Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Apr 1968

Vol. 234 No. 3

Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 9—General (Resumed).

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

When I reported progress last evening, I was taking the opportunity to comment on the reference by the Minister in his Budget Statement to there being some doubt as to whether productivity schemes as such were in fact given effect to as far as the workers covered by them were concerned. I expressed the view that this was an unfair reflection on the workers in the industrial, commercial and agricultural fields, and asked if in many cases they had been properly consulted and whether a need for increased productivity had been explained, co-operation had been sought and the necessary consultations had taken place. I want to say that the Minister—and I am glad the Taoiseach is here this morning—also intimated that an examination has been taking place in the public sector, the public service and the Civil Service, on the question of rationalisation of productivity, et cetera.

An ideal place to start in this regard is in Government circles. If the Irish people and those who have to earn their living by working, whether in factory, in field, in mine or in office, are expected to contribute by increased efforts towards rationalisation and increased productivity, the Taoiseach and his Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries should set the example.

I do not propose to dwell on this item very long. There may be another opportunity, but there is no doubt whatsoever that there are redundant Ministers in this Government. I do not say that in a personal way or in personal criticism of individuals but I do take the opportunity at this particular time, when the Minister for Finance takes the liberty of querying the contributions of workers to the tremendous increase in productivity that has taken place over the years, of asking that the searchlight be placed, first of all, on the Government and on operations at ministerial level. I do not think there is any longer a case for having a separate Minister for External Affairs and a separate Minister for Defence.

That does not arise on the Financial Resolution.

I am talking about productivity, and if the Minister for Finance can talk about productivity, I as an elected representative can query the Cabinet Ministry of this country.

That would arise on another occasion.

There are other Departments to the top of which the searchlight of investigation might be directed. Perhaps the Minister for Finance who is rather expert on this field might think in terms of engaging a firm of consultants to have a look at the waste of time by many Ministers engaged in making announcements at dinners, at galas and at Party meetings instead of making such pronouncements in this House so that Deputies can query what they are doing.

That relates to productivity.

When it comes to productivity, there is a great difference between the services rendered by many members of the Government to the political Party which put them in and their services to the nation as a whole. I have dealt with that point but I want to underline again that the place to start giving examples in productivity is at the top, especially having regard to the problems that have arisen in many sectors of the economy. Nobody in his sane senses could think of a need now for a Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. The Department could run themselves.

That does not arise on the Financial Motions. We are discussing the Budget.

If you give me an opportunity I will demonstrate how this type of thing arises. If the Minister for Finance can talk about productivity in industry—workers, supervisors and management—surely a Deputy speaking in this House is entitled to question the Government's own productivity? Last evening I mentioned that in many cases where schemes of productivity have been introduced, net total labour forces employed in such industries have been reduced considerably and there are many important industries in which the labour force is no more than two-thirds of what it was five or six years ago though output has been maintained, if not increased. Therefore, it would be a failure on the part of the Government if they did not proceed to give a good example and, in cases where there are redundant Departments, to say: "We will examine the situation with a view to reducing possibly the number of Parliamentary Secretaries". In recent years, however, instead of a reduction, instead of Ministers taking a greater share of the burden, they have been spreading it over a greater number of people. I wish, therefore, as far as the Minister and the Taoiseach are concerned, to point out that the time has come for them to do a bit of homework in this matter.

We in the Labour Party in the Division Lobbies have supported extra taxes when they were designed to provide some additional assistance for those covered by our social welfare system. Nobody likes to vote for extra taxation but we realise that if there are £4 million or £5 million to be spent additionally to help the old aged, the widows and the orphans, we must be prepared to take responsible action and we have always been prepared to justify that action. The Minister has done a little more this year than previously under this heading in his proposal to improve the rates of assistance by 7/6d a week. It is a comparative improvement having regard to the situation this year as against 1967, 1966 or any other accounting period, but we must remember that the total revenue, expenditure and income, also has increased considerably and that, therefore, the percentage adjustment is not as high as at first it would appear. However, an important element is that the people concerned will realise something is being done.

On the other hand, I must again query the Minister's approach to this matter. He has told us that the amount of extra benefits is more than would be justified by reason of the movement in the price index since November, 1966. The Budget in 1966 was in May, and even by that month in that year, many sections of the community had obtained increases in wages and salaries. But the social assistance section of the community at that stage, who more than anybody else were affected by increases of all kinds in the cost of living, had to suffer on until August, three months after the increases had been voted. Three months is a long period in the life of a person relying on an income of £2 12s 6d a week.

This year, again, the same position is allowed to occur. The 7/6d increase in assistance, though it was voted on Tuesday, will not be paid until August. May, June and July will have passed before they get it. The Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach are aware that adjustments in wage rates took place towards the end of 1967 and that many adjustments have been negotiated this year. It means again that, though other sections of the community will have had adjustments, the worst off class in the community have to wait until August. I understand there are problems in this connection but surely in the case of non-contributory old age pensioners and widows, it should be possible to overstamp the paying orders? If the country were faced with an emergency, things could be done in a hurry. This, also, could be done in more promptly—by 1st May at the latest—if the Government had the will and the desire. I do not think the possibility of doing this has been fully investigated though we have discussed this matter year after year without coming up with an answer.

That would seem to be a matter of administration, and administration does not arise on the Budget.

I have no desire to tell the Minister for Local Government, the Minister for Health or the Minister for Social Welfare how to do their jobs but this is a matter introduced by the Minister for Finance, and I am pointing out to him that these additional payments are welcomed by the people to whom they will be paid and I am pointing out their problems because of the delay in making the payment. The Budget of 1966-67 helped to result in an increase in the cost of living. The figure for next month will no doubt be up. As the Minister is well aware, negotiations for increases in wage rates for workers throughout the country have been based on the sure and certain expectation that the increase in the cost of living will continue. Will this not continue in respect of old age pensioners, widows and blind people, in respect of those with families and in respect of orphans? If it will continue, surely it is a major job to see what additional resources and help can be given to them?

We know also that it is proposed to adjust the level of unemployment benefits. The situation here is a little different because, in fact, according to the contribution made by the Minister, the State will not be required to pay any greater share, to make any greater contribution towards those increases in unemployment benefit. Again there is the problem here that this increase, such as it will be, will apply only from January of 1969.

I should like to bring one matter to the attention of the Minister. I hope he will deal with the situation when he is replying to the debate because it appears we are progressing towards a very awkward situation. A single male worker at the present time, employed in an area where the payment is low, £9 to £10 per week, although he gets £10 per week has to contribute 9/- by way of an insurance stamp. Nine shillings represents a very high percentage of his normal week's wages. The employer makes a contribution of only 11/1d. This is completely out of line with the situation both in Britain and on the Continent, and it certainly has a severe effect on the worker concerned. Of course in the sur-tax class the question of a reduction of 9/- for any purpose would not mean anything, but if one is trying to provide clothing, shelter, fares, et cetera out of £10, it is another matter. If one takes a single woman earning around £7 a week, in her case the insurance stamp is 7/11d and the employer pays a little higher —10/2d—but again this figure can result in serious economic difficulties because at that level of earning every single shilling is of value.

The Minister may tell us that there are workers who earn more than £9 and £9 10s. There are, but if the level of wage rates paid in private industry were to equate with the level paid in public employment by the State to the manual group, the average wage rates in private industry would be £9 or £9 10s because there is one thing this Government have failed to do. They have failed to accept the responsibility for securing that there is a reasonable level of wage rates paid to the State's own servants in the various Departments. I fail to understand why even the Deputies of Fianna Fáil who come from the many constituencies and the Deputies of Fine Gael do not join with us Deputies of the Labour Party and demand that this Government think in terms of treating its own servants in a reasonable manner in regard to the question of the level of wage rates in the lower echelon. They are the last to be adjusted and in many cases they are paid the lowest.

I am not criticising the levels paid to the various upper ranks of public employment, although in some cases they are less than what is being paid in private employment, but the Government have a general responsibility for the population. They have a general responsibility to contribute to a situation whereby workers who are prepared to work in any job shall at least receive a reasonable rate of remuneration. On previous occasions we have had, by way of question and adjournment debate, to go down through the various Departments. If one looks through the figures at the present time and see the rates paid to porters, messenger boys, labourers in the Department of Lands and Forestry, et cetera we should collectively be ashamed to show ourselves in public. That applies particularly to the Ministers who are so fond of making glib speeches at dinners everywhere. Yet when they come away from those dinners and social gatherings and back to their Departments, if they look at files they will find that they have men working under them for £9 a week. It is quite clear in relation to this question of unemployment insurance that it is time the Minister and the Government had another look at the proportion the employers and the workers in industry have to pay. A more realistic situation should be brought about whereby employers will be required to pay a higher proportion.

The Minister said he was giving reliefs to certain people. This is possibly one of the reasons why Deputy Corish in his opening remarks spoke about a cosy Budget. It was cosy for some people. It was fairly cosy for the Minister who did a good job in setting out where he was giving relief and where he might think of giving relief. It is particularly cosy for the payers of sur-tax. They got a nice slice last year, £120,000, and more than that this year. If the Minister had a couple of hundred thousand pounds to play about with, I am quite sure there are many other places where that money could be spent much more effectively.

People with up to £4,000, if I am correct, will not have to pay anything. That is a nice round figure. There are many thousands of workers who are expected to live and rear families on one-eighth of that amount. They have to exist on £500. If one thing is needed in regard to this question of the annual housekeeping, it is that concentration should be on providing relief and assistance where it is needed.

I am quite prepared to accept that a man who has £4,000 could possibly do with £5,000 and a man with £10,000 could do with £15,000. We know this goes on. The man who earns £3,000, £4,000 or £5,000 may develop the need to live on that amount or £5,000 beyond it, but in an economy where we have 50,000 unemployed and thousands of people who are earning not more than £10 a week, then we have to look at the matter from another angle. I understand the Minister was possibly faced on this particular occasion with the difficulty of giving any relief to the ordinary income tax payer. We were told that the cost would be very heavy. Let me go back to the position of the single man and the single girl who is working and who on 1st January will get some increase, if they are idle, in unemployment insurance and who have to pay 9/- and 7/11 per week in insurance stamps to cover those increases. Will those people be faced with a further increase in the cost of the insurance stamps or will the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Social Welfare in the meantime take steps to remedy the situation?

Take the position in relation to income tax. Those single people have an allowance of £6 a week and they pay income tax on the excess. The Minister said it was not possible to raise that allowance to even £6 10s. Maybe it would be costly but even so, it is possible to give relief to the people in the £4,000 bracket.

It is all right to talk about incentives and relief to sur-tax payers but there is no incentive given to the ordinary workers who make this economy go. If anybody thinks for one minute that the economy of this country, being a private enterprise economy, will run without the workers, their contribution and efforts, particularly the people who are being paid around £10 a week or so, the situation should be looked at again. Of course, the Government may be satisfied, instead of trying to maintain the population or aiming to have a population increase, to encourage an increased incidence of emigration so that there will be fewer people in this category.

While we understand the Minister will possibly have to have another look at the situation and the actual cost, I want to comment that it is the inequality of treatment as between those who have and those who need which we should be concerned about. It is demonstrated here again. When I speak of those who need, I am not talking about those who are on social insurance and social assistance—I know the present old age pension for widows is 65/- a week—but the workers who are on a low wage. This pension represents about one-third of the wage rates of the low paid workers. Take a man of 70 years of age who qualifies for an old age pension. This man is a human being and I do not think that because he qualified at this particular age for a pension, he can exist in any degree of comfort at all on one-third the income of a low paid worker. The low paid worker may be a single person but this pension represents only one-third of his income.

