both urban and rural—will be as pleasant to live in as possible. The development plans now being made are a declaration by the community of the pattern of future development which would be in the best interests of the community as a whole. That is why these draft development plans have been exhibited publicly and why provision has been made for the consideration of observations, suggestions and objections by the general public.

That is why the adoption of these plans is a matter for the elected public representatives. In view of the fact that these plans are a declaration by the community of its intentions, people wishing to carry out a certain type of development should make sure that their proposals can be reconciled with the development plans. I accept also the possibility that some of these appeals, as was insinuated by Deputy O'Higgins, may arise in the hope or belief that permission for development which conflicts with proper planning can be obtained through political influence, but if this belief exists it has not been fostered by me. It has been fostered by the irresponsible allegations made by the Opposition and by a certain type of newspaper and television commentator who seek to create the belief that no successful business operation is possible unless there is corruption somewhere.

I am not, and never have been, engaged in any form of business development myself and I suppose I am just as envious of successful people as anybody else, but it does no good to brand all and sundry as corrupt, as has been done here. So far as I am concerned, to a certain extent I regard the entrepreneur as a necessary evil, not as an individual but as a feature of our economy. I should prefer, as no doubt would some other Deputies, if it were possible to provide employment and increase the national income, thereby making it possible to improve the overall standard of living, without a comparatively small number of people accumulating what most of us would regard as excessive wealth. But I have to accept that the incentive of the profit motive is essential and that business acumen is a factor of primary importance from the point of view of economic expansion. If we are to make economic progress some people will make money. It is, I think, well established that the qualities and the skills which produce this result are of as significant importance as are the other qualities and skills necessary for progress. It is unfair, therefore, to impute success to corruption, as some envious people do.

Practically every application for planning permission involves an element of profit for the proposer, but the alternative to making it necessary to obtain the permission from someone is to abandon any effort to secure orderly and well designed development. It is unfair to allege improper motives in the making of decisions which have to be made by someone. I should like to dispel the belief to the extent that it exists that planning permission may be obtained by political influence and I suggest to the Opposition and others who profess to have the public interest at heart that they would be doing a greater service to public morale if they helped me to dispel this belief instead of deliberately propagating it.

My experience is that planning appeals are the same as everything else about which people make representations, such as housing grants, reconstruction grants, water and sewerage grants and social welfare benefits; if representations are made by one public representative they are made by all. Appeals are decided by me after a thorough investigation, during which every interested party, whether it be the proposer, the planning authority or a third party with some interest, gets an opportunity of stating his case. They are not decided on political grounds, as has been alleged, and many members of the Fianna Fáil Party know that and so do many ex-members. Only last week I received a letter of resignation from a former Fianna Fáil constituency director of elections whose representations in a planning appeal case had been unsuccessful. If he had the idea that it was political influence decided these things, then he did not get it from me.

(Cavan): How did his constituency do in the last election?

It returned a majority and the constituency will do it again. It it well known it is not through political influence these things are decided. There are, as I said, two important principles involved in planning disputes and not one, as many seem to think. It is surprising how many people make the mistake of thinking that, because they are interested in only one aspect, there is only one aspect. Unfortunately, the law places responsibility for deciding appeals on the Minister for Local Government and, much as it may annoy some of those who pontificate on a matter in relation to which they have no real knowledge because they have not examined every aspect, I feel obliged to consider all aspects and not just one. If there were not a difference of opinion there would be no appeals. The difference of opinion may be between an applicant on one side and the planning authority on the other or between an applicant and the planning authority on one side and a third party on the other side. All parties believe they are right and a decision can be favourable only to one side and it will, therefore, please only one side. I believe an appeals procedure is necessary. There is always the danger that a situation could arise in which decisions would be made on purely technical grounds without adequate consideration of fundamental rights. I, as Minister, have the most highly competent technical advice available to me. But I recognise there is a need to try to reconcile two important principles, if possible, and, if it is not possible, then the task is to decide which side should prevail in the particular circumstances. I often think life must be a matter of great simplicity for people like these self-appointed pundits who pontificate on matters like this without having heard the arguments for and against and who do not see any need to consider both sides of a question, seeing everything as either black or white, white being those who agree with them and black being those who dare to take a different view and who are, therefore, branded as ignorant and corrupt.

I have the temerity to suggest to these people, who, because they have access to the columns of some journal or newspaper, or to the television screen, appoint themselves Sir Oracles, that they have not in fact established their infallibility in these matters. There is no proof available that without a full investigation of the other side of the case, they have any authority to say "I say that this is so and, therefore, it is so." I have the temerity to put forward what they no doubt will treat as a heretical view that, in order to make a just decision, all aspects should be thoroughly examined. I do not claim to be infallible either but I do suggest mistake is less likely to be made when all aspects have been examined with the help of competent technical advice and not just the aspect in which the person himself is concerned and has, therefore, considered.

Preservation of amenities is one of the principal objectives of planning control but this does not mean, as some appear to think, that there is any validity in the facile assumption that some make that the real or imagined amenity they enjoy from the existing undeveloped state of their neighbour's property is the only consideration in connection with a planning application affecting that property. It is a consideration, and it is of considerable importance, but it is not the only one and the making of a decision involves the assessment of all the arguments for and against.

I do not like to have this onerous work of deciding planning appeals but I am not convinced that the solution that Deputy O'Higgins put forward is a satisfactory alternative. That does not mean that I am satisfied to continue indefinitely deciding these appeals myself. It is desirable, I think, to arrive at some other way of dealing with the matter. But, since Deputy O'Higgins saw fit to repeat the insinuations, I should point out what the position is and I suggest to Deputies, who claim to be interested in public morale, that they would be doing a much better day's work if, instead of trying to create the impression that these decisions are made on political grounds, they tried to dispel the belief that exists among certain people. I can assure them that it is purely on a question of rights that these decisions are made.

I know that it is a common stock-in-trade of people who cannot compete with their opponents on the basis of ability or merit to resort to this particular type of allegation. I do not think it will be successful. That has been the resort of the two Opposition Parties before and it has failed and I have no doubt it will fail again. It is a poor commentary on them that this is the best they can do. Of course, with the evidence of their own past, of their own incompetence to handle the country's affairs, which is available to the people it is not surprising that they should be driven to these disreputable tactics. I do not want to deal more specifically with any of the points raised either today or during the deliberately prolonged debate on my Estimate. As I said, I will deal more comprehensively with the various mis-statements made then when we resume next year.

Having listened to the Minister talking about the excellence of his Department, particularly in regard to its housing programme, one is concerned with the fact that he applied himself only to the Dublin area, when in fact as a responsible Minister he should have applied himself to the needs of the whole country. We can easily understand why he did not do so. As far as my area is concerned, while the Minister is in office, we will be waiting a long time for any solution to the crying housing needs of the people in the city and county. He mentioned the fact that economic planning was par excellence à la Fianna Fáil but I should like to remind him of the camouflage that is used every now and again not only by himself but by the Taoiseach and every member of the Cabinet. I often wonder whether we are such a simple people that we can be misled and misguided by the promises, particularly around election times, of Ministers and their followers as they campaign in the different constituencies. It makes a person wonder how we survive and how do we tackle such a campaign of falsification and deception at these particular times. It is beyond me at present to find a means to counteract this well-planned campaign.

The Minister has again set about the deception of trying to tell the people about the concern he and the Government have in regard to the amount of money which they are allocating for housing. He mentioned social benefits but conveniently forgot to tell us figures can be most deceptive when they are paraded before us. It is very easy to throw out lots of figures and tell people that this is the picture when in actual fact it is a deception. We all know that the value of money is depreciating every day and the only way by which we can judge the progress of the Government is to get to the root of the problem. We must examine the conditions in which people are expected to live at present. Instead of quoting figures, it would be better if the Taoiseach, the Minister and his colleagues would think in terms of human beings and thereby give a true picture of the national position.

Every day we see the labour exchanges packed out. In Limerick they are queueing up on the road outside the exchange, waiting to go in to draw unemployment benefit or assistance. If the Minister is not satisfied with seeing that, he can visit the home assistance officers in Limerick and there will be brought home forcibly to him and to the Government the conditions in which people are living. If he considers that this is progress, then he spells it a different way from the way I do. The Minister carefully avoided anything like this and I suppose it is hard to blame him. If he considers the amount given to unfortunate old age pensioners or the amount for the free fuel scheme, is sufficient to keep body and soul together, then he is living in another land. If he cannot find this in Dublin, and I am sure he can—I am sure he would not have to go beyond the post office in Ballyfermot—I will take him to the city or county of Limerick and there he will see the conditions in which unfortunate people are asked to live. He may call that progress but it is only progress to the labour exchanges, progress to the home assistance officer and for any able-bodied person, it is progress to the boat to England or Canada.

I want to refer the Taoiseach and the Minister to the alleged—he used this word himself many times in the last hour and a half, much as he tried to deceive us—Second Economic Programme which was heralded with acclamation by Fianna Fáil and is now in the requiem and "De Profundis" stage. The Minister and the Taoiseach have now come along with their third programme of economic expansion. If this succeeds anything like the Second, we shall have a fourth and fifth and God knows into what telephone numbers these programmes will run. I could go further into the statements and promises and fictitious figures presented to us in the Second Programme but I want to treat it as it deserves. It was a waste of time and labour and an expensive operation to put these promises and dreams before the people. Aesop in his heyday could not compare with what was produced in the Second Programme. If these are the things to which the Fianna Fáil Government now profess to attribute the present state of the country, I, and all right thinking people, must say they have been a spectacular failure.

That was forcibly brought home to us not long ago. We must congratulate those ardent, intelligent people, the students of Cork University, who organised a teach-in there, attended by men who had no political affiliations, men who sat back and thought, men who could be fearless because they were not the paid hirelings of Fianna Fáil and we have many of these in every department and in practically every walk of life. They are independent and, as he is a Corkman, I suggest to the Taoiseach that, if he has not already done so, he should go away for the holidays and study what was said during that week. He could spend no better or more advantageous holiday for his own benefit and that of the people. At that teach-in, it was suggested that radical changes were needed and that the conservatism which the present Taoiseach is carrying on and which was initiated by his two predecessors leads to only one end, a tragic one. We must face that and say it if we are honest: there is only one end to the conservative approach which the caretaker Taoiseach is now pursuing.

Not alone does everybody know that he is a caretaker Taoiseach but they also know that he was the choice of the Party for one reason only, to avoid a split. The lads were jockeying on all sides; whips were up and, in the final furlong, it looked as if not only would there be a photo finish but that there would be objections raised, and in order to avoid the objections and the splits, they cast their eye on somebody who would protect the position and hold them together, and they found a good caretaker to do so. We can describe this in any other terms we wish but, brutally and nakedly, that is the position. That would be very well if, having accepted the office, he then accepted the responsibilities. I declare he has not done so.