It appears to me that, even though the needs of human beings as they get older change somewhat and possibly they do not require the same expenditure in certain directions, in other directions they may require more. Certainly if they live at home they will not need more heat. They may not require the same type of food but the very type of food they may require to maintain them in reasonable health may be more expensive than that required by a young man. Yet, at this point in time, we are thinking in terms of the old age pension at about one-third of the wages of a low paid worker. Could you imagine the percentage that is when you compare it with the income of workers who are earning only £11, £12, £13 or £14 a week. What is that percentage? It is not 33? per cent; it is only 25 per cent or less. While it has been accepted that the Minister is making an effort, our thinking in this regard needs to change. The situation should be looked at again.

The Minister has on this occasion, in effect, decided to implement a recommendation of the Commission on Income Taxation, which sat some six years ago, in respect of wiping out Schedule A tax on private residences. I think he has gone farther than the Commission recommended because I understand the Commission recommended the tax should be abolished in respect of residences of £50 valuation or so, and if I have my facts right the Minister has abolished the tax altogether.

The abolition of Schedule A tax on the ordinary modest house that the normal working members of the community can afford has been welcomed. This has been advocated for many years by the Labour Party on the ground that requiring a person who owns a small house to treat it as income for income tax purposes is inequitable. A house is a tremendously valuable addition to a family and if one is buying a house through an insurance scheme or a local authority loan, one qualifies for tax remissions and these have been very useful. But at the point at which you own the house, you are asked to pay tax on something that involved continuous expenditure for you. The theory may have been that it was a capital investment but such people entering into the commitment of buying a house do not do so for capital investment purposes but because they want a home and security for their wives and children. Yet Schedule A tax was imposed on this type of dwelling. Anybody who owns an ordinary house knows that to maintain it in reasonable condition involves fairly considerable expenditure each year. The Minister is to be congratulated in his decision to abolish this tax.

Whether the same applies in the case of residences with a PLV of £50 or over is another matter. I do not think I can agree with that because if you can afford a house of PLV £50 or more, you can pay Schedule A tax without very much difficulty.

The Minister has also decided to abolish Schedule B tax on the occupation of land. I understand this decision will be generally very welcome but one wonders whether the Minister should at the same time think in terms of applying Schedule D tax in substitution. It is not unreasonable to suggest, even in circumstances where the farming community are making a strong case for revaluation of their incomes, that there are very few farmers who are not receiving more than £6 per week. Workers in industry who receive £6 a week must pay income tax. We should all accept the principle that taxpayers, whether urban or rural, should be treated with equality and it seems rather strange that if a young man working in a factory, for a local authority down in the sewers of the city, in the furnace department of the gas works, in places where he is exposed to risk and a certain amount of hardship, or working in a textile mill where the noise of the machinery grates on his ear every hour he is at work, earns £6 per week, he must pay income tax. The same applies to the man working down a mine. Surely if that is right, it would be proper at least to think in terms of extending equality of treatment outside the industrial sector.

The Minister should look into that situation by taking the case of the holding of valuation £50 or upwards and trying to get a contribution from a wider section of the community in the same way as he is getting it from some sections. I do not wish to denigrate the contribution made by those in agriculture as against that of those in industry because I think they are complementary. Clearly the number in industry has been growing and growing. That must be so in view of the drift from agriculture over the years. I suggest the Minister should examine that situation.

I think the Minister was a bit remiss in not taking some positive action in this Budget in regard to family allowances. He did say that there was a proportion of people who got family allowances and whose paying orders were cancelled because they were out of date when returned. Unless a family has a very high income, I doubt if that would be the case in the normal way and I should like the Minister to give us some specific information. It would be unlike people who are capable of looking after their own financial affairs to allow this to happen, because in normal circumstances such people usually have a method of automatically dealing with any receipts, whether dividend cheques, salary cheques or allowances or anything else by putting them into the bank. Children's allowances, if properly directed, can be, and have been, of tremendous value to families in the lower income group.

It is costly, and we in this House are reluctant to introduce a direct means test, but if the Minister in his efforts to assist the social assistance section, even if the figure were fairly substantial, would give an allowance in respect of the third and subsequent children of families where no Schedule E tax was payable, he would directly assist the lower income group. There would be no need to do any involved calculations, because the fact that a man with a family does not pay income tax in the lower income group is an indication that the income of the family is not sufficient to justify such payment. Such an allowance would be of direct benefit to the families in those circumstances. The Minister would have to devise some formula in relation to those not covered by income tax, but it is about time he looked at that responsibility.

I do not propose to deal with the NIEC report on economic development or the Third Programme, because comments have been made ad nauseam in that regard inside this House and outside it. Anyway we are dealing now with the housekeeping situation, so to speak, for the next 12 months. I have queried the way in which the Minister has distributed benefits. In relation to the Capital Budget, we in this House welcome any efforts designed to expand employment, even through increased incentives to industrialists to establish new companies and through increased assistance by way of adaptation grants, et cetera. At the same time, it is incumbent on the Government to have somewhat better control over the situation in which outside companies establishing industries here may just disappear overnight and leave those who worked hard in the industry to the mercies of the unemployment market.

I notice also under the Capital Budget that there is unlikely to be any substantial increase in the numbers of houses under construction in the coming year. As I had said yesterday, with the best will in the world, local authorities, both the elected members and the administrative officers, namely, the city and county managers, can go only as far as they are permitted by the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Finance. Many Deputies have had the sore experience of finding as members of the local authorities that in trying to plan in conjunction with the official staffs, for greater activity in house building, the officers have already been advised of the level of assistance from Central Fund sources for the coming year, which in many cases meant they had to cut back programmes.

I must express my disappointment as a Deputy that the Minister, while he again tells us about the investigation into the financing of health services, has not indicated that there will be one additional penny made available to relieve the other section of the tax-paying community, the ratepayers, particularly in the urban areas, whose contribution to the health services has been growing substantially. I am not so naive as to think that if there is a transfer from local authority to Central Fund financing the service will not have to be paid for. What is inequitable is that the charges for improved health services are, because of the system of local taxation, being levelled on people of low income with no opportunity of relief because they are able to demonstrate they have only £6 a week and have a tax-free certificate. If they are the occupants of a local authority house or if they are purchasing a house themselves, irrespective of their income, they are required to pay the local taxation.

In many parts of our urban community, particularly in the city of Dublin, there is a situation wherein individuals and families who qualify for social welfare because of lack of means, or who obtain unemployment benefit, have to find the money to pay the rates. This is a field wherein the Minister tells us that an examination is under way. There are many examinations under way but citizens in these categories are not concerned with examinations being under way; they are concerned that something should be done. This examination of the financing of the health services has been going on, and on, and on.

The Budget does bring some relief and in so far as it does bring relief to those on social assistance, the provisions are welcome. The Minister did talk about an investigation into the continental system of taxation, the added value tax. Of course, indirect taxation is the great love of this Government. By and large, indirect taxation hits the ordinary working population more than any other section. The proportion of indirect taxation here is much higher than in many other European countries. We do not know what the examination referred to by the Minister will show but I sincerely hope that the Minister, whatever system he is examining, will bear in mind that there is one sound principle to apply in regard to taxation, that is, that the burden should be fitted to the shoulders that can bear it and that relief should be given to those who are in need.

If the Minister or the Taoiseach follows a general principle like that, nobody will quarrel with a particular system. This is of vital importance and it is of particular importance in a community which supports a Government and a Dáil who are supposed to honour the Proclamation which said that the children of the nation should be cherished equally. Those who are in a position to look after themselves do not need to be cherished but those who are in receipt of a low income, the sick, the unemployed, the aged, the widows and the orphans, are the people who need to be cherished. Any system of taxation should bear that in mind.

I will conclude by saying that this is a cosy Budget, cosy for some people, and I want to ask the Minister for Finance, through the Taoiseach, (a) whether an immediate examination will be made of the possibility of paying the benefits, for which we are gladly prepared to impose taxation, to social welfare recipients earlier than 1st August, and (b) will he investigate the situation of the relative payment from workers and employers under the social welfare code?

Even though the time since this debate started has been of short duration, the speeches from the Opposition benches have been markedly diffuse and inept as far as criticism of the Budget is concerned. In the circumstances, it is possible to have sympathy with Opposition Deputies for even though they cannot say it readily, they recognise the Budget as a good one, one that can stand up to any reasonable criticism, a Budget which is suited to our needs of the present and suited also to our hopes for the future. Perhaps it is because its introduction coincided with the publication of the review of the Second Programme for Economic Expansion that the Fine Gael attack on the Budget has been, indeed, as we anticipated it would be, directed mainly towards the review of the Second Programme for Economic Expansion.

First of all, in relation to the Budget itself, I should like to assert that the Budget is only one instrument, even though a very important one, of effecting Government policy. As well as that, no single Budget in any one Government's term of office can be taken in isolation; it must be taken as part of a pattern, a pattern of successive Budgets designed to give effect to the Government's policy and to carry out its programme. And in relation to a particular year, the Budget is not the only means whereby the Government make incentives available for economic growth, agricultural and industrial, and for social advance.

In this regard I should like to take agriculture as an example. It has been suggested that only something in excess of £1 million has been specifically provided by way of agricultural aids in the Budget. The House is aware that a special extra provision of almost £5 million was made available in last year's Budget but it became necessary during the course of the year to pass a Supplementary Estimate providing for an extra £5½ million. This year's Estimate for Agriculture provides £11.5 million more than was provided in last year's Estimate and, as I said, new measures announced by the Minister for Agriculture will account for extra expenditure of £1.2 million in the current year and £1.5 million in a full year. On top of that, the extra expenditure which will be required this year for the agricultural grant, that is, the grant in relief of rates on agricultural land, in further implementation of our decision last year, will be £1.7 million and the extra expenditure on milk support will be a further £1.7 million.

These are all things the Budget has to take account of in any particular year and it is not simply what might be called a topping-up operation, the topping-up incentives that are provided for in the Budget, which must be what the Budget has to take account of by way of expenditure. I will return later to agriculture and I mention it now only as an indication of the fallacy that surrounds the argument that the Budget has done nothing for agriculture.

I shall show later that there is plenty of evidence in this Budget to establish that the Budget also does much for industry but, first of all, I want to deal with the Fine Gael charges of economic stagnation and criticism of the Second Programme for Economic Expansion, and its alleged failure, and I say "alleged failure" very deliberately. Listening to their comments, one would imagine that these Programmes, which the Government have been pursuing since 1958, have achieved nothing and have, indeed, ended in failure.

Let us examine what these programmes are and on what they are based. They are based on certain assumptions, assumptions of economic activity within and outside the country, assumptions that people will behave in a certain way, that economic trends will follow anticipated courses. If, of course, any of these assumptions are not borne out, then the end result must be that the targets on which these assumptions are based must, to some extent, go out of line and while in many cases, the assumptions are in relation to matters which are within our own control, in most cases, certainly as far as foreign economic change is concerned, they are outside our control. But talk of "the disastrous divergence between the target and the achievement" comes very badly from a Party who, when they had responsibility for office, brought our economy almost to the verge of collapse, indeed into the worst situation the country has ever known.

Hear, hear.

I should like the Fine Gael spokesmen to remember that they tried to ridicule this whole concept of economic programming and I do not think I can put it better than to use the words of the person who has been, perhaps, their outstanding economic spokesman, Senator Garret FitzGerald. Writing about four years ago, in the Irish Times of 26th February, 1964—that was about a year or a year and a half before he threw his cap into the Fine Gael ring—he said in relation to the Fine Gael attitude towards economic programming:

The Party that is so remote from the realities of the country's economic life as to be misled into rejecting the Second Programme as no more than "a pious hope" and "ballyhoo" will get short shrift from the people who have accepted the concept of economic programming as the most appropriate weapon in the State to raise our living standards and to establish a modern and competitive economy in this country.