We can see what is happening since and perhaps a short time before he took office. It was no mean comment, no accidental statement, which came from the Minister for Industry and Commerce when he spoke about transactions of people in high places. There was good room for his statement and, had the Taoiseach been honest and if he had the interests of the unfortunate people who were fooled at heart, he would have demanded an instant inquiry. But no; nothing has yet been done. Sooner or later it will be. And before it is too late, I would advise the Taoiseach at this late stage to see how matters can be rectified and how the speculators can be brought to justice. I do not mind the proper form of speculation, which is a good thing— every man in business must speculate or fail—but there is another form of speculation, and that is the form to which I refer, the form in which people who know well in advance the minds, thoughts and ideas of certain others and then jump in. Not so far away we had an example of that not so long ago when a man in a high place was removed from office because of his speculation.

I want to let the Taoiseach recall the statement made by his predecessor in Letterkenny during the general election when he said there would be a general review of the whole rating system, that a committee was sitting on it and that we could expect a recommendation from this committee in a very short while. That was three years ago. We have heard nothing about it since, and now we find that all rating authorities, including my own, are faced with an impossible burden which they have to pass on to unfortunate people, most of whom are unable to carry the burden. If the Taoiseach were serious then, and we know now he was not, and if his predecessor were serious, we would have had in this critical year in regard to the rates a new scheme for the payment of rates. As it is, people have to pay their rates whether or not they have the capacity to do so, unless they go along and subject themselves to a severe inspection to get their demands marked nulla bona. The Taoiseach and the Government should apply themselves to this problem in order to provide some relief to these unfortunate people. I do not know what they intend to do about it. I am referring only to the statement which was made by the former Taoiseach during the last general election campaign here in the Dáil.

Since 1957, we have had three Taoisigh governing the country. None of them, the latter two particularly, from whom we expected more, had the courage to take the radical approach needed. They have plodded along the old conservative road by deceiving people from time to time with their programmes of expansion and in their attempts to prove something that cannot be proved. It is time that the Taoiseach would make an honest reckoning of the position, review the statements of some of his Ministers and the contradiction by other Ministers of the statements made by one or other of his colleagues. I am sure everybody knows what I refer to without going into the details of where and when it was said and what was said.

These are the things and the acts that have the people in a quandary today. They do not know whom to believe and they do not know where they are going. The Government, as the winds are blowing, are tacking their sails accordingly, and presenting these deceptive pictures in the hope that some fine day the miracle will happen, that something will come to their rescue, and everything will be all right again.

The winds blew well in Limerick.

The winds of deception blew to storm strength and, indeed, the Minister was in the middle of it. If we are to decide whether progress has been made or not, there is only one way to do it, that is, to examine exactly how the people live and on what.

The people of Limerick said there was progress in the country.

The Deputy made a statement last week that there was no lay off by any county council because of a shortage of money for roadmaking. I ask him to go back and find out about the 35 men who were employed on the Dublin road scheme outside Limerick a fortnight ago, 33 of whom were let go last week because there was no money to continue the road. Do not come up with these stupid statements to me ever again.

Are the people of County Limerick stupid?

I am referring to the stupid statements this man made last week.

Are the people of County Limerick stupid?

They were stupid enough to fall for your deception.

That is all right: that is on the record.

Put it on the record and emblazon it in colours of green and gold.

That is all we want to hear.

As I have said, these are the tests of any Government, that men can live in their own land, rear their families, and be properly housed. The unfortunate people who have not the health or are too old to help themselves should be properly catered for. On that issue, I challenge the Government and the Taoiseach to prove to me that they have succeeded. I know he will not try because he knows the case is hopeless. We must say this, however, that in his first 12 months of office, still plodding along the old conservative path, the Taoiseach has to his credit the formation of the famous Taca brigade.

Four by-elections: that is not a bad line.

There is no doubt that when historians come to write the trials of 1967, they will go down chapter after chapter in the manuscript——

It is one of our greatest years.

It all depends how you measure greatness. If the Deputy wants to know how I measure it——

It is the ordinary people who count.

They count definitely. But did they count in the city of Cork?

Thank you for your support there. We have the ordinary people, Labour and Fianna Fáil.

The sooner you come over here the better. We will consider your application. I am not saying sympathetically, but we will consider it.

Thank you for your support in Cork.

Indeed, you got your answer in Cork. The Cork people were not fooled as the West Limerick people were fooled. It must be recorded that the Taoiseach's achievement in his first year of office was that he launched the Taca brigade.

Transport or Taca?

Taca: transport are the workers. They are coming in in droves. All is yellow to the jaundiced eye.

How do they vote?

These gentlemen set themselves up because they could not earn enough independently in their own profession. Indeed, to take them under the wing of the Party you had to create the NBA and dole out the jobs to the engineers and the quantity surveyors. They came from my own town. I know the jobs they are getting.

Be careful now or you will make a slip.

I hope I will be challenged, but this is the only achievement to which the Taoiseach can lay claim in 1967.

They vote for us. That is all that is wrong with them.

You are paying them well.

Not them, but the ordinary working people.

(Cavan): You lost a substantial number of votes in three out of the four by-elections.

I thought we won the four of them. And we will win the fifth if you move the writ.

(Cavan): You lost 3,000 votes in Cork in exceptional circumstances.

May I continue, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle? Deputy Geoghegan wants to take over this little meeting. We will listen to him if he wants to make a speech. I want to deal now with how regional planning has been handled by the Department of Local Government. As far as my area is concerned, we have been neglected, despite the assurance of one Minister that something will be done and the contradiction of another on the same topic. We are now in a vacuum. We do not know whether we are going backwards or forward, up or down. We know that both Limerick city and county have been hopelessly neglected. All Parties on the county council and city council have expressed what I am now saying. For that reason we sent a unanimous request that Limerick be included. We were told that a special meeting of the Cabinet had been called six weeks previously and two particular Ministers asked to make a case why Limerick should not be included. Because of that statement, we relaxed for the moment until the contradiction came a couple of weeks later that people were speaking hopefully. It is time the Taoiseach would come out boldly and let us know exactly what the position is. Let us make up our minds whether or not we are doomed to failure, despite the fact that statements were made on this important matter for Limerick and the press accused of misrepresentation, to which statement they took grave exception.

The past 12 months have only been a repetition of what we had in the past ten years under the two previous Taoisigh—conservatism and cautiousness, resulting in a lower standard of living for some and a greater bank account for others.

(Cavan): I was pleased to see the Minister for Local Government intervene in this debate. I think it right that he should do so. Indeed, I hoped he would have had some words of encouragement for the thousands of people whom the Taoiseach admits are living in overcrowded conditions and unfit houses. I had also hoped that the Minister for Local Government would have availed of this opportunity to outline his proposals to the House and the country to deal with the increase in the cost of housebuilding which will follow on devaluation. I was hoping that he would have some proposal to deal with the increased cost of interest to people seeking money to buy houses. In a word, I thought that he would have given some worthwhile contribution to the House and some concrete proposals to the country to deal with the housing situation, which both he and the Taoiseach admit is bad. I thought he might also have had something of a progressive nature to say regarding the unjust system of local taxation which prevails here and the crippling demands for increased rates which are coming on.

But I must say I was disappointed because, apart from a confession on the part of the Minister for Local Government that everything was far from right as far as housing is concerned, he had no proposals to put forward and he simply indulged in a political harangue going back for ten years in an effort to create a smoke-screen to cover up his own failure. I propose to deal with some of the things he dealt with but, before he took up the question of housing, the question of his own Department, the Minister for Local Government who had been Minister for Social Welfare for several years, claimed that his Party were the only Party who had looked after the social welfare classes, and he said that in every Budget something was done for the social welfare classes, the underprivileged and those in that category.

The social welfare payments at present are grossly inadequate. I believe there should be a new approach to making provision for the underprivileged and for people who, through no fault of their own, cannot look after themselves. Gimmicks of one sort or another are not sufficient. The Minister for Local Government was Minister for Social Welfare last year when the announcement was made in the public Press, in this House and over all forms of communication, to the effect that pensions or unemployment assistance were to be made available to small farmers with a valuation of £20 or under. I say that was a cheap gimmick practised on the small farming community of this country. It meant nothing and was intended only to build up people's hopes, lead them to expect that they were going to get something, and then let them down.

I want to quote some figures from a communication issued by the Department of Social Welfare in November, 1966, headed U.A. 19 (S.F.). It appears from this document that a married man with a poor law valuation of £8 qualified for a pension or allowance— call it what you will—of 2/6 a week. I say that was a sham and a shabby gimmick. A married man with five children under the age of 16 with a poor law valuation of £12 qualified for an allowance of 6/6 a week. A single man with a poor law valuation of £4 got 2/- a week. Admittedly a married man with a poor law valuation of £1 got 56/6 a week, but you cannot call him a farmer. With a valuation of £1, he does not come within the category of being a farmer. I need not go further than that with this official document. The figures are there and cannot be contradicted.

Take a married man with a valuation of £4 and a family of seven.

(Cavan): Deputy Cunningham can have the whole thing. Let us take a married man with eight children and a valuation of £14.

Take a valuation of £4.

(Cavan): He will get 6/6 a week—a married man with eight children and a poor law valuation of £14.

Take a man with a valuation of £4. It is there, is it?

(Cavan): Does Deputy Cunningham suggest that a man with a poor law valuation of £1 is a farmer?

I suggest that the Deputy is taking the worst cases. Take a man with a £4 valuation and eight in family.

(Cavan): He will get £4 3. 6. a week for himself, his wife and eight children under the age of 16 years. Deputy Cunningham is proud of that. Deputy Cunningham thinks that is something of which his progressive Government should be proud, that it is something which in 1967 should be regarded as adequate provision for the social welfare classes.

What is the figure?

(Cavan): A married man with eight children under the age of 16 years and a valuation of £4 gets 83/6. That is what he qualifies for under Deputy Boland's pensions for small farmers. The document is here and I will make it available to either Deputy Cunningham or Deputy O'Connor if he wants to have it afterwards, to analyse it and make the most favourable case he can.

(Cavan): Take a man with eight children all under the age of 16, and there is a whole litany. If his valuation is £1, he will get £5 6s 6d; £2, 98/6; £3, 90/6; £4, 83/6; £5, 75/6; £6, 67/6. That is for himself, his wife and children.

All the year round for the first time.

(Cavan): I do not think Deputy Cunningham can claim that is a worthwhile breakthrough in the field of social reform, or in the field of making adequate provision for the underprivileged.