That is what Mr. Garret FitzGerald, as he then was, now Senator Garret FitzGerald, thought of the Fine Gael attitude at that time towards programming. Now Fine Gael apparently want the people to believe that they were, and are, all for economic programming and, if they had responsibility for the nation's affairs, things would be very different. I agree they would be very different, very different in the way that we had sad experience of at the end of 1956 and early 1957.

Even if we had not achieved the targets that were set over these ten years and even if all our expectations were not realised, that is not to say that all our efforts ended in failure. The facts are, as I will show to support my contention, that it was, first of all, a Fianna Fáil Government which secured general public support for the concept of economic programming. It was a Fianna Fáil Government which has used this economic programming with, I suggest, great success as the most appropriate and effective weapon in our efforts to raise the living standards of our people and to establish here a modern and competitive economy. It has not been all a success story, I readily admit, but the successes are there to record, and I want now to give a few examples, to record them deliberately and accurately, so that between now and the resumption next week, the remaining Fine Gael speakers, who will no doubt continue to criticise the Second Programme and allege its failure, will have ample opportunity to examine my figures and, if they see anything wrong with them, to challenge them.

To go back to 1958, when the First Programme for Economic Expansion was introduced, gross national product at current market prices rose from £601.1 million to £1,146 million in 1967. That was an increase of £545 million or 91 per cent. Now that is at current prices. It might be a better yardstick to examine these figures in what are called "real terms" or at constant 1958 prices. In these terms, the rise was from £601.1 million to £833 million, a rise of £232 million— that is at the 1958 prices—or 39 per cent, which was equivalent to an annual average growth rate of 3.7 per cent. This rise in overall national output was made up of real growth equivalent to two per cent per annum in agriculture, forestry and fishing, 6.6 per cent in the industrial sector and 2.8 per cent in the other domestic sectors. These are significant figures. They are figures that I am deliberately taking from the statistics that have been supplied in order to facilitate the lethargic Fine Gael Deputies who may not want to go through them in detail; they will find them in my speech in a concise form for the purpose of any further criticism they may like to offer.

As far as consumption within the country is concerned—that is, the use of resources—again at 1958 prices, continuing at a constant level, consumption rose from £459.3 million in 1958 to £599 million in 1967; that is an increase of 30.4 per cent or three per cent per annum. In the same period total investment rose from £72.1 million to £163 million, a rise of 126 per cent or 9½ per cent per annum. Again, that is a significant indication and, I think, a satisfactory indication of an increase in the national wellbeing and the standard of living of our people over that period.

As far as our external markets are concerned, exports of goods and services rose by no less than 95 per cent in that period, that is, from £172.6 million to £337 million, which was equivalent to an annual growth rate of 7.7 per cent. Imports of goods and services rose from £206 million to £395 million in real terms, an increase of 92 per cent or 7.5 per cent per annum. There is a consistent pattern of growth over that ten year period, over that period during which, it is alleged, the Second Programme was a failure. During the First Programme, our balance of payments was virtually in equilibrium. In the Second Programme, we planned deliberately, in order to encourage expansion, to suffer or incur a deficit of about £16 million a year. There were, of course, fluctuations in this figure and we had in 1964 an excessive deficit, reducing gradually by reason of the Government measures taken then to last year's surplus. The external assets of the banking system and departmental funds rose by £90 million, from £205.8 million in December, 1958, to £295.1 million in December, 1967.

I have just referred to the undue adverse balance that we suffered in 1964. Fine Gael speakers, for the past two days, both inside and outside the House, have been referring glibly to the mistakes of 1964 and 1965. There were some mistakes but those mistakes were common, practically, to every democracy, not only in Europe, but in the world. The international situation, which was one of serious inflation, shortage of capital for development, affected us as it affected all these other countries. But, if there were mistakes, it took courage to stand up to them and it took ability to overcome their effects, and that is what we did. Again, I should like to remind the Opposition that we took courageous action, we took action based on foresight, in circumstances which were almost exactly similar to the circumstances the inter-Party Government faced at the end of 1956 and 1957. They ran away from their mistakes, if they were their own mistakes only. They ran away from a difficult international situation. We faced up to that, overcame that, and have now recovered better than any other country that suffered from the same economic difficulties as we faced then and I propose to demonstrate that —I hope very effectively.

It may have been a mistake to encourage the two-year wages pact or wages agreement that was effected between employers and workers in 1963-64. I think the concept was not a mistake because the intention was that employers would have a better opportunity of gauging their costs over a two-year period and, therefore, a better opportunity to sound out markets and to ensure that they would be able to fulfil orders at prices quoted. The mistakes, perhaps, arose in the implementation of that two-year pact. The mistakes arose in many ways. Unfortunately, some manufacturers, some traders, sought to get compensation too early on for the increases in wages that were paid. They having put up their prices in order to get premature compensation, the workers in certain industries sought, again, compensation to overcome these increases in prices. That did not happen in all cases. It happened only in a minority of cases but that was the kind of thing that upset this concept of the two-year agreement, the two years of industrial peace, two years of stability, so that workers on the one hand and employers on the other hand would have an opportunity of assessing their income and assessing their costs.

The NIEC have since reported that smaller increases covering shorter periods would, possibly, be better for the economy but, nevertheless, as I have said, that was one of the mistakes. If there are any other mistakes to which the Fine Gael speakers allude, I should like to have them mention them. I am only assuming that this is one of the mistakes to which they referred.

Notwithstanding the inflationary position that mistake produced, which, again, was not exclusive to this country but which was shared by almost every other country in the world, we were able by the measures we took to overcome the adverse effects, whether they were internally or externally caused—we were able to overcome these adverse effects more quickly and more effectively than almost any other country in the world.

Our growth rate in 1967 was 4¼ per cent, as indicated by the Minister in his Financial Statement, compared with one per cent in the United Kingdom and the average of two per cent in European countries, including OECD and EEC countries. There were some exceptions. Italy, Norway and the Netherlands were marginally over our growth rate of 4¼ per cent but all others were below ours. That is a clear indication that the policies we have been pursuing since then, within the framework of the Second Programme for Economic Expansion, have been successful, by and large. Over the whole period of ten years since 1958 we have achieved a growth rate of 3.7 per cent per annum on average. Ten years ago anybody who would have set that programme before him would be well satisfied if he attained that growth rate.

I come now to agricultural and industrial production. I want to give some figures which will indicate that we have not been suffering from stagnation, as has been alleged. The volume of gross agricultural output rose by 28 per cent or 2.8 per cent per annum over this period. The increase in net output was 18 per cent or 1.8 per cent per annum. The volume of output in manufacturing industry increased by 74 per cent or 6.4 per cent per annum. The volume of output of transportable goods industries rose by 77 per cent or 6.6 per cent per annum and the volume of output in all industries rose almost exactly the same, 77.5 per cent, or 6.6 per cent per annum.

It is true that when we come to overall employment there has been a decline and it has been suggested that this is the one marked feature where the Second Programme has failed. Deputy Cosgrave yesterday joined in the facile criticism of the failure of the Second Programme to bring about the planned increase in total employment. I will admit at once, of course, that total employment has, regrettably, not gone up since 1963 as fast as we would have liked. The causes, however, should be clearly recognised. This has happened, not because employment in industry and in services failed to rise. Indeed, between 1963 and 1967, the number of new jobs created outside of agriculture was 38,000. The reason total employment did not rise—in fact, it fell by 3,000—was that employment on the land dropped by the unexpectedly large figure of 61,000.

Now, I want to examine home what this employment on the land means. Is there anybody who seriously believes that those who left the land in postwar years or, indeed, at any time, lost what we describe as worthwhile gainful employment? Had the majority of those people who left the land been remunerated on a basis of being in full-time jobs which they gave up or lost for some reason? That was far from the case. The employment figure for agriculture is and always has been an artificial statistic. Those who left the land left it because they were not getting an acceptable income from it. There has been no fall in agricultural output as a result; on the contrary, it has risen. It is completely wrong to be relating employment statistics for agricultural employment as if they meant exactly the same as statistics in industrial employment. Sons and daughters, young and old, leave farms. They do not get weekly wages like persons in industry. Nevertheless, they count in this overall figure. It is alleged, because of their inclusion in this overall figure, that we have failed in our efforts to increase employment. We recognise that here, as in every other country, the number of those engaged in agricultural employment is declining. Our object is to produce and provide for them alternative employment in industry. We have a worthwhile record in the creation of new, reasonably paid and respectable jobs outside of agriculture. The total figure for employment is being constantly improved in its composition and we hope shortly to make progress again as we did in the years 1961 to 1963.

It must be remembered that since 1963 we have had a difficult international economic situation. We have also had the uncertainty of our accession to the EEC. The international situation will disappear and our accession to EEC will be only a matter of some years. Notwithstanding that situation and our accession to EEC, I believe our employment situation will be improved in the near future. Notwithstanding this small average decline in the number of people actually engaged in agriculture and industry, I should like to say, in regard to emigration, that there has been an overall increase in our population. Emigration since 1958, when it stood at 34,000, has been more than halved, being down to an estimated 15,000 in 1967. Total population showed a net rise of almost 40,000, that is, from 2.853 million in 1958 to 2.892 million in 1967.

Coming to wage rates, we can point to a steady and indeed substantial increase. Average weekly earnings in our industries have risen from 135/11d. in 1958 to 260/10d. in 1967—an increase of 91 per cent or 7.5 per cent per annum. On the agricultural side the minimum agricultural wage rates— these are the minimum rates which are not applicable in all parts of the country—grew by 75 per cent or 6.4 per cent per annum in the same period.

These facts and figures I have given should be sufficient to refute the assertion—the brazen assertion, I suggest —that the economic programmes of the Government have achieved nothing. On the contrary, they show that our economic programmes have achieved a very large measure of the kind of success they were designed to achieve, that was, to get the economy moving again after the years 1956 and 1957, to increase the national prosperity, to create a situation in which the less well-off sections of the community would get an ever-increasing share, to raise living standards generally and to establish a modern, competitive economy. This Budget is another substantial step forward on the road to further expansion and is another product of the sound and prudent management of the nation's affairs.

I said earlier I would deal more fully with agriculture and I should like to do so now. I want to indicate that over the years this Government have been generous to agriculture. This Budget in particular, having regard to what it had to cover, having regard to last year's and next year's expenditure, is also generous to agriculture. In regard to State expenditure on agriculture, the following figures should be borne in mind. If we go back to 1960-61, from then to 1967-68, current Government expenditure on agriculture more than trebled, that is, current expenditure apart from capital, from £14.1 million in 1960-61 to 53.6 million in 1967-68. This increase is equivalent to an average annual rate of 21 per cent and—this is a significant figure—compares with an average annual rate of 11.9 per cent for total Government current expenditure including agriculture and 10.5 per cent for Government current expenditure exclusive of agriculture. Therefore, if you exclude agriculture, the increased current expenditure on agriculture itself is double that of the current expenditure on every other service.

In that period from 1960-61 total State expenditure in relation to agriculture—and that includes all kinds of services, grants, university subventions for agricultural students and so on— rose from £26.3 million in 1960-61 to £68.9 million in 1967-68, representing an average annual rate of 14.8 per cent compared with a rate of 11.3 per cent per annum for the total State expenditure excluding agricultural expenditure. Again, when one takes all these things into account—forestry and everything else—one sees the increasing trend of support for these land activities compared with any other.