What did the Coalition give them?

(Cavan): We increased the old age pension by 7/6 a week.

We are not fools. You took 1/- off the old age pensioner.

(Cavan): That shows the bankruptcy of Deputy Geoghegan's argument. I am delighted. There are only three Fianna Fáil Deputies sitting behind the Taoiseach and this document has made them blush. They are enraged and they are ashamed. I am not surprised.

I am not ashamed to sit behind our Taoiseach inside or outside the House.

(Cavan): Three Fianna Fáil Deputies behind the Taoiseach and they are ashamed, and I do not blame them.

We won four by-elections in 12 months.

(Cavan): You lost votes in three of them. You lost 3,000 votes in Cork city.

Move the writ and we will win another.

How many did Fine Gael lose?

(Cavan): We increased our votes in each constituency, with the exception of one.

Which one?

(Cavan): The one the Taoiseach represents and the one in which his own fellowcitizens in Cork reduced their vote by 3,000. I would not be proud of that. Maybe the Taoiseach is.

We won pulling up, by 6,000 votes.

(Cavan): I said before that if the by-election had been in Cavan, and if Deputy P. Smith were Taoiseach instead of Deputy J. Lynch, and if I held my vote and Fianna Fáil lost 3,000 votes, I would come to the conclusion that the electors of Cavan did not think much of Fianna Fáil or of the new Taoiseach. I am sorry for going on that line but it was drawn out of me.

I should like to get back to housing. The Minister for Local Government dealt at some considerable length with housing and, fair play to him, I do not think he tried to make the case that the housing situation is satisfacfactory. I do not think he could, because the Taoiseach, speaking at the Fianna Fáil Árd-Fheis, said that he did not suggest that enough had been done for housing, or enough was being done, as long as thousands of people were living in unfit houses, and thousands in overcrowded conditions. That is the position. I am prepared to accept as a yardstick of the success or failure of ten years of Fianna Fáil administration in Dublin city the fact that an applicant for a house is not regarded as being in overcrowded conditions in this city unless he is one of a family of four who are sleeping, eating, cooking and spending their life in one room. That is an indictment of the efforts of the Fianna Fáil Party to solve the housing position in the last ten years.

The Minister for Local Government during his contribution to this debate this afternoon, did not attempt to justify that. He got away from it. I want to repeat that, in a civilised society, in 1967, Deputies opposite should blush at the fact that a man and his wife and two children must be sleeping, eating and living in one room before they can get consideration for a flat in Ballymun from Dublin Corporation. That should make them blush just as the document I have read should make them blush.

The Minister for Local Government, as I say, did not attempt to justify that state of affairs but he did throw a lot of mud regarding the position in 1956 and 1957. I want to say here and now that the present Government and its Ministers for Local Government have fallen down completely and utterly in their obligation to house the people of this country since 1957. I make that charge without qualification. I am quoting from Housing Progress and Prospects issued and laid on the Table of this House by the Minister for Local Government in 1964, which proves that in 1957 there were 1,564 houses completed in the city of Dublin by the local authority. Fianna Fáil came back into power in that year and in the next year the number fell to 1,021 and in 1959, fell to 460. In 1960, the number was 505 and in 1961, when Fianna Fáil were back for four years, the number of houses built in this city, according to their own publication, was 277. In 1964, the number of houses completed in this city was down to 786, after seven years of Fianna Fáil.

The Minister for Local Government here this afternoon tried to blame that on the inter-Party Government. He said that in 1956 and 1957 things had drawn to a standstill although we built 1.564 houses. He went on to say that once things had got into that sort of rut it took a number of years to get the organisation going again. But, when he was back for three years, the number of houses had fallen from 1,564 to 505; when he was back for four years the number had fallen to 277 and when he was back in office for seven years, in 1964, the number of houses built in the city of Dublin had fallen from 1,564 to 786.

Now let us pose this question: maybe there was no necessity for houses in the city of Dublin in 1964. Of course there was a necessity because as Deputy Geoghegan will remember, that was the year that houses fell in Dublin city. That was the year in which people were evacuated out of houses in Dublin city and accommodated in Griffith Barracks and other barracks in the city. The necessity existed but the houses were not provided.

Was this falling off in the job of building houses accidental or was it deliberate? I want to put on the record of this House that I believe it was deliberate because when Fianna Fáil came back into office in 1957, the first thing they did was to produce the Second Programme for Economic Expansion, in 1958, and they wrote into that in black and white that the housing conditions here compared favourably with any other comparable country in Europe and that we could cease spending money on housing and could put the money into more productive uses. They took that solemn decision. They recorded that there were enough houses and that they would spend the money on other productive uses.

Let us consider for a moment what were these productive uses. The Government spent about £¾ million within this House in that period in building more accommodation for the Members of this House and, indeed, more office accommodation was required but I do not think that it was required as badly by the Members of this House as housing is for people in Dublin city who are living four in one room. About £¾ million was spent on this building. The Government, during this time when houses were so badly needed, proceeded to allow money to be spent in building luxury buildings in this city. This city is now encircled by luxury office suites. Again, it is right that office workers should have proper accommodation but we should get our priorities right. It is more important that people who are living four in a room, eating and sleeping in it, should be provided with proper housing accommodation than that civil servants or, indeed, Deputies should have proper office accommodation. I accuse the Government of having encouraged this luxury building in the city of Dublin at a time when housing was badly needed and when we were not building any houses.

The Minister said that we could not get the machinery going to build houses, that the inter-Party Government had let the machine get out of gear. There was no difficulty in getting contractors to complete five storeys here at Leinster House or to get all the other office blocks built throughout the city that are inhabited by Departments of State. There was no trouble in getting that done. The fact of the matter is that the Government have failed miserably on the housing question.

I have had this out with the Minister for Local Government before. He intervened deliberately in this debate today to deal with housing and I may be excused if I take him up. The private sector has not been properly treated by the Fianna Fáil Government in the matter of incentives to build houses. I pointed out here before, and I will go on pointing it out until something is done about it, that the standard grant for building a house in 1948 was £275, that the standard grant in 1967 remains at that figure of £275—nearly 20 years later—notwithstanding the fact that that grant has been invaded by the turnover tax and by the wholesale tax and reduced from an effective value of £275 to about £150. Deflation has now attacked it again. That grant should be increased and increased substantially. The private sector should have finance made available to it for housing at reasonable rates of interest. That sector is prepared to pay the money back and pay interest on it but it is not getting the finance.

A man earning £1,250 a year is in a hopeless position as far as building a house is concerned. He cannot build it without some help and he cannot get help from a local authority because he is too well off to qualify for a small dwellings loan. He is living down the country and the building societies will not do business with him. These people should be encouraged to build their own houses because, if they do so, they will vacate the local authority houses which they are at present occupying and leave them for the people who need them.

The Minister would be much better engaged in devoting his thoughts and energies to ways and means of modernising the present system of local taxation. Before this House meets again, the committees of various county councils will be hard at work trying to make out their estimates for 1968-69. I am told that demands varying from 5/- to 15/- and even to £1 may be expected. This is going to be a crippling blow to certain sections of the community, to the people living in the towns in small houses and to the small shopkeepers. People who live in local authority houses are ratepayers, a fact which is very often overlooked. People living in these houses with a valuation of £7 or £10 will be called on to pay a substantial increase in their rates this year. If a person is living on social welfare in a local authority house with a poor law valuation of £7, he may have to pay 10/- per week in rates and nothing can be done about it.

The system is wrong. The system of raising local taxation through taxes on valuation without regard to the ability of the people to pay is unjust, unfair, and should be scrapped. Until the Minister for Local Government and the Government are prepared to scrap that system, they should cushion the effects of this most inequitable system by shifting the health charges from the rates to the central Exchequer. We had an assurance last year or the year before from that man of many promises, the present Minister for Education, that there would be no further increase in the health charges, that they would be kept down. We all know that such is not the position. We all know that the health charges are increasing.

In this year of 1967, education is still a charge, and a substantial charge, on the rates. Old age pensioners living in council houses on social welfare payments have to contribute to the cost of technical education. That is not fair; that system has no regard for the capacity of these people to pay. The cost of technical education and health should be removed completely from the rates until such time as the Government face up to their responsibility and revise and review the whole system. It cannot be repeated too often that this system of taxation introduced here at the end of the last century is not at all suited to present conditions. At that time only people of property were in a position to contribute to local administration. That has been completely changed but we are still peddling away with the same old system.

I want to make a brief reference to industry and to the establishment of industry. I want to put it beyond yea or nay that I believe we should establish worthwhile industries here. We want them. They are needed in order to absorb in employment the drift of our people from the land. There is a duty on the Government, through the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to organise industry in such a way that factories will be geographically situated so as to preserve an equal balance in the distribution of population and employment in the country. There is an obligation on the Government to take every reasonable precaution to ensure that money invested in industry is wisely invested. It owes that to the nation as a whole but it also owes it to the districts in which industries are set up.

If the Government give a grant of £50,000, £100,000 or £170,000 to an industry and that industry turns out to be a flop, the particular district in which it is sited is regarded by the Government as having received its share of the incentives to industry. The district suffers and the morale of the people in the district suffers. I mentioned this when speaking on the devaluation debate last week in reference to a factory in Cavan town which the Taoiseach came to open approximately three years ago. He was welcomed there and there was considerable jubilation in the district because there was hope that this factory would provide considerable employment. There was a State investment by way of free grant in that factory of £170,000. That factory never got off the ground. It never employed more than 35 employees. If I said on another occasion 135, I was wrong; it never employed more than 35 and the present employment figure in that factory is 11, and those 11 jobs are insecure. I believe the Government did not give proper consideration to that industry before sanctioning it.

The business of that factory was the manufacture, or processing, of parts for agricultural machinery. These parts were brought in in a semi-processed state from Germany to Dublin, transported from Dublin down to Cavan, some further processing done there, and they were then sent back to Germany. That sort of exercise just does not work.

Mark you, I am grateful to the Government for the £170,000 coming into Cavan, but I maintain that the money was badly applied and that, in fact, it has done more harm than good. When I mentioned this matter last week, I got the stock Fianna Fáil reply from the Minister for Finance. He said: "Oh, if you do not make a mistake, you will never make anything." That is the stock reply one gets if one criticises. It is the duty of the Opposition to criticise. This is just not good enough. It is especially not good enough to somebody coming from the town of Cavan, which is less than 20 miles from the town of Clones in which another factory was established and thousands upon thousands of pounds again poured into it. The former Taoiseach was invited down to open that factory officially, but the official opening was cancelled. There was some talk of the present Taoiseach, who was then Minister for Industry and Commerce, opening it, but it never was, in fact, officially opened. A further grant was sanctioned and the receiver was in that factory before the building contractor was paid and he was owed £11,000 or £12,000. That was a bad service to the town of Clones. It has had a bad effect on the town. It is a waste of money and it is not a proper discharge of the obligations of the Government to organise industry in a rational way.

I repeat that, if this country is to survive, we will have to have industry. In last Sunday's Sunday Press I read about a factory, which we thought at one time was coming to Cavan but which is actually sited in Roscommon, in which £130,000 of State money was invested. Perhaps the Minister for Justice may know something about this one. The Sunday Press discussed the pros and cons as to whether or not this factory was going to close down. The fact is it was never officially opened. I grow suspicious after the Clones episode when I hear there is delay in bringing the Taoiseach, or some other suitable person, to open a factory. The Clones factory was never officially opened. The one in Roscommon is now 18 months in existence without being officially opened and the Sunday Press saw fit to discuss whether this factory was going to succeed or going to close down, and that 18 months after it had been built, but never officially opened. It concedes that the parent factory has had a receiver put in in England.

I mention these three to demonstrate that the Government are, in my opinion, falling down on the job of organising industry on a rational basis. They are falling down on the job of properly vetting undertakings in which considerable sums of the taxpayers' money is invested. I would regard the investment of £170,000 in the factory in Cavan as money well spent if there were now from 100 to 150 people in good employment there. I consider it an absolute waste of money when, instead of 100 to 150 people being employed, there are only 11 people employed and their 11 jobs are insecure. When a situation like this arises, the Government owe something to the district concerned.

I do not know if there are conditions attaching to these grants which make it obligatory on the organisers to run the buildings as factories and to provide employment. If there is no such condition, then such a condition should be imposed and, if the Government invest £170,000 of the taxpayers' money in a factory, in Cavan or anywhere else, and if it transpires that, either due to negligence on the part of the Government, at worst, or, at best, to conditions over which the Government have no control, and if the undertaking turns out to be a flop, there is on the Government an obligation to go in—if they have not got that right now, they should get it because of the vast investment of public funds in these ventures—and see to it that the building is used for a purpose that will provide employment in the locality. I do not think that is overstating the case. I do not think it is an unreasonable demand. If a person gets a free grant of £175,000, it is not unreasonable that those who give the grant should have substantial control over the operations of that factory, certainly until such time as the factory proves a reasonable success or the grant is refunded.

The Government are not, in my opinion, doing enough to make life more bearable for those living in rural areas. I refer to rural electrification. A person living in a rural area who wants to connect his house with a supply of electric current is asked to pay a special charge. While his neighbour who got the current three, four, or five years ago may be asked to pay 15/- or £1 every two months, the new applicant may now be asked to pay as much as £5 every two months. That is tantamount to telling him that it will not be given to him. The excuse is that when the area was being canvassed, the residents of the house of the present applicant refused a supply of current. Of course this particular applicant might not have been residing in the house at the time or, if he was, he might have been the young man of the house under the jurisdiction of an aged parent who refused to take a supply of current. It should be offered to the present applicant on reasonable terms.

It is a disgrace that what we know as the rural improvements schemes under which access to rural houses, such as lanes, was repaired, have been for all practical purposes closed down. In Cavan, £14,000 will be coming in in the year 1968-69 for the purpose of repairing lanes from Mullagh to Dowra, a journey of about 100 miles. This £14,000 is coming into the county under the scheme the Minister for Local Government has passed on to be operated by the county council and what struck me when I thought of this £170,000 invested in the factory was that at that rate, it would take about 20 years to get as much into the county to do this kind of work. People are happy living in rural surroundings if they are catered for in a reasonable sort of way and if they had these little amenities such as proper access to their houses and a supply of current.

Looking back over 1967, I think it can be regarded as a successful year, particularly for business people and for our farmers. It was successful for our social welfare recipients, although we would like to see them getting much more. The fact that they got a slice of the national cake that the country could afford could, I suppose, be deemed a measure of success. Our exporters also had a successful year. We can only hope that this march forward will continue from this onwards. The fact that we emerged from the all-enveloping shroud of two years during which the credit squeeze kept all efforts at progress back also speaks highly for the progress that has been made.

There is one section of the community to which I should like to draw attention and who each year seem to be fading out of the picture, our small traders. The advent of the supermarkets and the heavy rates and taxes which they have to meet are squeezing these people out. I suppose this is the march of progress but it is unfortunate that we are not able to absorb them into other forms of employment. I suppose it is difficult to do this because so many of them are elderly people, people who owned their own business and whose fathers and forefathers had it before them and who are sticking it out to go down with the sinking ship.

I agree with Deputy Fitzpatrick that something must be done about the burden of rates. In my county they reached the all-time figure of £4 7s 0d in the £ last year, and if information which I have is correct, we will go very close to £5 this year. This will be an intolerable burden, particularly on small traders and working people, people in cottages and so forth, a burden which they will not be able to meet. The time has come when we should try to keep this at a fixed figure and for the State to take over any increases over and above that figure, for the State to take over the burden of Health Act charges and other charges imposed on the local councils. We are at a stage of development where the people are demanding more and more and by and large, these demands have to be met out of the rates. The different sections which the local councils have to operate at present involve a crushing burden on them. An answer must be found and found quickly to this problem.

In the western counties, the development we should like to see is not taking place in the areas in which it is most necessary, that is, the congested areas where all too many of our people are huddled together trying to eke out a living. Deputy Fitzpatrick referred to the unemployment assistance given to those people and he attempted to scoff at it. I should like to see much more being given to them, but with all the demands on the economy, this is difficult. Personally I claim a certain amount of credit for getting this scheme under way because I spent a good deal of time in this House asking the Minister to have the system of unemployment assistance, which applied to smallholders formerly, changed. I brought many cases to his notice where, say, a man who had four cows which yielded so much in the creameries was able to get £3 per week but the moment he put in an extra cow, which could only earn £60 a year, he lost the £3 assistance he was getting. It seemed to be a great effort by these smallholders to improve their position and eke a little more from their holdings. I gave the Minister a particular case of one man who was talked into trying to improve the general conditions in an area where the parish priest was endeavouring to get about 200 extra cows in the parish. This man was getting £4 7s 6d which he lost when he was talked into this effort.

The Minister went into the case and decided that he would arrange to have the social welfare allowance paid on that occasion and that any earnings by anybody with that level of valuation would be ignored for unemployment assistance purposes. I am very glad this change was made and I can assure the House and the country that many people throughout the country do not forfeit their allowance and do get that payment along with the earnings from their holdings to help them to keep a roof over their heads and sufficient food on their tables for their families.

This was a good scheme and I should like it extended if at all possible. It was particularly welcome in my own county of Kerry. Deputy Fitzpatrick spoke of a man with a £14 valuation and eight children getting 6/6d. In Kerry, we consider a man with £14 valuation a big farmer. We have one of the most up-to-date agricultural organisations with an output second to none in County Kerry. In spite of that we have 76 per cent of our farm owners with valuations under £10 and 84 per cent are under £20. It can therefore be seen what a great asset it is to such people to get Government assistance as well as their creamery cheques. The Minister who brought this about is appreciated.

I should like to make clear that work must be found in the congested districts along the western coast generally and a new outlook must be adopted even at Government level. I cannot agree that the selection of Waterford and Galway for industrial estates will give any of the direct help that should be directed to the west. I think a certain number of the small towns and villages should be selected along the western seaboard and buildings erected there of the type that foreign industrialists coming here want. These buildings should be distributed through the smaller towns rather than concentrated in the two cities.

We in County Kerry are fighting a forward battle, if I may use the term, to keep people at home and develop our natural resources to the maximum and particularly to develop our industries. The industries we have up to date are all marching forward, no close-downs or threats of close-downs, and all are geared for expansion over the next few years. I can give the case of the factory in Killarney completed early this year and which has 250 people employed at present and which has already planned to begin building in 1968 as much more as the existing factory to employ a further 250 people.

We have a factory in Killorglin which has been working since June and employs 26 people. Plans are already on the stocks for an addition which will provide for 100 extra jobs by 1969. In Tralee the ballbearing factory is already building a huge addition and there is another factory making tubes developing in a similar way. All the industries in the county are geared for export and seem confident in the future and in the materials they turn out and sell on the world market. They have a labour force which is equal to that in any part of the world.

Recently, we had a number of European industrialists in Killorglin and I went through the Killarney factory with them. One, a German industrialist with 3,000 people employed, spent an hour watching the production line at work in Killarney and at the end of it he said: "I made a mistake. I built a factory last year in Germany employing 1,000 people. I now see that I should have come here because nobody in Germany works as hard as they do here and does as good a job". He ended his comment by saying that as soon as he could get sufficient finance he would come back to this country. I think that is an indication of what could be done once we get down to developing the type of outlook that can and will help our people.

There is, however, one arm of our economy that, unfortunately, is in the doldrums and, it seems, will remain there. I refer particularly to our fishing industry. It is unfortunate that no answer can be found, or can be seen to be found to the problem of trying to develop what should be a very lucrative industry and a very lucrative arm to our export trade. One cannot understand the large number of fishing boats, the huge fleet made up of members from various countries congregating along our south and south-west coast to reap the very rich harvest there while no group of Irishmen can be found to devise ways and means of developing this industry off our coast. I have to criticise Bord Iascaigh Mhara in this connection. Their outlook was never correct and their efforts were not correctly directed towards developing this very valuable industry.

I have spent the six years I have been in this House studying the position on the Kerry coast, where a total of 30 large trawlers and about 20 small ones were given to the fishermen there over the past ten years. These boats were given out at a high cost and very high interest charges to people who could not find a market for the fish they caught. There was no means of processing the fish landed, particularly at peak periods. I have seen fishermen myself there, at a time when fish were running plentifully, having to return the fish they caught to the sea because if they brought it into Dingle or Caherciveen they could not dispose of it. On another occasion I saw four CIE lorries and trailers transporting 18 tons of fish to Ballinasloe, for which the fishermen got a very small return, by the time CIE charges had been paid.

It is hard to understand why An Bord Iascaigh Mhara distributed these boats along the Kerry coast without also providing processing plants and cold storage facilities to handle the catches. It was extraordinary that they should have given £500,000 worth of property, in hire purchase terms, to the fishermen in Kerry, when there was not the slightest hope of that fishing fleet earning one-fifth of that in one year. They should have known that a fleet of that value should be capable of landing at least £2,000,000 worth of fish, and that there was no method of handling such a large quantity of fish on the Kerry coast.

On top of that, An Bord Iascaigh Mhara gave out these boats without providing maintenance facilities locally. The fishermen were left to do their own repairs. All too often the engines broke down. To make things worse, the engines were not of a standard type and very often boats were waiting for three months for a single part. The engines of these boats were not capable of taking the heavy weather that prevails off the Kerry coast.