The President of the NFA said the other day that farmers' costs will rise by £9 million or the equivalent of an eight per cent increase during 1968. The crucial point here is what happens to farmers' incomes rather than farmers' costs. Farmers' incomes depend more on the level of output and prices than on the level of costs. The agricultural price index is likely to be higher on average in 1968 than in 1967. The value of output will therefore rise substantially, bringing with it an appreciable rise in family farm incomes, despite the higher costs of production. From 1963-67 farmers' incomes overall rose by 22.3 per cent, while in the same period, the numbers engaged in agriculture fell by 12.7 per cent, so that income per head of those on the land rose by 40.1 per cent. This compares with a rise of 35 per cent in the average weekly earnings of those engaged in the transportable goods industries in the same period. Nevertheless, we have to take into account the effect of the consumer price index, and if we deflate by the consumer price index, we find real income per head in agriculture rose by 17.5 per cent compared with 13.3 per cent for earnings per head in the transportable goods industry, again an indication that earnings in agriculture are increasing at a faster rate than earnings in industry. I am not suggesting that we have caught up yet, but it is an indication as I said before of the manner in which Government support is helping to increase agricultural income.

It is not true to say that incomes per head in agriculture in 1967 went up only because of the decline in numbers. Farmers' income is estimated by the Central Statistics Office to have risen by over nine per cent, while the number engaged in agriculture in 1967 fell by 3.3 per cent and that resulted, therefore, in incomes per head in agriculture increasing by nearly 13 per cent. Every year the farming community look to the Government to provide additional assistance towards increasing farm output and incomes. The main reason for this is that about 50 per cent of sales of farmers have to be disposed of one way or another on export markets. In these markets, as everyone knows, prices are artificially low because of deficiency payments by Governments or subventions in other forms. When we export to these markets, we have to export at an economic price, that is, at less than the support price given by the home Governments to their own farmers.

The Government have provided in one way or another measures of support for the main products of these farmers. Without these price support measures, farmers' incomes would be considerably lower than they are. In addition to price supports, Government assistance is also directed at reducing input costs, that is, the cost of production, by subsidising fertilisers, by giving rate reliefs, and by improving the structure and productive capacity of farms. In that connection it should be borne in mind that about one-third of the total working population of our country are engaged in agriculture. Therefore the remaining two-thirds cannot provide supports out of taxation on the same scale as many other Western European countries. If we take Denmark, our main competitor on the British market, we find that less than one-sixth of the working population is engaged in agriculture, and in Britain the proportion is as low as four per cent. Therefore, one can readily understand how much more easy it is for Britain and Denmark to provide price supports for agriculture at a higher level.

I have already mentioned that we have provided more for agriculture in the Estimates by £11.5 million than was provided last year. In recent years, we have been expanding and intensifying the various measures designed to alleviate the small farmers' problems in particular. Some of these measures, particularly those aimed at the structural improvements of farms, increasing the size of farms, the consolidation of fragmented holdings, are long-term and even at their best will become effective only gradually.

Measures to alleviate the problems of small farmers have assumed increasing prominence in the Government's programme. One difficulty in the whole question, of course, is that the classical instruments for agricultural policy, that is, an improvement in the level of farm prices, commodity subsidies, and so on, are less effective in the case of small farmers because of the limited scale of their operations. They are less effective than they are for large farmers. Against this background the Government have pursued various measures aimed specifically at small farmers and small farm areas, measures such as the recently introduced small farmers incentive bonus scheme, the derating of farms with valuations under £20, the improvement and expansion of the advisory services in the West in particular, the promotion and development of co-operatives, changes in the unemployment assistance code in so far as it refers to smallholders, the introduction of pilot areas, and measures such as those.

These measures are very valuable but we recognise that they do not provide the whole answer. It has become universally accepted in recent years by all countries faced with problems of this nature similar to our own that these problems can be met only through measures pertaining to the general economy and by a synchronisation of programmes of development aimed specifically at small farm areas offering an opportunity of work outside agriculture for as many small farmers as possible and in this way freeing more land for those who are operating uneconomic holdings or for those who choose to remain on the farms, farming little holdings, at the same time trying to get for them secondary work in order to maintain a viable rural community. It will continue to be Government policy to support small farmers and to devote special attention to the problems of small farmers and at the same time to encourage other lines of development such as industry and tourism.

Little has been said about social welfare and social expenditure in the course of this Budget debate. I think I should give some indication as to the extent of social spending in this country in recent years. Social expenditure over the broad categories has increased considerably, that is, on social welfare itself, education, health, and so on. In the past decade it has more than doubled. Expenditure under this heading totalled £47 million in 1958-59, and increased to almost £110 million in the current year. On social welfare itself provision has been made in every single Budget since the Fianna Fáil Government resumed in 1957. Social welfare increases have far exceeded the cost of living increases so the living standards of those in receipt of these benefits have substantially improved. The scope of the social welfare services in the period has also been expanded.

Deputy Cosgrave referred yesterday to the level of expenditure by our Governments in general on the social services, and said we compare very unfavourably with other European countries. We do not compare very unfavourably even though I will admit our expenditure as a percentage of our gross national product is somewhat less than most, but not all, European countries. Deputy Cosgrave related that expenditure to gross national product. But our expenditure in relation to the revenue of the country is higher than in other countries in Europe of which we have particulars.

In Ireland, the State contributes 67.7 per cent of the total cost of social services compared with the highest next—47.3 per cent in the United Kingdom and coming down to 9.7 per cent in the Netherlands. It is obvious that we are doing well, in fact very well, in comparison with other European countries in relation to the amount of money we pay out of State funds for social welfare services. I think the answer to the discrepancy here is that in these other countries the contribution from employer and worker is far higher than that expected from employer and worker in our country. It is quite obvious that, with such a high percentage—67.7—of State contribution, much more will be expected from employer and worker in this country if we are to conform to European standards.

On the subject of education, let me say that the Government's determination to give every child the highest level of education for which its natural talents will enable it to benefit is reflected in the very substantial increase in the current expenditure on education which totalled £13.5 million for 1958-59 as compared with the provision of £41.1 million for 1968-69. The annual capital expenditure has increased from £1½ million to an estimated £10¾ million in the past decade.

It was amusing to hear Deputy Cosgrave allege yesterday that we had been stealing some of Fine Gael's ideas. He included post-primary education, if you please, as one of the items of Fine Gael policy that Fianna Fáil had stolen. His memory must be very short or else he must have been reading the wrong document because in the South Kerry and Waterford by-elections, we announced our policy in relation to post-primary education while Fine Gael, on the eve of the poll, announced their programme which would cost some millions of pounds a year without imposing extra taxation: it was to be got out of buoyancy of revenue, if you please. It was amusing, therefore, to hear Deputy Cosgrave assert, so soon afterwards, that we stole Fine Gael's ideas on post-primary education.

The same trend is indicated in health services. The total Government expenditure was £8 million in 1958-59 while, for 1968-69, the provision is £23.5 million. These are some indications that, over the whole period of ten years, all the economic indicators, whether in GNP, standard reserves, output in agriculture, show a general and consistent increase in our wellbeing. This Budget is designed to continue that increase.

Before I come to the Capital Budget, I should like to refer to a criticism made by Deputy Corish about our attempt to develop our mineral resources. He says we fell down in developing our mineral resources. Since 1958-59, it is generally accepted—in any event, throughout the mining world —that we have the best mining legislation in the world, the mining legislation most conducive to encouraging effective and profitable mining operations within our country. Even in last year's Budget, the Minister for Finance announced that the profits of new mining enterprises would be exempt from taxation for 20 years, that is, for most, if not all, of the life of a mine— again a further inducement to encourage mining activities here.

Deputy M. O'Leary was critical that we did not develop our mines. Mining development is a matter of tremendous expertise. It requires a very long tradition in mining operations. We have tried it ourselves on occasions and have not been very successful. I think the Fine Gael Party will agree that, in fact, they have favoured, to a considerable extent, the participation of foreign mining expertise by way of tax concession, and so on, to exploit whatever resources we may have. There has been an increase in mining exploration. Just consider the following figures in that respect: the number of prospecting licences valid at the end of 1967 was 492 compared with 292 in 1966 and 56 in 1960. The figures, generally, for applications for licences show the same trend. The export figures in relation to metal ores and concentrates were £3.7 million in 1966 compared with £16,000 in 1965—again another indication that the Government's measures and the legislation and incentives are certainly producing a marked increase in our earnings from mining.

It is estimated that the value of exports from deposits already discovered will amount to over £10 million in value by 1970. I think a further expansion in this income may be expected from deposits likely to be discovered as a result of the present intensive exploration. Apart from the balance of payments aspect, the economy also benefited by direct injections from mining operations. The development at Tynagh, Gortdrum and Silvermines has cost over £13.5 million. Expenditure on current prospecting is estimated to be about £400,000. At the same time, royalties are steadily increasing. They were about £160,000 in 1967-68 as against £11,000 in 1955-56. In 1970-71, they are expected to be about £400,000. That is an indication that Deputy Corish's allegation that we are not adequately developing our mineral resources is not justified by the facts and the figures.

Yesterday, Deputy Cosgrave referred to the decision announced by the Minister for Finance about the decimalisation of our currency. While he appeared to agree with the decision, nevertheless he said we should not have made up our minds just now. That is the advantage of being in Opposition: you do not have to make up your mind. Being in Government, we had to make up our minds and to come down on the side of what we thought was best for the economy and for the country generally. The Government's decision to introduce the £, the new penny and the new halfpenny system was arrived at as democratically as we could do so. Informed public opinion was invited on the basis of the booklet issued by the Minister for Finance some time ago, a booklet in which the various possible systems were dealt with from the point of view of advantages and disadvantages. The Government came to the decision by reason of the tremendous volume of support for the £, the new penny and the new halfpenny system, because it was the one most generally acceptable and because, I suppose, it will be in operation in the United Kingdom and in the other part of our country. It was for these democratic and practical reasons that the Government came to this decision.

I should like to say just a word about the Capital Budget. If anybody suggests that the Capital Budget is not an expansionist one, then I can only conclude that he is just hostile to this Government. There have been outside comments suggesting that it has not been an expansionist Budget. The capital programme amounts to £136.4 million this year as against £111.4 million last year and as against £45.7 million in 1956-57. I do not think one can conclude anything but that it is a generally expansionist Budget. The increase in expenditure on buildings, building of houses, schools and hospitals is almost £6.4 million; that is an increase from £41.6 million to £48 million. That will give adequate scope for continued expansion in the building of houses, hospitals and schools and can give continued scope for the expansion of ancillary industries. In fact, of this Capital Budget one can say it had a compound capital content and that every £ spent will not only generate productive employment in itself but will generate productive employment far outside the Government capital field.

In schools for example, there is a 35 per cent increase, from £7.8 million to £10.7 million. That again, I suggest, is more than a compound capital exercise. In industry, there is an increase from £7.10 million to £15.8 million in the present year, which is also an increase of 35 per cent. In this connection, I should like to comment on what Deputy Cosgrave said yesterday, having charged the Minister for Industry and Commerce of not indicating what his capital programme is, and I should like to refer to the statement of one of the trade union representatives when an interview was being held on television on the night of the Budget. That representative of the trade union said he was disappointed that the Budget took no account of industrial expansion or that the Minister for Finance did not take the opportunity of indicating what measures the Government propose to introduce as a result of the A.D. Little Survey Report on the industrial programme.

This significant increase of 35 per cent is a clear indication of extended activity from capital input into our industrial programme. I have announced, and the Minister himself has announced over a number of weeks past, that the whole concept of our industrial programme has been under review by the Government in recent months. It has been an extensive operation, one that has been undertaken thoroughly and energetically by the Government, and as a consequence the Minister for Industry and Commerce will be bringing before the Dáil in the next couple of months legislative proposals involving a major overhaul of our existing industrial development system.

Therefore, not only on the current side but on the capital side this Budget cannot qualify for any other kind of definition than that it is a most expansionist Budget. Even though we are using £136 million in capital this year there will still be ample capital for the private sector. That is, I think, a tremendous tribute to the economic progress our country has made in the recent past, a tribute to the economic management of our affairs. We will not have to borrow particularly from any outside financial sources in order to make up our Capital Budget. We can get it from internal sources, from the savings of our own people, from our own banking resources and from our own Government resources. That is a clear indication that the policies we have been pursuing are successful policies, making this country as economically independent as we can and at the same time, ensuring that if we enter into whatever international organisation we can join, we will be able to do so as a fully competitive and viable economic nation.

We have annual Budgets and in his speech the Minister for Finance told us he proposed to procure moneys for current and capital expenditure during the year. Some of these Budgets are particularly noted for their parsimony and others for their generosity. This Budget will soon be forgotten. I remember when we had the halfpenny Budget, when the halfpenny was taken off the loaf. We had the turnover tax Budget and various others. I was rather amused some time ago when the Taoiseach was speaking and painting such a glowing picture to hear appreciative comments from Deputy P.J. Burke. I remember two years ago the Taoiseach as Minister for Finance opening his Budget speech by asking: "Where did our 1965 Budget go wrong?" He got an answer immediately from Deputy MacEntee who had introduced so many Budgets and who said that the Minister had given too much attention to soothsayers and astrologers. That was the answer he got from Deputy MacEntee who was responsible for introducing nine Budgets. Then we got the remedy from Deputy P.J. Burke who said we should go around with a box and collect 6d from everybody for six months and that this would get the State back on an even keel again.

Hear, hear.

The Taoiseach today was not so pessimistic as he was on that date and neither was he so optimistic. As I said in my opening remarks, this is a Budget that will readily be forgotten. Some of the things in it we appreciate and welcome. One thing we appreciate is the increase in Old IRA pensions. These pensioners are a fast disappearing group and they are the people whom we must thank for the existence of this State today. We are not overgenerous with them because they are dying fast. We could have been a little more generous than we have been.

We are glad to see an increase for the old age pensioners. God knows, they deserve it. The ordinary labourer is entitled to £6 tax free. The old age pensioner will get less than half that sum now even with the increase and he or she is expected to live on it. We are glad to see these social facilities given such as free transport on CIE buses, free television and radio licences. But there is one category of pensioner in this country we appear to have forgotten, that is, the resigned old RIC pensioner. A number of RIC men resigned during what is described as "the troubled period", in this country at the request and behest of the armed political movement and were guaranteed that they would receive not less a pension than if they had remained on in service. They appear to have been forgotten. They have not got the generous pension they were guaranteed by the State. They are denied free transport on CIE buses and I am afraid they will not get these free radio and television licences to which ordinary pensioners are entitled. Perhaps the Minister will look into it between now and the introduction of the Finance Bill. He might be able to do something for these unfortunate people who have had a meagre existence down through the years.

We should bear in mind the burden of rates and I see no relief in this respect in the Budget. Rates are mounting. In my county, the rates are £4 16s in the £. It is a very heavy burden and one of the items responsible for it is the health services. I remember when Dr. Ryan introduced the Health Act that he said the health services would cost not more than 2/-in the £.

Hear, hear.

Today the rates contribute 40/- in the £ towards the health services in my county and we are not receiving the medical treatment, medical assistance or general medical services we should normally expect for such a high expenditure. Let me give one slight example. In 1955, Donegal County Council paid a sum of £7,000 for medicines. This year our budget is £75,000 for free medicines for a falling population, now only 108,000 people. I take it that that £75,000 is for medicines for people in the lower income group. If we divide the number in the lower income group into the amount of money being spent, it would appear that some of them must be living on medicines.

As I have said, there is no effort in this Budget to reduce the burden of rates. Some years ago, at the behest of the then Minister for Local Government, a meeting was held in the west of Ireland representative of ratepayers and local authorities of what might be described as the poorer counties on the western seaboard for the purpose of examining this problem to see if rates could be reduced. We have heard nothing about that though we were promised at the time that there would be some reduction in rates, some attempt to ease the burden on the ratepayer.

The Taoiseach has explained to us that there is more money for housing this year. That may be so, but we have the greatest difficulty at the moment in getting sanction from the Department of Local Government for the building of houses. Contract documents are sent up and it may be 18 months or two years before we get sanction. The same applies to water supply schemes. On 14th September, 1965, Donegal County Council accepted a contract for water schemes for the towns of Glenties and Ardara. Application for sanction was sent up on the following day but the Minister has not yet given sanction. The two towns are without water in the meantime.

It may be that in the capital side of this Budget there is more money, but the money is not being spent. Whatever is happening to it, we are not getting it. That is the year by year position. I was very glad indeed to hear the Minister say in his Budget Statement that he proposes looking into the study Deputy O'Higgins made many years ago of an insurance system to finance the health services to relieve the burden on local rates. I am satisfied the scheme proposed by Deputy O'Higgins and Fine Gael is an operable one which could do a considerable amount of good and we look forward to its implementation if the Minister sees fit to do so.

However, I warn the House, as I have warned my local authority, that even if we get rid of the health service burden on the rates, another snowball is coming in the form of increased costs of planning. Planning costs are increasing year by year and are becoming most frustrating. In my county last year, we budgeted for a sum of £10,000 for town and county planning and this year it has gone up to £22,000 and I can foresee further increases year by year. It will snowball and snowball very quickly.

Apart from agriculture and fisheries, our main interest should be tourism. There is a great future here for tourism. This island can be a tourist island for the rest of Europe, and I say "Europe" purposely because it is to the western Atlantic seaboard that the European population will look. Are we doing sufficient to attract tourists to this State? I do not think so. We are still a little parochial in our outlook, even in these days of ecumenical spirit.

For instance, we could have had two great tourist attractions recently if we had been less sectional and more broadminded in our outlook. I know that a well-known boxing promoter was most anxious to get for Dublin a world championship. All he sought was permission to use the National Stadium but the Irish Amateur Boxing Association refused. We are still inclined to draw lines of distinction between amateurism and professionalism whereas even some of the most undemocratic in the world have forgotten them. Even in the British Lawn Tennis Association's championships at Wimbledon, amateurs and professionals are allowed to compete.

This narrow-mindedness on our part is a tragedy. I do not wish in any way to interfere with the private property of associations, but if their outlook could become broader, they could do a considerable amount of good for the State. It may also apply to other organisations and associations to which I shall not refer now. At any rate, we should have a much broader and more ecumenical outlook if we dropped these peculiar ideas of ours.

On the question of economies, I forgot to mention during my opening remarks that Dr. Ryan, when he was Minister for Finance, introducing his Budget in 1957, got a cheer from this House when he said he would set up a commission to look into the Civil Service to see if the numbers could be reduced.

Hear, hear.

He got a big cheer from all sides of the House when he said that. If we compare the figures then with the figures now, we find that the numerical strength of the Civil Service has gone up instead of being reduced. Some of the deadwood could be cut out but transfers to the West or elsewhere will not solve the problem. The Minister for Finance would be well advised to see if he could effect economies here by a reduction of personnel or otherwise.

A few moments ago, the Taoiseach criticised Deputy Cosgrave for his reference to the decimal currency system. He said it was all right for Deputy Cosgrave to say that we were a little premature in taking the decision. He went on to say that of course the Government had to take a decision on this matter and that they took a most democratic decision, that they consulted all the interested parties and as a result of the consultations, took this decision. Everybody knows we had no option but to follow the British system. We had no option but to follow in the steps of Britain and there is no use in codding ourselves that we consulted this and that body and then arrived at this decision. We had no option but to follow in the footsteps of Britain which we automatically did, and I certainly do not criticise the Minister or the Government in any way for their decision to adopt the decimal system, once Britain decided to do so.

It was only the other night on BBC I heard it announced during some discussion on the racial problem that 23,000 Irish emigrants arrived in Britain last year. The Minister told us that the number of emigrants was 15,000. Have we no way of finding out the true figure? Britain surely must have some check on the number of applicants for employment cards and some method of finding out the true number of emigrants who leave this State and arrive in Britain and there should not be such a discrepancy as between 15,000 and 23,000. I am satisfied that emigration from my particular part of the country has not ceased in any way, or perhaps I should say migration in preference to emigration.

Some times when we criticise the Minister for Finance for his Budget proposals we are hit with the answer: "What would you do had you the problem of drafting a Budget?" One of the things I certainly would do is to impose a tax, and a fairly substantial one, on bingo. Bingo is the greatest money drawer in the country at the moment. It has been run for all types of purposes. In my county a political Party, Fianna Fáil, has run a bingo session during Lent and made a considerable amount of money on it. More power to them—I am not criticising them for it—but I think that whether we run it under any guise whatsoever—it is supposed to be run only for charitable or philantropic purposes—we should tax it. In my home town of Dungloe, we have a bingo session once a week. Anything up to 1,000 people attend it and spend an average of 6/- to 8/- per night. I do not see why at least 1/- or 2/- of that should not go into the Exchequer. I think it would be a simple method. The participants in the game certainly would not miss it and it would be merely taking a little off the profit of the promoters. I see nothing wrong with it and I think the Minister should have looked at it. I think it is a source of revenue and one which could be very easily collected just as the dancehall tax or entertainment tax of any description is collected. I think a levy should be put on bingo. I am not criticising it at the moment for the purpose for which it is run but I am saying that this is a method whereby money could be procured for the Exchequer.

How much did the Deputy say they were spending per night?

Between 6/- and 8/- each.

They would not spend that in 1955 because they had not got it, in Donegal anyway.

This money was never procured in Donegal. This money is all coming from Britain and let the Deputy not think for one second that it is grandfather Minister for Finance who is doling it out. This is all money earned in Britain and I may tell a very short story about that. Quite recently some person met an old man in my part of the country and said to him: "How are things down here now, John?" He said: "They were never better. There is not an unemployed man in Glasgow." That is where we must depend on for our employment, Glasgow. However, no matter what the source of the money, I think some of it should be syphoned off by the Minister for Finance to relieve the burden on the taxpayer.

Again I am satisfied that cosmetics are a source of revenue. I feel that a substantial tax should be imposed on cosmetics. I am assured that the amount of money spent on cosmetics has increased by 100 per cent each year. These are luxuries. They could be taxed and I do not see why they should not be taxed. I know we may laugh at them but they are money-spinners and they are luxuries which, in my opinion, should be taxed. The proceeds would go a long way towards relieving the burden which is being imposed on those who can least bear it.