Recently I was across in Belgium and I visited the fishing fleets in Ostend. To my amazement, I discovered that the 50-foot boats there, which are comparable with the Dingle boats, have 250 or 300 h.p. engines, whereas the Dingle boats have only 70 h.p. engines, and the largest engine is 150 h.p. If a fisherman was caught ten or 15 miles out off the Kerry coast, this type of engine would not stand up to the pounding of the heavy seas. The Belgian boats would be able to go up to 200 miles away; they could go to the Hebrides and make their way home again, and the fishermen need not be concerned about the weather.

Since I came into this House, I have heard questions raised at official level and, indeed, at ministerial level as to what was wrong with the Kerry fishermen, and statements to the effect that they were not prepared to get up off the chair and go out and fish. I have never held with this view. I have often gone out with these fishermen myself to find out what was wrong. I am satisfied that these fishermen will fish at any time if they have the proper equipment and if the markets are available when they land at port. In Belgium I saw the boats coming in on Friday afternoon and having their catches loaded on to trucks which conveyed the fish to the railway to be distributed to central Europe where there is a colossal demand for every type of fish, particularly in Czechoslovakia, Poland and most of the southern countries of Europe. Outside the waters around Japan, we have, off the south and west coast of Ireland, the richest fishing grounds in the world. The fact that this is not being developed properly is a mark against the body that was set up to develop fishing. Peculiarly enough, they succeed in developing the most modern blocks of offices for themselves, and time and again they can have the most expensive lunches and the most expensive tours around Europe and America.

I am convinced that if sufficient processing and storage facilities are provided with proper marketing services and the modern boats that are needed to catch the fish, this industry will prosper. We have sought advice from Americans, who were brought here to examine our fishing grounds. From the information I have received the Americans are not the most expert in the world where fishing is concerned. Their own fishing industry is not the most up to date in the world. We do not have to go beyond our own coastline to examine the foreign trawlers there, to see the type of boat that is used there and the personnel that man them, in order to realise how we must develop this industry. I would hope that over the next few years an effort will be made to put this valuable industry on a sound footing in order to save the people in our congested areas and along our west coast. I believe that in ten years this industry could be developed to the extent of an export market worth £50 million with 30,000 more people being employed in fishing, processing and the various other activities involved. I hope an effort will be made to develop what could be a very valuable asset to the economy in general and to our exports in particular.

Reference was made to the inadequacy of our housing programme. We all agree that a huge step forward is needed to meet the demands of our people for housing, but the fact that we are providing £26 million this year for housing and housing services as against £9 million in 1961 shows that a great step forward has been made. We would all like to see a figure of £50 million reached, but the amount of money and effort involved are beyond the capabilities of our nation at the moment. We can only try to increase the housing programme by as much as possible each year.

The unfortunate thing is that our people are now looking for a much better type of house than they did 15 years ago and the amount of money provided for housing loans is used more quickly because larger loans are required in each case. In my own county today loans of from £1,500 to £2,000 are sought, whereas 15 years ago nobody would dream of borrowing more than £500 and not too many would even reach that figure. This development of providing a much better finished house is creating a bigger demand for the amount of money available and means that a lesser number of houses is being built. I do not know whether it would be better to build more houses of a lesser standard. It is difficult to propose that, particularly in the tourist areas where we want to preserve our amenities and have our houses built to blend in with the local area. Our people want to build in the most suitable places, along the main roads and particularly the tourist roads.

There is an unrgent necessity, especially in my own county, for water and sewerage schemes. They are of prime importance in view of the development of the tourist trade, particularly amongst small farmers trying to earn a bit of extra money. They cannot start without having the necessary sanitary services. All too often they are short of both water and sewerage. Money should be channelled into housing services to provide the greatest output possible of water and sewerage schemes. Many of our houses are ideally placed for the tourist trade, but water and sewerage are absolutely necessary. They are of the utmost importance in view of the fact that they help the economy by bringing in more tourists, particularly the type of tourist looking for cheap accommodation that can be found in farmhouses in the congested districts.

I should like also to draw attention to the necessity for grants for the drainage of small rivers and streams particularly in the mountainous areas. All too often the flow of water off the mountains over the small holdings does immense damage and prevents those people from getting the most out of their holdings. These people have no hope of the arterial drainage of their areas being reached for 20 or 30 years. A grant of about £5,000 per stream would be of immense help to them. They cannot even avail of land project grants, because the outflow is not sufficient to take the water from the drains. Some system of grants for these people should be considered at Government level.

Afforestation can also provide vast employment in the congested and mountainous areas. Many of our people in the mountainous areas are prepared to offer land for afforestation. Every effort should be made to take up this land as quickly as possible and get our people to work. Afforestation can provide them with employment for the next four or five years. Maybe after that we can find some other way of absorbing them through industrial or other developments.

I should like to support Deputy Fitzpatrick in his demand for increased grants for rural electrification in the very isolated areas. Many of the people in places far off the electricity supply routes are being asked to pay as much as £6 or £7 every two months. This is far beyond their capacity to pay. In 1967 they are entitled to the same facilities the rest of the nation enjoys and every effort should be made to do something to help them. There are not too many of them left now. A scheme of subsidy should be introduced to provide them with such facilities as electric light, television and the other things that would help to make their home life a little brighter. It is a scheme that would justify itself and it deserves every consideration.

In conclusion, I think I can safely say we have had a successful year this year. We can only hope that the developments we have seen this year will continue in the years ahead and that more of our people will find employment through industry and increased output in agriculture, and above all, that we will be given a chance of earning more money within the nation so that we can channel some of it off to our social welfare recipients, and try to make their difficult times a bit easier and brighter.

We can look back with pride on this year. Progress has been made, and if the nation faces the challenges ahead we will make more progress. We have good people. We have great working people, people who have a pride in their nation, and a pride in their ability to develop this nation, and who want to give this country the place in the sun—to use that term— to which it is entitled. Many Europeans who visit here think we have a great and a beautiful country, and great people. I have faith in our people to keep up this forward march and to develop the assets and the abilities we have, to an extent which will eventually keep our people at home and give them the standard of living which we would all like to see them having.

I listened attentively to Deputy O'Connor and I agree with some of what he said and disagree very much with part of what he said. He said that this was a year on which we could look back with pride, a year in which we had made great progress. Nothing could be further from the truth. This was a year in which we had many demonstrations and agitations which I hope we will not see again.

This is an opportunity for Deputies to review and examine the activities of the Government over the past 12 months. We are now coming to the close of 1967, and this is an opportunity for Deputies to go into the various aspects of Government policy and to find out where those policies went wrong. The Taoiseach's speech today did not give us any grounds for optimism in the coming year. I was very disappointed that the trend of the Taoiseach's speech seemed to indicate the same policies and the same attitude as we have had over a number of years from this Government, the policy of "live horse and you will get grass".

Much has been said in the House today about the housing situation. I dealt with this only last week on the Estimate for the Department of Local Government. I listened to the Minister today and he did not give any indication of an increase in the number of houses for the coming year, and he had no encouragement for the people who have been on housing lists for many years. He went back to 1956 and 1957 and pointed out the failures of the Government at that time. I am not concerned with 1956 or 1957, but I am very much concerned about the future of those people who have been on waiting lists for houses for a long number of years. Unfortunately there are no very bright prospects for the future so far as rehousing them is concerned. In my experience as a member of a local authority, I have had to make representations many, many times about a number of people living in overcrowded conditions, sometimes two or three families living in one house. The position is that housing is not available. The progress in the housing situation is appalling.

I also dealt with the position in relation to rates. Every member of a local authority must be very well aware that in the past 12 months many of our ratepayers found it absolutely impossible to meet the demands made upon them for rates by the local authorities. I claim that the present rating system has no relationship at all to the ability of our ratepayers to pay. The whole system is wrong. Some of our people living in towns and villages in rural Ireland are finding it impossible to meet this demand, small business people and small shopkeepers, in particular, due to the fact that supermarkets and big stores are pushing them out of business. This is a very serious situation, and the Minister did not indicate that there would be any relief for those people.

I should also like to deal with the position in relation to the road grant to Cork County Council this year. I dealt with this before but I want to repeat it. There was a reduction of £129,000 in the road grant to Cork County Council this year. This means in relation to our people who are working aon the roads, road men who have given years of service to the Cork County Council, that there was £129,000 less to spend on the roads in Cork county this year. Surely that is not an indication of progress over the past 12 months. The great problem for the council, the manager, and the engineering staff, is to tide these people over Christmas, and to see that they are not disemployed during the Christmas period.

We have the same situation in relation to the cottage repair gangs. Many of our cottages and council houses have been on the list for repairs for a number of years, but the money is not available and the repairs cannot be carried out. Some of those houses are deteriorating at such a rate that if something is not done in the near future they will be gone beyond redemption before the necessary repairs can be carried out.

Deputy O'Connor represents the constituency of South Kerry and I have the honour to represent the constituency of mid-Cork. These two constituencies border at a point called Ballydaly. Deputy O'Connor mentioned the flooding of this land. This is a serious situation. I am sure members of this House and members of Cork County Council will agree that time and time again we have sent up deputation after deputation to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance in connection with the flooding of good arable land in Cork. During my two years we have sent at least three deputations in connection with the cleaning of the rivers causing flooding of these lands, but we still have not made any progress. To me this is not the progress we heard about from the opposite benches today.

There is another point I should like to mention in relation to our health services and social welfare services. I had occasion this week to make representations on behalf of a non-contributory old age pensioner to the Minister and the Department of Social Welfare. This is a woman living alone, confined to bed, and with the neighbours looking after her. I was told by the Minister that this old age pensioner would not qualify for more than 52/6 because she has an income from a cottage plot. Surely this is not the progress we heard so much about from the opposite benches today? It is a disgrace and a shame and would not be tolerated by any other section of the community. These are a defenceless section.

Having regard to the increased cost-of-living, the maximum old age pension of 57/6 is totally inadequate to provide for the needs of an old age pensioner today. The result is that many old age pensioners cannot be cared for at home. Consequently, institutions, hospitals and homes are full. The Cork County Home is full to the door with old age pensioners who are not in a position to maintain themselves at home. It has been proved at the Cork Health Authority that it costs the ratepayers between £8 and £9 to keep an old age pensioner in an institution. Is this not a pennywise, pound-foolish policy on the part of the Government? The same applies in the case of social welfare recipients and persons in receipt of home assistance, the weaker sections of the community.