I wonder are we killing the goose by the imposition of excise duty on spirits? I do not care what any person says, the holy Marys or otherwise, I think that cheap spirits is an attraction to tourists in any country. I am satisfied about that. Be it the small luxury of cigarettes or a glass of whiskey, if they are cheaper than they are in one's home area, there is a natural inclination to seek them out. I believe that we would not lose any revenue in this State if we took a £1 off the bottle of whiskey. I believe we would sell twice as much, be it in export or in consumption by tourists here. It certainly is a gimmick that I think would pay off. I believe we should abolish the licensing laws with the exception of some hours on Sundays and have a 24-hour opening. I know that some members of the Labour Party may object. They are quite right in so far as the personnel are concerned but surely people could be found to man these premises? In my home village again, if I may use experience, we have a 23-hour licence the whole year round and I have never seen drunkenness. It is quite legitimate. They are entitled to 23 hours and I have never seen drunkenness. I have seen it in the neighbouring towns where the ordinary 12-hour licence exists. I believe if we had a 24-hour opening and if we slashed the duty on a bottle of whiskey, we would attract more tourists to this country and would become the mecca for tourists of western Europe. Some day I believe when it is too late, we will see the advantage of what I am saying. The Channel Islands have got this attraction. I know they have the advantage of some sun. The Isle of Man can take a few pennies less from the customer than Britain for his glass of whiskey. This is an attraction and something worth looking into. The experience of the Canary Islands or any of these places should be looked at and I think if we examine them, we possibly could find that we have a source of revenue that we have not tapped and a tourist attraction that we are not exploiting to the full.

I do not propose saying anything further on the Budget. There are certain things I welcome. I regret that there is no incentive in the Budget for further employment, particularly on the land. It is really depressing to think that agriculture, which is the principal industry of this State, is losing, as the Taoiseach pointed out a few moments ago, many thousands each year. No matter how we try, no matter how many Potez factories we set up and put people into, if we take them off the land, it is a bad policy because those factories may close down but we will always have the land. We will always be able to procure the market somewhere or other, economically or otherwise, for the produce of the land, the land and the sea. The Taoiseach pointed out to us that we are now able to float our own capital for capital development. If this is so, it is a pity we had to go to Poland and other places to develop our fishing industry. If we develop agriculture, fishing, tourism and any other industry which is dependent on the soil of this country for its raw materials, it will be much more beneficial to the State generally than any industry which we may set up for which we must depend on the importation of raw materials.

I would like to say a few words on some very important aspects of the Budget. We of the Labour Party of course welcome the social benefits and merely complain that they are not sufficient to meet the rapidly increasing cost-of-living. We feel they are just a sop. The Taoiseach has said that they can proudly boast of having the youngest Cabinet in Europe. Certainly what cannot be boasted of is the fact that they are unimaginative. Their Ministers are very much so.

This is one very glaring example of the fact that the Minister for Finance produces a Budget which is merely a housekeeper's Budget. There is nothing original in it: he has just followed the usual pattern. He is not a man of ability or a man who has actually given time into looking at ways of producing something original by way of a taxation system. There have been great boasts about this marked expansion and growth in the last year. This is easily explained after the strangulation of the economy which took place in 1966. We had such a strangulation of the economy with those drastic measures by the Government in 1965 and 1966 that naturally when things improved we would have a growth rate of no less than 4 per cent. I call that a rebound phenomenon and I do not think it will last.

The Taoiseach boasts of the fact that wages are going up. He actually boasted this morning that workers have quite good wages. I do not think it is a boast when we take into account the fact that Government workers, workers in different Departments, the lower-paid workers, are getting such poor wages. Hospital attendants get £7 3s 6d a week with gross wage rates of less than £9 a week for male adults. Those rates are spread over and applied in ten or more counties. Workers in the Department of Agriculture get £10 5s 0d a week and workers in the Department of Defence and the Office of Public Works get £9 a week. I do not know how we can talk about great wages for the lower-paid workers. Forestry workers get £8 16s 0d a week and we have over 4,000 of those. County council workers get £9 10s 0d a week, and that is for a family.

They have to travel three miles or more to work.

The Taoiseach boasts of high wages. We can all feel very proud of ourselves when in the Department of Transport and Power, we have people working on the national transport services earning from £9 14s 0d to £11 a week. That is not anything to boast about. The Taoiseach mentioned nothing about children's allowances. This was left aside because of the political Budget which was produced, a sop to everyone. I do not know whether the Taoiseach realises that children's allowances are a much sought-after benefit by families and they are much depended on by the lower class. Witness the queues outside the post offices on the day children's allowances are paid out.

Our figures are deplorable. In Belgium, with seven children, £11 19s 0d is paid out, while in Ireland with seven children, £1 16s 0d is paid. I do not think we can boast about our social welfare state if we are paying out allowances of £1 4s 0d for five children and Belgium pays £8 2s 0d. We have a long way to go to catch up with that rate. We certainly have a long way to go when we take into account the fact that children's allowances were last increased in 1963 and there has been a 24 per cent increase in the cost of living since then. It has actually been 23.9 per cent increase but we have had no increase whatsoever in children's allowances. As I say, this forms a very important part of the wages of the low-paid workers.

The Minister was very anxious and very willing to receive a deputation from a representative body of the privileged classes but he refused to receive a representative of a very important union, a major national body within the framework of our economy and social infra structure within this country because he thought this other privileged class were more deserving of attention. The Government with this last sop cannot boast that everything is great.

We talk about our health services and about the implementation of the proposals contained in the White Paper. Now we are talking about an investigation or examination of possible alternative means of financing the health services. I wonder now is this an effort to postpone the implementation of the proposals as outlined in the White Paper? It is three years since the White Paper was published. It was promised that within a year the proposals in it would be implemented. Almost three years have elapsed since then and there is an attempt being made to put it aside. The excuse is that there will be an examination of possible alternative means of financing the health services.

Despite what the Taoiseach says about more money being available for housing, the fact is that the amount applied to housing is not sufficient. You have only to witness the long waiting list for houses. The Taoiseach talks about having imaginative Ministers. Our flats are no credit to the so-called imaginative Minister for Local Government. Those skyscraper flats are like rabbit-hutches and will not produce a community with a sense of social responsibility. The tendency when you crowd people like that is to produce anti-social behaviour, aggressive behaviour towards the community. This is what will happen. It is another instance of an unimaginative Minister in charge of Local Government.

There has been much talk about the extent to which the economy has expanded but it is evident that unemployment has considerably increased. We have 57,000 unemployed, the highest figure for over ten years. This is nothing to be proud of. It was planned and promised that this figure would be reduced; instead it is going up. That is not a sign of success or achievement.

It has been mentioned, and I heard myself, that 23,500 people emigrated to Britain last year. The Taoiseach says it was 15,000. We have all sorts of figures. The Taoiseach said 15,000; the BBC said 23,500, and the Review of Progress of the Second Programme for Economic Expansion says that last year the figure was 17,000. It would be nice to get an accurate figure. This considerable emigration is no indication of successful management of the nation's affairs by the Government.

There has been much boasting about our balance of payments surplus of £10 million. It is unlikely to recur. We know that last year import prices fell but this year, because of devaluation, they will certainly rise. Growth in investment was down last year and there was a correspondingly low figure for capital imports. We also had a low increase in personal consumption. That will certainly rise. There was an increase of 5,000 in unemployment in the last year compared with the previous year. This is an important point—unit wage costs were lower last year while in Britain unit wage costs were higher. In our case they were lower last year than ever before.

We have no detailed figures for capital inflow which is a most important thing and could have serious effects on the country. We would like to know how much foreigners hold in Irish financial institutions and how much they could withdraw at very short notice. We are given no indication of that. Information on this subject should be made available as soon as possible.

A very disturbing feature last year was the increase in the import of goods which we could, and did, produce ourselves. This was due to lower tariffs under the Free Trade Agreement. These competing imports can be expected to increase. This shows the wisdom of the Labour Party's stand on the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement: we opposed it, and it will be increasingly evident as the years go by that what we said was right. We shall have more goods imported that we can produce ourselves, making the situation in this country very difficult.

We have become more and more dependent on the United Kingdom market. It is generally agreed that at present the economic situation in Britain is very bad and we are tied to this. Sufficient effort is not being made to seek alternative markets where we could benefit by devaluation. If disaster and ruin face Britain, we know from experience what to expect. They applied a 15 per cent levy on imported goods in 1964 and we are leaving ourselves more and more open to this great danger to our economy by virtue of our almost total dependence on the British market. What they did in 1964 they can do again, and as the NIEC said, there is little emphasis on the new opportunities that devaluation has created for sales to other countries. It will be necessary for us to keep a very close eye on economic trends in Britain. The Jenkins Budget will bring about marked depression of the economy in 1968——

Hear, hear.

——and we shall suffer from that because it will affect us adversely. The Government are not doing enough to get alternative markets. I wonder if our embassies abroad are playing any part in promoting our interests?

The Government have decided to follow the British system in decimalisation. We went to the trouble of appointing a commission to study the situation and report on what they thought most desirable when it was obvious to the Government that they would automatically follow the British decision. There was no purpose in having the commission set up here. The commission made recommendations, but despite that and despite the time spent, we must follow Britain. I am not saying that we should not follow Britain, but I wonder what was the purpose of the commission when it was obvious that whatever Britain did we would do.

The Taoiseach says that the Capital Budget is an expansionist one and that there will be 35 per cent more money spent on schools this year. That sum would need to be doubled to try to rectify a deplorable situation that has existed in regard to schools here. It is no great credit to us that money is being applied in this way. What is being done is not sufficient. In Dublin city alone, we have vast numbers on waiting lists for admission to primary schools, with marked concern among parents about this situation. The Department of Education is not aware that there are waiting lists, and the Minister for Lands yesterday, on behalf of the Minister for Education, said he was not aware ot it, would not have any figures and would not know if there was a waiting list. which indicated that they were not au fait with the situation at all.

We have heard the idle boasts about post-primary education. We are always glad to see any Government implement the policy which we have had since 1959, but I do not think the present post-primary educational facilities are sufficient. What is forgotten is that when a child is undergoing post-primary education, there is the loss of a breadwinner to the family, and in the lower income group this is important. It is not sufficient that free education and books be provided.

The same goes for the university grants. A student from the rural areas is expected to live on £125 a year in Dublin; there is a maximum of £300. For the city people, there is a maximum of £175, a difference of £125. I do not think they are realistic figures, having regard to the cost of living. I remember in 1948 when Britain was issuing university grants, she gave £300 maintenance grant, plus full fees for university education. That was in 1948, and this is 1968, and we are talking about a difference of £125 for a rural student to come to university, and we expect him to live on that amount. This is apart from the fact that there is the loss of a breadwinner to the family. If we are going to give these grants, they should be radically increased. The cost would not be prohibitive. It would ensure that students could pursue an uninterrupted career at the university.

With this money that is being spent, we are again favouring the privileged classes, with two honours in the leaving certificate being required for the privileged classes and four for the under-privileged. This is unfair and means that they, the privileged people, can take places at university and deprive the others of those places. If we are going to spend money, let us spend it properly, and let us spend enough on these people, because on them depends the whole future of the country.

Our Second Programme for Economic Expansion has been a failure. When it is related to how the people benefited, when people have to leave our country, and when we have an increase in the numbers of our unemployed, we cannot say that the Second Programme for Economic Expansion was a success.

Hear, hear.

It was far from it, and we must emphasise this fact. There is no use in the Taoiseach or anybody else saying that this went well. It is wrong for us to go back time and again to the inter-Party Government days. That is well played out. Time and again Fianna Fáil have gone back to 1955 and 1957. The people outside are sick and tired listening to this. It is utterly ridiculous to compare a Fianna Fáil Government with terms of office over so many years with a Government who were in office for only a couple of years. It is about time the Government stopped harping on that.

It is a sore point with you.

Not with me. I was never associated with it, but because I was not, I see how futile it is. It is utterly ridiculous to compare two years of one Government with 42 years of a Fianna Fáil Government.

We built more houses than we had tenants to go into, and the houses did not fall down.

The people were gone; that is why.

I shall talk about that loud and long.

The Taoiseach said that credit squeezes come whether we like them or not and that no one is responsible for them. He said that in 1965, as Minister for Finance. One minute he says they come without any action by one Government or another, and the next minute he blames the then Government because things were so bad in 1955 and 1957.