There is an aspect of Department of Health policy to which I want to draw special attention, namely, the disabled person's allowance. This allowance is paid in Cork by the Cork Health Authority. The maximum allowance is 47/6. The Act provides that an applicant who is not in a position to be maintained by himself or his immediate relatives will not qualify for the allowance. In my view, this is entirely wrong. In many cases persons not in a position to provide for themselves are living with a relative. There is no obligation on the relative to maintain that person. That person should receive the disabled person's maintenance allowance. Since I came into this House I have asked the Minister for Health, Deputy Flanagan, and the former Minister for Health, Deputy O'Malley about this matter and was assured that this clause in the Act would be deleted and that the Minister was considering the whole question of the disabled person's allowance. Unfortunately, many people who should qualify are deprived of the allowance. I have voiced my view at the Cork Health Authority several times that if a reasonable allowance were paid to some of these people it would have the effect of releasing accommodation in institutions and hospitals for other patients. Members of the Cork Health Authority and of the local authority realise only too well that it is almost impossible to get a patient into a hospital in Cork. This is a very serious situation and a matter which must be dealt with in the near future. I hope that the Minister for Health will review the position bearing in mind what I have said.

Reference has been made on many occasions by various Ministers to a campaign to save the west and to check the decline in population, particularly in the west. Part of my constituency has a great deal in common with Deputy O'Connor's constituency. I attended a meeting of Muintir na Tíre on the borders of Deputy O'Connor's constituency and mine. Deputy O'Connor did not attend. This meeting was held as a result of a resolution passed by the County Committee of Agriculture to declare the area along that border a pilot area. I was amazed at the facts revealed at the meeting as to the flight from the land, the number of houses locked up and the families gone away. The Tele-fís Éireann programme "Seven Days" last night clearly indicated the position in regard to the population of the west of Ireland. No realistic approach has been made to the problem of saving the west and keeping the people in rural Ireland gainfully employed. Any reasonable man knows that the amenities to which people are entitled under the Constitution are not available to these people.

One amenity which comes to mind is rural electrification. It has been brought to the notice of the Minister for Transport and Power repeatedly by Members on this side of the House that the special service charge for connection in remote areas is excessive and beyond the capacity of the people to pay. The Minister should do something about this even though he has stated in reply to Parliamentary Questions that he has no function in the matter. Somebody must have a function in the matter. The more remote the area, the higher the special service charge.

The same applies in the case of the extension of water and sewerage. Quite a few years ago the Minister for Local Government laid down an economic limit in connection with the extension of a regional water supply to any householder. The Southern Housing Committee of Cork County Council have passed resolutions and have conveyed them to the Minister asking for a review of this limit which bears no relationship to present costs and in rural Ireland, particularly in the southern part of Cork County, people are not connected to a regional water supply scheme because of the operation of that economic limit. This is causing great hardship to many people. We all agree as to the vital necessity of an adequate water supply for farmers. Many farmers have failed to qualify for a quality milk bonus because of a lack of an adequate water supply.

There are many problems which arise for people living in rural Ireland. In many dispensary areas, Cork Health Authority have failed to get a doctor to take up a permanent appointment or even a temporary appointment. This results in hardship for the poorer sections of the community, medical card holders. In Macroom and adjoining districts the health authority has failed to provide a dispensary doctor. I do not know the reason for this. A long time ago we were promised a new health service under which the medical card holder would be entitled to a choice of doctor. We on this side of the House welcomed that as a step in the right direction because the present system, as far as the medical card holders are concerned, is completely unsatisfactory.

One way in which we could help the people in rural Ireland is through the development of tourism. Many of these people have the ability to work and have an interest in their homes and would like to remain in their own country instead of having to emigrate. Only last week as a member of Cork County Committee of Agriculture, I heard an instructor in charge of a pilot area in Cork give us certain statistics with regard to the number of people in the area of 70 years of age who were living alone, the number of houses unoccupied and the drop in population in the past three years. It was a frightening picture. What I am concerned about is that if this trend continues in rural Ireland, in ten years from now, the situation will have gone far beyond redemption.

The development of tourism would help the people in those rural areas. The farmhouse scheme is becoming very popular; the people should be made aware of it and should be given sufficient grants to bring their homes up to a satisfactory standard so that they could avail of this type of tourist who is anxious to spend a holiday with a farmer. I have seen families come back year after year to farmhouses in the south. Tourism, properly developed, can give a great boost to our economy and if we do not overcharge and if we give reasonable service, these tourists will continue to come to us. I have faith in the economy of the country and in the people in the country but unfortunately, in 1967, we still have emigration and unemployment. We must make a realistic approach to the solving of these problems if we are to survive as a nation.

This year has been a dismal failure as far as the Government are concerned. I can remember the occasion of a by-election in mid-Cork in March of 1965 when the Taoiseach of the day came to the principal town in the constituency for his final rally and told the people of Bandon that two new industries were being brought to the town. Not alone did Bandon not get these two new industries but the only industry there was closed down and moved to Cork city, thus causing a lot of unemployment in the town. It was a serious state of affairs to see able-bodied men standing in the queue at the labour exchange.

Deputy O'Connor said that he was partly responsible for having the Minister for Social Welfare introduce the unemployment assistance scheme for small farmers. We call that the dole for the small farmers and it has a demoralising effect on them. If they were given some price inducements to help them to increase production, they would be far more usefully employed. The unemployment assistance is a stop-gap measure, an emergency measure that is far removed from a solution of the problems of rural Ireland. It helps them along but it has been proved time and time again that when price inducements were offered to the farmers, production rose immediately. This country has the best farmers in the world if they were given a fair opportunity.

As far as the agricultural community are concerned, last year was the year that was lost. It was a year in which the Minister for Agriculture should have been trying his best to prepare the farmers for entry into the EEC. Instead of that, a battle was taking place between a section of the farming community and the Minister. Surely that was not progress, the progress that we hear so much about from the Government benches? That was something that could have been avoided if the Minister of that time had been prepared to pocket his pride and get down off his high horse. I remember that Minister, now the Minister for Finance, stating in mid-Cork that not merely would the farmers not have to march to Dublin but that he would come down to Bantry to meet them. The march started: the farmers marched to Dublin and then the Minister would not meet them. That was a shame and a disgrace and was something that could have been avoided if the Minister had got off his high horse.

There is nothing more I have to say except to hope that the farmers will be enabled to make more progress next year than they did last year. Our people are looking for more progress and more concessions and I hope 1968 will be an improvement on 1967.

The Taoiseach's Estimate covers a wide area and one must confine oneself to some of the points covered in it. One of the most optimistic things I have heard about our economy in the past few years was the statement recently by the Minister for Finance that the economy was expanding to the point where it was now possible to absorb some of those who had left the land. I think this is a significant breakthrough in the economy. It is the situation we hoped to reach. It is a situation it is hoped will continue. It is hoped the economy will expand over the next five years to absorb all the unemployed and the natural increase in population.

Speakers today, talking about the unemployed, baldly quoted figures without any analysis of those figures. That is unfair. These figures include people leaving the land. This trend exists in every country in the world. I have said that many times, but I am saying for the first time now that I believe this is the only State in Western Europe which is making an effort to keep the people on the land. That is particularly true of the small farms. In other countries, the tendency is to facilitate people leaving the land. These countries have industrial arms. We have not the same kind of industrial arm here and, because of that, ours is a very difficult task. However, I think any reasonable person must admit that the Government are facing up to the problem. I shall not outline the various schemes. They have been discussed before.

I should like to refer to the medical services. A great deal of comment was made on these services today. I do not accept that the services are as bad as some people say they are. I believe there is a first-class service for all people in the lower income group. It is comparable to any services of which I am aware in Britain or throughout Europe. For the middle income group there is a subsidised service. Those in that group can avail of all hospital facilities at a cost of 10/- per day. I think that is very good value. As well as that, the public authority can reduce that 10/- in case of hardship. I do not think anyone in the middle income group can complain about our health services.

It was stated today that somebody in a maternity hospital found herself presented with a bill for £140 odd. That bill could have arisen in two ways. First of all, the unfortunate patient must have had to spend something in the region of 40 weeks in hospital. That is rather unusual in a maternity case. I myself am more inclined to think that the bill arose because the patient elected to be a private or semi-private patient. If she did that, she put herself outside the scope of the ordinary health services. I do not fault her for that. Everybody has the right to make her own choice. It is, however, unfair to use such a case to illustrate alleged inadequacies in our health services. From my experience, I would say that most of these big bills arise when people move outside the scope of the ordinary services and elect for private or semi-private treatment. Unfortunately, in some cases, the illness may last longer than anticipated and it is for that reason the patients may find themselves presented with big bills. Here, again the local authority has power to deal with these as hardship cases, if that is necessary, and to subsidise such patients.

I come now to the classless society. Some inside this House and some outside it advocate a classless society. To my mind, such a society is purely Utopian. There are people who do not wish to be classless and, irrespective of how society is organised, such people will be anxious to be designated as class. They are not few in number. This thing has become so much part of our lives that the word "class" has taken on a special meaning for us. I feel it is the people in the higher income group who have a grievance where health services are concerned. They can find themselves presented with very big bills and they have no legal remedy. The local authority may treat them as hardship cases, but I do not believe there are many treated as such. It is my opinion that they are the people who have the real grievance against their health services.

That brings up the question of whether we should have comprehensive health services for everybody. No matter how such services are organised I believe there will be people who will opt out. You will find them in the middle income group, in the higher income group and even in the lower income group. Comprehensive health services would cost a great deal of money and it is the business of anyone who establishes such services to cost those services. From some of the figures I have seen in relation to the various services already in existence a comprehensive health service would be a very expensive business indeed.

Our maternity services are equal to those in existence in practically every country in the world. Those in the lower income group and the middle income group have free services unless they opt out. I do not think those in the upper income group find themselves in any difficulty where maternity services are concerned. The duration of the stay is usually short.

Reference was made to the Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme. I do not think it is true that, once treated for a specific complaint, one is not covered for subsequent treatment for an identical complaint. I understood there was some change in that: I speak subject to correction. This is an excellent scheme and it has been very successful. I myself find certain faults with it but I shall not put them before the House. By and large, it is an excellent scheme. It appeals in particular to those with large families.

I shall not make any further comment on the health services. They will come up for discussion in the new year. There are some things I should like to see done reasonably quickly. Deputy Kyne holds that things ought to be done piecemeal if they cannot be done all together. I agree with him in this. I should like to see the dental services and the optical services being subsidised to some extent—perhaps not in full. The school medical scheme is another section of the health services which I should like to see being changed and handed back to the family doctor to administer.

I do not think that any major policy debate in this House since I came into it has escaped without some reference to the EEC and over the past 18 months the Free Trade Area Agreement with Britain has also been brought up. One of the Parties in the House condemned the Free Trade Area with Britain but I cannot agree with this view because in modern trading conditions, we must be in some trading bloc. We have a few of them throughout the world. There is the Eastern European-Russian bloc, the EEC, EFTA, and I suppose you could call the United States an American bloc. We could not stay out on our own. Trading essentially means coming in contact with and exchanging goods with people. Everybody expects to exchange goods to their own advantage. We were faced with this problem and we did the obvious thing, that is, concluded an agreement with our nearest neighbour and one of our biggest customers. It was suggested that our industries would suffer as a result of this. Some may suffer but I have no doubt that some will benefit.

Those of us who are old enough to remember the Sinn Féin outlook when one was very much alive and later, the 1930s, when it was decided to protect industry, probably find it hard to accept the changing conditions of the present day where tariffs are being removed. It seems a contradiction but originally those things were necessary. We had to establish the know-how among our people; we had to establish some tradition, and we had to establish some confidence in our own ability to enter the industrial world. We have done this and we have succeeded in employing a number of our people, but nobody could suggest that the market in this country is sufficient to give employment to all our people. This establishes right away the fact that we must export and seek export markets, which means we must enter into some trading blocs. We have entered into one. If we did not enter into it and if tariffs were used against us, we would find it much more difficult. If our industrialists are not able to compete with foreigners at home, how can they expect to compete with them in other countries? If they cannot compete at home, surely they can never become efficient enough to compete abroad?

It is true that reducing the tariffs puts the gun to their heads. They have at this stage either to get on or get out, and let us hope that they will get on. I have every confidence that most of those industrialists are quite capable of dealing with this problem. The expansion of the past 12 months confirms this. In a world where trade went stack, they succeeded in expanding. Much the same applies to the EEC position, whenever we get into it. We should stop talking about it and wait until we see what is going to happen. Day after day at Question Time, questions are asked about the EEC and the Taoiseach and his Ministers are expected to be omniscient, to know what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, in 1968, 1969, in 1970 or in 1975.

They only know what happened in 1916.

To my mind, this is just a foolish exercise. One feels that it will probably be used by the Deputy who interrupted and if we are all here in 1970, he will be able to say: "You said such-and-such in 1967". This is a foolish exercise. Somebody said today that President de Gaulle said it is to be 1970 and if it is, let us wait and watch and prepare for it. Any talk about it is purely theoretical. The best way to deal with it is to prepare to enter it when the time comes. What we learn this year or next year about the EEC will be out of date in 1970. As far as I understand it, this applies very much to the medical situation: it is behind time and practically nothing has been done.

To return to local matters, I should like to deal with the Land Commission. Although they are doing good work, they are still not doing enough. From what I can gather, it is not a question of money as much as a question of staff and I should like to urge the Taoiseach to see that some efforts are made to increase the Land Commission staff. I understand they are concentrating on the pilot areas, but in doing so, the other areas are being left behind and this is wrong because there is much work to be done in those areas, work which should be done. It is alleged that there is some delay in dividing land. When you make an inquiry, you get a reasonable explanation for the delay, that they are waiting for more land, but my general impression is that they are understaffed, and I would urge the Taoiseach to impress on the Minister concerned the need to increase the staff and to speed the acquisition of derelict farms and their division and to give those people who are anxious to stay in the country the opportunity of doing so.

Two Deputies who spoke before me referred to drainage, which is a vital matter for the constituency I represent. We have two types of drainage, arterial drainage which is going ahead in various places and which is an expensive operation, and the smaller drainage schemes, the rural improvement schemes. There is also what I call intermediate drainage. Deputy O'Connor referred to the £5,000 to £6,000 scheme and it is the same thing I have in mind. Those schemes should be developed because in the long run there is not much point in doing the smaller schemes, making the smaller water course and drains, unless the outlet is there to let the water away.

Forestry is another local problem. There is not as much land available now for that purpose as in the past because it is said that people now find it more profitable to avail of the mountain grazing scheme rather than offer their land to the Land Commission and also because the Land Commission is not offering enough money. I am also told that, technically, some of the cheaper land is not suitable for forestry; that there is a large fall-out of trees that never reach maturity and that this type of land is neither productive nor profitable. In that connection, it has been suggested to me that a new approach should be made to the cultivation of this type of land and I have been told that certain work has been done by some Government agencies in this regard and that it has been successful. Apparently, they are doing extra drainage on such land before it is sown.

All these schemes naturally give extra employment and help the small farmers who are plentiful in my constituency. I am, however, optimistic about the future. We had a fairly good year last year and I have no doubt this trend will continue unless working conditions change very rapidly, resulting in another economic upset. One hears so much about the West that one almost revolts when there is talk about what is being done to save the West. I am satisfied that in the past few years the Government have been doing what they can for the West and will continue to do so.

On this Estimate, I think anything goes. Let us start at the top and go down the line. This country boasts of freedom of religion and every other aspect of human life. Quite recently at the very top, we had Russia being congratulated on their 50th anniversary on behalf of the Irish people. On what have we to congratulate Russia? We are paying for these congratulations and every message we send out, and I challenge that action, coming from the President of this State, that he should, on behalf of the Irish people, take such a step. His high office is costing enough.

Let us come down to the Taoiseach. We recall the last election and I think we all remember the image of the three Ls. There was not a lamp post on which we could not read: "Let Lemass Lead." What happened Lemass not to lead? Is it the destruction that was in the Party that forced him out? One cannot say he was not fit for the job because he took 13 jobs afterwards. The people allowed him to leave. I suppose he now wants a bigger job; he wants to be parked.

There is disruption in the Party as is well-known. You can wallpaper up the cracks but when the foundation is rocking, the day of destruction is coming quickly and no amount of speech-making by the Taoiseach will cover up this. The Taoiseach said he did not want the job. The people knew he was to be a stop-gap Taoiseach, a caretaker Taoiseach, until some of the muscle men push him out also.

The Fianna Fáil Party told us that if England did not go into Europe, we would go it alone. The Taoiseach was on a joy-ride around Europe recently and a gentleman over in France told him he would be welcome. When the Taoiseach was going out the door, he put his toe in, in an effort to bring John Bull in with him. Yet, he was going it alone some time ago. Do we know where we stand or where we are going?

We have another bit of disruption between the Department of Agriculture and the elements in our society that are the mainstay of our greatest industry, agriculture. I do not know why these people are being allowed to remain in office while they are fighting the farmers. We now have them closing down fairs in the west of Ireland as a precaution, it is said, against foot and mouth disease. The unfortunate people who are trying to buy a few things for Christmas now cannot sell their cattle at a fair but must bring them to a mart, perhaps 40 or 50 miles away. They do not understand why the cattle cannot be sold at a fair if they can be sold at a mart. Rumour has it that in view of the fact that Fianna Fáil have their fingers so deep in the pie in marts, with their friends running them, that they might as well cash in there also.

Let us now take the Department of Justice. I do not know if there is much justice but we have, I think, paid £9,000 for the Secret Service this year. I know one cannot comment but I suggest that the Secret Service should be directed towards another bunch of gangsters in the country, the Taca men, those who go to the big dinners and slip a note—it must be a note; a cheque would not do—under the plate. They are afraid to write cheques. We know many of them. These are the people who get the plums of office. If this happened in the United States, you would have commissions of inquiry into the background of all this. I see them; they have contracts for schools throughout the country. There are architects who get the highest fees and whenever there is a by-election, we see them turning up in Kerry, Cork or Waterford with their Mercedes cars. It is not for the love of Fianna Fáil they are doing it. It is just because they are a bunch of gangsters cashing in on the situation.

What has the Department of Labour achieved? Nothing but statistics about this, that and the other. For all it means to the ordinary labouring man, that office could close its doors.

As regards the Department of Lands, the Minister in charge is the greatest gimmick-man in the House. He always has some little rabbit to pull out of the hat. Just a few years ago, he told us that the policy of Fianna Fáil was to provide at least 45 acres for every farmer. I had a question down here today and he could not tell me how many in my county got 45 acres. They thought at one time he was Moses going to lead them to the Promised Land.

This is another gimmick the Minister has, to transfer the Department of Lands to Castlebar. Many of these big statements are made just to catch the imagination of the people. The public memory is very short. You would have to remind them about what he said in six months time, because they would have forgotten it, but the Fianna Fáil image must be maintained as regards all the great things they are doing. At the same time, in my area we see land being bought by people who are well able to live without it, people who are well stocked and who have more than 45 acres. They are buying the land from under people. No wonder we have, not alone emigration but migration in my area. The unfortunate people have to go over to beet and everything else to make ends meet. I was amused, therefore, to hear the last speaker say that the Government are doing everything for the West. Níl fhios aige cad tá á rá aige chor ar bith.

The record of the Department of Local Government is no better than that of any other Department. The conditions in which people are living are appalling. I know of a house where there are 13 people, two families under one roof. They cannot get a house in my town. What about the people who are living on the back roads and who cannot go to Mass or whose children cannot go to school unless they wear wellingtons? In our area they are known as the wellington brigade. They have to plough through on Sunday, and every other day, and yet we have these autobahns being built.

The Board of Works used to do a lot of this work in our area. They have folded up, and in the transition period, little is being done. Unfortunate people are paying high rates in my area, and they cannot see their land for six months of the year with floods. Work that was undertaken before by the Board of Works has now been forgotten. These people have to pay rates on land which they have to cross in boats, land which they cannot call their own.

As regards the operations of the Board of Works in this House, I should love to invite any taxpayer to view the balcony here, to come and see our most wonderful restaurant. We have Tintawn on the ceiling, while some poor taxpayers cannot put it on their floors. We do not know where we are in this country as far as expenditure on building up the image of Fianna Fáil is concerned. Not alone can some of our people not afford Tintawn, but they will have to settle for concrete floors in labourers' cottages, and if that floor deteriorates, they will wait for many a month before they will get anyone to repair it. We are just gone mad on expenditure, especially here in Dublin. Glasshouses are being taken over, and the people are being pushed out. This is the tendency all over the country. Fianna Fáil must have something to show the people when they come here. Of course, we are gullible enough ourselves to fall for that, too.

Now we come to free education. I do not know what is free about it. Any time anyone fills a pipe he is paying for it; everytime he steps into a bus or goes into a shop he is paying for it. Free education is a misnomer. We are paying through the nose for it. As regards free transport, as a woman said the other day in my part of the country: "The devil thank them for giving us free transport, for closing down our schools and making our children travel seven or eight miles to school: free transport, how are you."