I believe we had the wrong Minister for Finance on this occasion. He was a book-keeper in this and he sought to make himself popular for political purposes by saying: "I will give a sop to the poor. I will take care of the industrialists. I must not antagonise them, because they are my friends and keep us in office. I must spread the money around as much as I can and make sure that nothing new is introduced. It must be sterile conservatism all along the way, nothing original". There is nothing original here, and that is the book-keeper's way of looking at things. The Taoiseach would be well advised to appoint a new Minister for Finance with a little imagination and ingenuity, someone who will look into the question of alternative means of taxation, with more emphasis on direct taxation, the abolition of turnover tax or the introduction of a modified form of it, and more emphasis on luxury goods. This is vital.

As a result of pressure, the Minister for Finance is saying now that he is considering alternative means of taxation. Why did he not consider them last year and the year before? Alternative means of taxation have been in operation in the EEC countries for years, but it is only when they are wakened up to it here and it is forced on them that the Government will look into it. It is time for the Minister for Finance to go. We should have a new Minister for Finance, and I hope he will be appointed in time for next year's Budget, when I hope there will be a little more imagination and more original forms of taxation and not the same old forms again.

I should like to congratulate the Minister for Finance on his magnificent Budget, and that is what it is, despite the rather mild protestations of Deputy O'Connell. The Minister has exemplified realism and realistic socialism in the Budget he has introduced here. He cannot, unlike the Deputies opposite, build castles in the air and provide solutions for problems by mere wishful thinking. If it were in his power to do so, you can be quite certain that all the aspirations of Fianna Fáil policy and Government policy would be implemented, not in one year but in one night. Recently I came across a quotation by Charles Stewart Parnell when he was speaking in Cork in 1885 and if anything could have a more profound effect on the political thinking of this country than this quotation, I have yet to see it. He said:

But no man has the right to say to his country—thus far shalt thou go and no further. We have never attempted to fix the ne plus ultra to the progress of Ireland's nationhood and we never shall.

We in Fianna Fáil can well say that this has been our guiding line in our years of office, and indeed in Opposition. We have always aimed at securing the ultimate benefit of the people, the greatest good for the majority, and we have at all times at heart the welfare of the less well off sections, the poor in particular. We have never said that this Budget or any other Budget was the final result of Fianna Fáil policy. Every achievement we have had to date has not been the end of what we sought for the nation, rather has it been the reaching of a horizon which perhaps we might have seen 12 months earlier, and on reaching that horizon, we only opened up a new vista of new horizons.

We must be realistic when in government and the Opposition are also charged with a responsibility for realism. In the past ten years of Fianna Fáil Government, we have been fortunate that the majority of our aims have been put into effect. If our complete policy has not been implemented, at least we have succeeded in getting good footholds on all the roads to achievement. We must progress not on a sectional basis but on a broad basis, bringing all sections of the community with us and particularly in relation to all in the social welfare spheres. This is the one priority to which we must address ourselves with vigour and realism.

We have achieved this year a 7s 6d increase all round for those in receipt of social welfare benefits. Last night Deputy Murphy stated that 7s 6d was not much and that he would at least have expected a 10/- increase. I appreciate that Deputy Murphy was quite at liberty to make this type of remark and to decry the advantage of 7s 6d, but it prompts me to pose a simple mathematical problem. Is it better to give three halfcrowns in one year rather than one halfcrown in three years? Which is the better? The Fianna Fáil solution was to give 7s 6d in one year while the Labour Party's solution was to give 2s 6d over a two-year period. This is a positive, realistic approach to our concept of what should be done. We would love to be able to give the extra 2s 6d but the resources from taxation would not allow it at this point of time. We have been addressing ourselves in a realistic fashion to this. As well as that, the Minister for Finance has introduced free television and radio licences for old age pensioners, and over the past 12 months, we have had the expansion of the free travel allowances which again are a boon to old age pensioners and those in less well off circumstances than the majority.

Now the Parliamentary Secretary will speak on the cost of living.

The cost of living index has not been at all as significant or as much as the increase in social welfare benefits and the Deputy is quite well aware of that, but I appreciate his tactics. If he studies the social welfare increases and also studies the price index and the cost of living, he will find, percentagewise, that a social welfare recipient is better off. We do not say that we are happy with this. We are never happy when anything still remains to be done in regard to social welfare recipients, or in any other matter appertaining to the welfare of the people and the nation.

I should like to take Deputy O'Connell up on this matter of referring to classes of people, poorer classes, working classes, the less well off and so on. This word "class" is out of date and should be removed from the dictionary or certainly from the vocabulary of any person with a social conscience. To my mind, there is only one class—the Irish people: that is the only class I recognise. I do not recognise the wealthy class or the slave class as he would have us recognise them. Every man is entitled to look his own height and to achieve what he can by his own efforts and by his own earning capacity, by his ability, either technically or intellectually. To refer to classes is out of date and the sooner the Deputy realises that the better.

I was pleased to hear Deputy O'Donnell pay a compliment to Old IRA pensioners. Anything we can do for these men in the autumn of their lives will be of benefit. The Minister for Defence told me, in answer to a question, some two and a half years ago, that the number of Old IRA pensioners was 63,500, each of whom had a medal. Each medal-holder is a potential special allowance recipient and it is this factor that militates against the active service man who could get greater advantage if they were less likely to qualify for the benefit which would be specifically given to old IRA service medal-holders.

In the field of agriculture, it is unrealistic for the Press or Opposition Deputies to say that this Budget is not a good one. There is provision for an extra £1.2 million for agriculture alone in this Budget. However, this Budget cannot stand alone in splendid isolation as regards the achievements of the past. In the past two months, over £9,600,000 was voted by way of Supplementary Estimate to the Department of Agriculture in order to provide moneys for the Department's activities under various subheads. This money is again embodied in this Budget. It should be taken into account what the Taoiseach mentioned today, the fact that the President of the NFA said that farm costs were going to rise to somewhere in the region of £9 million, without giving the true balance picture that at the same time there would be an increase in production and in the price for the farmers' produce. Again, the provision for agriculture rose by over £14 million between 1966-67 and 1967-68 and excluding the provision made in the Budget it is estimated that this will rise again to almost £72 million this year.

Furthermore there are hidden increases for farmers in this Budget. The provision for beef support in 1967-68 was approximately £5½ million. This year it is down to less than £2 million. Similarly the grant for grain losses is reduced from £400,000 to £4,000. These savings, of the order of £4 million have been passed on to the farmer under various other subheads. It is clearly dishonest for anyone to say that the benefits for agriculture are confined to the £1.2 million extra which is being given this year. We appreciate—I am sure most Deputies appreciate—the problems that can result in a narrow advance in agriculture. I come from a dairying area and I fully realise that the production of milk to date has been a tremendous step forward, but we cannot ignore difficulties which exist in the markets in which we normally expect to sell our produce. In the EEC countries recently, there have been quotations approaching 150,000 tons of butter surpluses. The price of powdered milk has dropped drastically on world markets. All these things are interrelated in the economic price that can be given for milk here. Price support is at present over £20 million and in this Budget there is provision for £21 million. It may not even stop at that if we take cognisance of the tremendous increases that have taken place in production in the past few years.

Milk production has increased dramatically in the past three years. Our aim must be to direct, as far as it is humanly possible to do so, the efforts of our farmers into those sources of income which will remain most constant. Pig production has gained emphasis as a result of this Budget. We want increased pig production. Last year was—I think I am correct in this—the nadir from the point of view of pig production. The tendency now is to climb out of the depths and we can expect to increase pig production in present circumstances as a result of the added incentives given in this Budget. We can go even further. I would urge every farmer who is a milk producer to use to the maximum the skim of his own product and, as well as that, to grow his own barley. He will then have at his disposal the cheapest possible feed for his pigs. Pigs can become a big export. We have only to look at the USA market. One continental country already has a substantial portion of the bacon market in the USA. We have the advantage of having skim. We have the advantage of being able to grow barley in ideal conditions. We have the advantage that devaluation has given us and we can gain substantially from a greater expansion of bacon exports to the USA. I appeal to farmers, big and small, to increase pig production. There is no reason why pig production should be confined to the multi-unit pig-rearing stations. Every farmer can participate in pig production. The small farmer can gain the maximum benefit from such production because he is traditionally and historically geared for it.

As I said, the increase in farm incomes was due in large degree to the various measures taken by the Government, including price supports, subsidies, rates relief and schemes for improving the structure and, therefore, the productivity and capacity of farms. All these have involved substantial calls on the resources of the nation and the total figure has increased from £38 million in 1963-64 to £72 million in 1968-69. That surely is a clear indication of Government concern for agriculture and Government willingness to assist in a real way the future prosperity of the farming community.

Listening to Deputy Cosgrave yesterday, one got the impression that all our ills were due to failure on the part of the Government. He denied the Government any part in the achievements of last year. He said the increase in exports of cattle to the British market was attributable to one thing, and one thing only, the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain. He never took into account the fact that cattle prices last year rose steadily all through the year and that the prognostication of the Institute that we would be left with a surplus was proved to be inaccurate; not only was there no surplus but any surplus there might have been was wiped out even before the half year was over. He never took into account the fact that, were it not for the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain, we might well have attained the target set in the Second Programme of an export of 638,000 head of cattle. We reached over 600,000 head. Everyone is aware of the fact that, as a result of foot and mouth disease, we were hampered in our sales of cattle to Britain in the latter half of the year. Our marts had to be closed and our fairs abandoned. Access to the British market was very limited. Only cattle for immediate slaughter could be sold and they could be imported through only one or two ports. We might well have sent boats all round Britain and landed cattle at ports remote from affected areas but the cost of transport made that proposition quite uneconomic and therefore most unattractive for both the exporters and the would-be buyers.

We have had this kind of thinking from Fine Gael over a long period. We are blameless when it comes to increased prices for cattle last year but, a short 12 months earlier, we were blameworthy when the EEC countries raised their tariffs. Fianna Fáil were supposed to be guilty of the drop in prices then. We were the fools but we were not to take any credit for the improvement in the position at the end of last year and the beginning of this year; we had no responsibility for that. That was something that just happened, but what happened in the EEC at the back-end of 1966 was completely of our making, according to Deputy Cosgrave. Anything that happens for the good of the nation is due to some fairy godmother watching over us. Anything that happens that proves adverse to our economy is, according to the Leader of the Fine Gael Party, to be blamed on Fianna Fáil, on those who sit on these benches. You cannot have your loaf and eat it; you cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. If we are to take the blame for what the EEC countries did by raising their tariffs, then surely we are entitled to bask in the reflected prosperity of our farmers at the back-end of last year and the beginning of this year.

The Minister for Finance had quite a number of difficult decisions to make because each Minister naturally seeks to gain as much as he can for his own particular administration. I think the Minister made a good choice in giving assistance where assistance is most needed. Farming incomes rose last year by over £13 million as compared with the previous year. Again, not wishing to be unfair to the Opposition who may say that was based on a very unfavourable year, let me point out that it was £6 million higher than the preceding year and that surely is a good sum for farming under even a Fianna Fáil Government.

There is £1 million being given this year to the pig industry. As I have said, our farming structure is ideal for this business. Pig production can gain us great advantage and, with the full co-operation of all concerned, it will.

The tax allowances under Schedules A and B do not affect many small farmers but, nevertheless, they will aid the farming structure and benefits will accrue to farmers in one form or another.