On the Department of External Affairs, it is so seldom we see the Minister, Deputy Aiken, in the House that we are inclined to ask: "Who is that gentleman who graces the House now and then?" He reminds me of "The Fugitive" he is always packing his bags. We can do without his going over there and making an enemy of the greatest friend this country has, America. Is it because he is doting that they are keeping him out of the country? Is it because he flew back at one stage and made it a bit hot for the Party when the Taoiseach race was on, that they say it is best to keep this fellow out of the way, to send him to Vietnam or somewhere else? It is about time we put someone there with another view on how to handle our international affairs.

I wish to refer to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. I would remind the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries who made a big promise in my area that he is not fooling the fishermen there. Many years ago he promised a fishery harbour to the people of my town and to the men who have to face the Atlantic in their trawlers to catch fish. I do not think it has even passed the planning stage yet. You can go to the Aran Islands where Irish is spoken, where people got Irish from the cradle; they are not the "mise le meas" brigade either. They were promised the finest pier that was to be seen in the West. Ten years ago we heard that promise here. My fellow Deputy jumped on the bandwagon and has been pressing about it for the past year or two. He was so sure we were going to get this that he promised them that two days after the election the pier in Kilronan would be starting on 1st July. Thank God he is not talking to idiots when he is talking to the people of Aran. No one is going to be fooled by these promises. Of course, July has come and gone.

Now we have the Department of Defence. We are proud of the efforts of our Irish soldiers in peace-keeping operations throughout the world; but let us look at things at home. We did a lot of marching last year for the 50th anniversary of 1916 and there was a lot of saluting of Fianna Fáil people all over the country. I know that many of them had damn all to do with 1916. We know there were some people from this side of the House missing off the platform, who were not invited, and who were deeper in this than ever Fianna Fáil were. Instead of celebrating, we should be commemorating. Of course, the important thing is to keep that image of Fianna Fáil up there, but it is costing quite a lot. This Department has played a great part in doing so.

Nearer home, we have the question of Gaeltarra Éireann. I tabled a question asking about the wages paid in the Gaeltarra Éireann factory in my area. I could not get that from the Minister. I had the wages and I know what is happening there, but I wanted the House to know. Of course, it is better to sweep these things under the carpet, because it would not help Fianna Fáil. All they are going to do for the Gaeltacht! That Deputy who has just gone out is satisfied. If he came down to my area, I could point out to him a few things that could be done.

We have the Department of Finance. We were told that devaluation was not going to make any difference to us, but the following day we heard air fares had gone up. We are going to price out the tourists before they come in. There is hardly a day but some excuse is given. Devaluation has been the cause of an increase in the cost of living. I asked a question today about the quality and price of coal to which the Minister gave a very evasive reply. He said he was not responsible for the cost of coal. Can the people have anything dumped on them, even though the price has gone up? We were asked to burn everything English but their coal, and we were foolish enough to swallow that.

Then we have the famous Department of Posts and Telegraphs. If you want a phone, you have to pay about six years in advance. In other words, if there is a change of Government, the crowd that went ahead have collected off these people. They have cashed in on the situation. Even after paying, you have to queue up for a long time. Then they come in with their figures of all the phones going in. It would be very interesting to find out what has been paid by these unfortunate people.

We come now to the Department of Transport and Power. I do not know if one can make much comment on that. If you ask the Minister a question, he will tell you he has no function. It is about time we abolished that portfolio. But he has responsibility for the holdup in rural electrification. We talk about tourism. We are building a bunch of luxury hotels for a crowd of gentlemen, whose background I would like to know, who will cash in on it. These are the kind of things I should like the Minister for Transport and Power, who has no function, to tell us about.

Like the previous speaker, I feel the social welfare system is not giving an incentive to increased production. It is about time we took another look at this Department to see what can be done to improve things.

In conclusion, I want to refer again to the Minister for Finance telling us we were going to benefit by devaluation and that this would be a cheap country for tourists. From the day he made this announcement we have had this and that increase. Eventually, we will have priced ourselves out of the tourist market. I could comment on other Departments but I will let other Deputies take up from here.

Will you let us know when you are lecturing here again?

Oh, are you there?

The Taoiseach this morning reviewed the situation on what might be termed a rather low key. He might well have reviewed it on an even lower key. I do not think anyone will claim that some growth in the economy has not taken place, but this growth must be considered to some extent artificial. It follows a period of deflation imposed by the same Government, a period of deflation which inflicted many hardships on the less well-off sections of the community. Little more than 18 months ago, this period of deflation compelled thousands of Irish workers, seeking a legitimate adjustment in their wage rates and improvement in their fringe benefits to come out on the streets in strike action to try to obtain some amelioration of their condition. Little more than 18 months ago, we had the famous introduction, inspired by the whole financial and economic approach of the Government, of what they called the guidelines. It is true that this document was published by the Labour Court but it represented the thinking of the Government. These guidelines laid down certain conditions under which workers might reasonably hope to secure improvements. Many thousands of workers are still suffering from the effects of that statement at that time. The statement at that time was that a certain level of increases in wages might be justified, but not if taken in conjunction with claims for the introduction of schemes of service pay, claims for the introduction of shorter working hours, claims for the introduction of improved holidays, claims for the introduction or expansion of pension schemes, superannuation schemes, and so on.

One can hardly blame the Labour Court completely at that time for issuing that statement of policy, even though it did nothing whatsoever to contribute to industrial peace, but rather the reverse, having regard to the attitude of the Government in refusing even in respect of their own employees, and particularly the lower paid employees, to accord them some adjustment or some improvement in their conditions.

Deputies will remember the fairly cold spell when they came in here and discovered that the House was being heated by paraffin oil lamps and heaters. Looking back, I do not suppose it was any great hardship on Deputies to find the House heated by such antiquated means, having regard to the fact that there are thousands of our citizens who, for most of their lives, have no better means of providing heating for themselves in their own homes. That situation arose at that time and it was significant because it was brought about by a failure on the part of the Department of Finance, and its subsection, the Board of Works, to recognise and deal with the legitimate claims of people in State employment.

The picture was that over that period we had the deliberate operation of deflation, not devaluation, affecting those whose incomes were low. The affluent section of our society, persons who own or control industry, did not suffer very much, but the ordinary workers in the cities, the towns and the rural countryside suffered as a result of that policy. Deputies will remember the problems of those members of the community who had to rely on social welfare benefits or public assistance when that deflation was in operation because there was also a failure to provide adequate social welfare and social assistance benefits.

Deputies will also remember that in the 1966 Budget certain social welfare reliefs which were introduced were supported in this House but, through the Government's deliberate action, many of them did not come into operation until the following August, and some of them did not come into operation until January of this year. Individuals, families, old people, widows and orphans had to try to struggle on for months on the rates of social welfare and social assistance then in existence. That is one of the factors we have to bear in mind in considering at this stage whether there has been some growth in the economy. That is one of the factors we have to consider when the Taoiseach gets up in this House and gives us statistics showing that a growth in the economy has taken place.

That growth in the economy has not taken place on a continuing basis, but from a point of practical stagnation brought about by the action or lack of action of the Government. So, while that situation can be welcomed under one heading, at the same time it must be remembered that it is not a question of a continuing growth in the economy resulting from dynamic policies or programmes, but to a certain extent it has taken place as a result of circumstances over which this Taoiseach and this Government have no control whatsoever.

What does this growth in the economy mean so far as the ordinary workers in 1967 are concerned? In the period when there was a need not to deflate but to control prices in the interests of the community, we had the failure by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to take any adequate steps in that regard. This is not very much published at the moment but for some months past sections of our workers have been pressing legitimate claims for an improvement in their standard of living. Wages have been rising in a number of industries. The workers who have contributed in no small way to economic progress will be looking for their appropriate share. One wonders what the official approach of the Government will be in regard to salaries and wages. Will we have a repetition of the restrictions applied in 1957 and other periods? Will the Government attempt to impose restraints on workers seeking legitimate adjustment in wages and salaries and legitimate improvement in their conditions? We trust that the Government have learned a lesson from their earlier mistakes in this sphere.

Will the Taoiseach, when replying to the debate tomorrow, indicate the positive steps that will be taken to ease the lot of those not in a position to advance their own interests. The interest of people outside the House and of Deputies inside the House will be centred on the Taoiseach's reply. People want to know whether or not there are proposals to deal adequately with the problems that will arise from substantial increases in the cost of fuel and transport. From city, town and rural area complaints are coming from housewives that they are finding it impossible in present circumstances to cater adequately for their families. Will the Taoiseach indicate what plans there are to relieve the position of persons who rely on social welfare payments, public assistance, and so on? Urgent relief is required in that section of the community. I trust the Taoiseach will deal with that matter and not wait for some of the ornaments in the Cabinet to deal with it on Estimates or at Budget time some months from now.

That is very strange coming from Deputy Larkin. In the six years of Coalition Government old age pensioners got 5/- —tenpence a year. I was waiting for the Deputy to come to that. What have they gone up to in the last six years?

I never yet saw a Fianna Fáil Taoiseach, Minister or Parliamentary Secretary who, when questioned as to a period in respect of which he should be in a position to answer, did not ask what somebody did or did not do in the year 1901.

What did you do? You gave tenpence every year for six years. That is all you could do for the old age pensioners.

I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will have an opportunity of dealing with this matter tomorrow.

I will deal with that with the help of God.

I hope he will explain to this House that he is satisfied——

I was not satisfied and the people were not satisfied with tenpence a year and that they showed in 1956.

Very disorderly.

The Parliamentary Secretary is usually a kindly man. Will he come in tomorrow and explain how he, at Christmas 1967, as a very important person in the Government, is satisfied that the level of social welfare benefits and social assistance is sufficient to provide for our people a standard of living——

I did not say that. Half-a-crown was enough for them in the three years when you were in.

If the Parliamentary Secretary does that, I will be reasonably happy and so will many other Deputies.

You gave them a nice Christmas box—half-a-crown in three years.

In 1967, the Taoiseach is telling us about the growth in the economy.

With every growth in the economy old age pensioners got an increase.

The Parliamentary Secretary, as usual, wishes to avoid the issue. The Government have an obligation to cherish all the people, not to cherish the speculators——

Come back to the old age pensioners.

——not to cherish the ranchers, the big business people. They have been cherishing them long enough.

You cherish the old age pensioners.

The Government have an obligation to cherish the old age pensioners.

An obligation that you ran away from—gave them a miserable tenpence a year.

Fianna Fáil are a Government of very proud people. I do not know what they have to be proud of. They have been in office for many years and at the moment there are many thousands of senior citizens, widows and children who can be described as living at or near subsistence level. Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied with that situation when at the same time speculators have had a free ride, there being no real attempt on the part of the Government to control them? If he is happy with that situation, he represents what has been Fianna Fáil policy for many years—look after those who have and forget about those who have not and who need to be protected.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share