Milk production has been a matter of concern to this Government as, indeed, it is in any country that has a strong agricultural background. There has been a dramatic increase in milk production. Under the existing price structure there is an advantage that can be derived by many more farmers. About 66 per cent of the milk supplied to creameries qualifies for the quality bonus of 2d a gallon. The other 34 per cent does not qualify. It is within the competence of the suppliers of this 34 per cent to gain that advantage. The Department of Agriculture has initiated various schemes, aids and grants by which these suppliers can effectively gear themselves so as to obtain the quality of milk that will enable them to secure this bonus that has so far eluded them. It will be seen, therefore, that there is great scope for the suppliers of 34 per cent of the milk supplied to creameries. These are matters that are forgotten or glossed over by members of the Opposition who do not advocate improved milk production as they should. They have a duty as real as ours.

Deputy O'Connell spoke of the lack of originality on the part of the Minister for Finance in relation to taxation. I do not think that originality could be regarded as the hallmark of a good Minister for Finance. Indeed, in a society and a country such as ours there is not a great deal of scope for sound and logical deviation from the normal pattern of taxation. We do not have many peculiar methods of taxation that may be in evidence in other countries or peculiar sources of revenue that may be available elsewhere.

In this country there are the limited amounts that can be obtained from our people under normal headings. Taxes under these headings have been introduced in this Budget in a very orderly fashion. Any Member of this House will not crib at the imposition of 6d per glass on imported spirits. That increase in the duty on imported spirits will be of twofold benefit. It will reduce expenditure on imported spirits which could well be done without. It will be of benefit to Irish distillers whose product can be sold at the old price, which will encourage people to drink Irish spirits in preference to imported spirits. The stimulation of the market for home-produced spirits will result in increased employment opportunities in the industry. It will also benefit farmers in increasing malt barley contracts. The consumption of foreign spirits had been increasing to an alarming extent over the last number of years. This is a very wide sphere. The Glass Bottle Company will be producing more bottles. Everybody engaged in the industry, directly or indirectly, will gain, down to the manufacturer of labels, if Irish producers gain the advantage, as I think they will, over their foreign competitors. If those who drink brandy could be encouraged to drink Irish spirits instead it would have the effect of keeping money at home and that would help to redress our balance of trade position with countries who do not buy from us as much as we buy from them.

Always provided they do not switch to Scotch.

I would trust to their nationalism to make them purchase the native product. Blended whiskies are not at all as good as Irish potstill. Even if some do prefer blended whiskey, I do not doubt the ability of Irish distilleries to produce it.

You will not claim the credit for that.

He might try.

He is making a good speech, God bless him.

I can say with some assurance that it is much better to see in this Budget the maximum benefits being given to those who need them most rather than to see nothing but despair and promises of benefits to come which are not even provided for. However, in deference to Deputy O'Connell, I had better not speak of those times.

The married allowance for newlyweds of £100 is a substantial relief. There are many demands on the limited means of newlyweds. This allowance is a recognition by the Minister for Finance of courage in undertaking the serious step of marriage. It will help to offset the difficulties encountered by newlyweds in the cost of purchasing a house and furniture.

They will not be able to get a house, so they need not worry about the cost of it. There "ain't" no house to get.

Well, there are strange things being built all over this country on which contractors and tradesmen are employed. They look like houses. I have seen them in every parish I have been in. They may not be houses but it would appear to me that they are dwelling houses and that people will benefit from them. Fianna Fáil recognise that it is a good sign of national prosperity when houses are being built.

Hear, hear.

It is an indication of the people's faith in the country. It is probably unfair of me to remind Deputy Dillon that he boasted that in his term in government there were more houses than there were people for them. To me, that is not a matter that one should blow one's trumpet about.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary suggesting now that these houses he sees being built everywhere are private houses?

Houses of every sort.

Would he call them private houses?

Private and public— houses of every sort: Private houses and houses built by local authorities. They are being built all over the country.

You have suggested they were of such complicated designs you did not know what they were.

No. Deputy Dillon stated there were not any houses built.

You said a few moments ago there was no such thing as class distinction here.

Houses are going up all over the country. We have structures going up which appear to me to be houses and I am sure they are houses. Perhaps Deputy Dillon wants to have them fás aon oíche—up overnight?

I want to get back to Deputy Dillon's boast that there were more houses than there were people for them. Indeed there were vacant houses in my own town of Cashel and in every other town in the country during that period. But you never had such a high rate of emigration and unemployment. Emigration was the cause of the vacant houses. Many of them were not new houses. They had been tenanted for 20 years but were vacated during that dismal period which Deputy O'Connell does not want to refer to. It is a period from which he would like to disassociate himself. His Party stated they were never going to repeat the error. Indications are that they were thinking along those lines, but there have been a number of statements that they were mellowing their brave words that they were going to go it alone. Deputy Dillon noticed the only break.

You would not suggest that this was a matter of a Party minding its own business?

I think Deputy Corish was asked this question by the Taoiseach not too long ago and would not or was not in a position to say at the time.

He would have been a fool to say it.

You want it both ways?

He should have it his own way.

It is very difficult to be on two sides of the same fence at the one time, but maybe it is within the capacity of some to do just that.

Deputy Murphy stated we were completely out of touch with reality when we had mining experts coming in here from abroad exploiting our mineral wealth while we did not do so ourselves. The Taoiseach stated today we had a rather sorry experience with our own efforts regarding mining. In my own constituency, a semi-State body took over the Ballingarry Collieries. They were not the best operators of that mine and they were pleased to be able to sell it to private interests, who have made a success of it. That has been of benefit to the workers in that mine because there was no alternative employment for them in any other field of endeavour in that neighbourhood.

We have had the new development of open-cast mining that has come about as a result of Tynagh and Gortdrum and which will, I hope, be in evidence in the Glen of Aherlow before the end of this year. These mining experts are people of high technical skill. They bring with them a fund of knowledge which can be passed on to unskilled persons who have not the same expertise. In Gortdrum, they have been employers of up to 200 men. In a way they have been educators of these people by making them in some instances as skilled as themselves.

The capital involved is fantastic. One has only to look at the colossal machinery involved in mining to appreciate that we ourselves, even if we had the technical skill, might not be able to produce the capital involved from our own resources. Admittedly, these people are gaining advantage for themselves, but they are also distributing advantage to this country and its people. Nobody will undertake industrial development if he does not see some profit in it for himself. The word "profit" is often scorned here—it is a sort of dirty word. Yet profit is one of the most powerful motivating forces in the world. Nobody can work for anything less than a profit, or, if he does, he certainly is not working on a business basis. If he is not working for a profit, he goes out of business very soon. Business interests must have a profit; they may keep ticking over for a short number of years, but in the long term, they want to see a profit return on their investment. If it is not there, their business must go down, bringing financial loss to themselves and loss of employment to those who depend on them.

These mining experts have been of benefit to us. They are stimulating and will stimulate growth activity. We have now become the mecca for many other mining interests. Our legislation protects the necessary national interest, scenic amenities and so on. Every Deputy who had something to contribute could have done so when the legislation was passed in this House. I am sure every Party considered the protection of the State against exploitation by mining interests.

The Minister for Finance has made provision for increased grants to industrialists to re-equip themselves. The adaptation grants have stimulated industrialists to gear themselves for the competition they will have to meet in the not-too-distant future, and in fact are meeting in some cases. Every other country is becoming more competitive and seeking new outlets for its production. We must do the same. We cannot rest on our oars and say the factory has been going great guns for the past 30 years. We must gear ourselves to meet this competition. Incentive grants are one of the most positive ways this can be done.

This Budget has imposed little hardship on anyone. There is no penal taxation on any section of the community. At the same time, it gives tremendous impetus and tremendous relief to many. If it is to be called an unimaginative Budget by Deputy O'Connell, I would like to know what he considers an imaginative Budget. Would a Budget with penal taxation, giving little or nothing to anyone, be an imaginative Budget? To me it would be more like a nightmare Budget and one not likely to be repeated by any reasonable individual. We want to distribute the wealth of the nation in the most equitable possible fashion. This Budget does so in no small measure. It helps out every section of the community and imposes little or no real hardship on any section. This is as it should be, and I trust it will always be the case.

With regard to the statement made by Deputy O'Connell that Fianna Fáil had a stranglehold on the country in 1965-66, he must take into account the fact that we ran into financial difficulties which were not peculiar to ourselves but which were indeed widespread throughout the world. That is where the big difference lies between Deputy O'Connell's disclaimer of the Coalition Government and the Fianna Fáil thinking at this time. In a difficult situation Fine Gael and Labour combined in very short term policies and created more difficulties than they solved. They then left office, although they had a majority in this House, but they had no faith in themselves to carry on.

We had to face an almost identical situation in 1965, shortly after coming in as the Government. We were not in as strong a position numerically then as we are now, but we saw our duty. We did our duty to serve the nation, and it has paid off because it was soundly based and well planned. The result of that planning is now evident when we see in this Budget £72 million for the farmers and, at the same time, increased educational facilities for all sections of the community.

The people who criticise Fianna Fáil policy in relation to free post-primary education must have very short memories. Until the introduction of free post-primary education by the late Minister for Education, we did not have it as a right. We had various communities and orders and people giving it in a limited way, but the people had no certain knowledge that they had free post-primary education as a right. Now they have. Having opened the door of this tower of education to everyone in the country, there is no use in leaving the door to the very pinnacle of that tower closed.

The new Minister to Education, Deputy Lenihan, has introduced what we consider to be the preliminary steps, the initial steps, in regard to a further expansion of that scheme whereby all children with ability who go through primary and secondary education will be able to gain access to the universities. We can only go one step at a time. Unlike the Opposition, we cannot "wish-think" anything and have it happen because we do so. We have to lay down the possible approaches, think out our policies and back them up by hard finance, which is the only method of implementing any scheme introduced in this House.

We must ask those who criticise and deride as unrealistic our educational programme if they were so progressive for so long, why did they not introduce these policies? The basic fact is that this Government or any Government can go only so far at any one point of time. We have expressed our priorities and our belief in education as an investment not only for the children of today but for the future of the nation. We believe this investment is a short-term one. The majority of children spend in the region of four, five or six years in post-primary education, and when they move to the university, they again spend a six-year period. So that is a 12-year period on average for those who go to post-primary education and follow through to the university. They can then produce a direct result for this country in collaboration with other agencies. No other investment, nationwise, is such a short-term one with such a long-term potential. After the person leaves the university portals he can expect, in reasonable conditions, to work for 40 or 50 years. That is a tremendous time for any man or woman to be able to give to the advantage of the nation.

This Budget has been a remarkable success. There are very few impositions in it. Listening to Opposition speakers, it is easy to realise how little there is to criticise in the Budget. When we do not hear criticism from the Opposition —and we have heard very little—we know there is nothing to be criticised, because there are those on the Opposition benches who lose no opportunity to criticise every proposal put forward by Fianna Fáil. Be it for good or for evil, the best part of their thinking is that they must be destructively critical. If a person has criticism to level, let it be of a constructive nature. The Government are not opposed to taking advice from any section of the community if it is soundly based, least of all from the Opposition. We will take any advice or help they can give, but on most occasions here we find that the criticism which is levelled has no constructive element but is of a knocking and destructive nature.

I am gratified to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary that the Government yearn for advice and reaffirm their readiness to act upon it. I was glad to hear him speak so happily of the advances in education. I recall that in May, 1964, speaking at the Fine Gael Ard-Fheis, I suggested:

Firstly, to abolish poverty in our society, and I offer you this objective not as a remote ideal but as an urgent necessity in a Christian society such as should obtain in this country.

Secondly, that the best we have to offer in primary, secondary, vocational and university education should be made available through State aid where necessary for every boy and girl in this country, so that in the future no child who can benefit from higher education will be excluded from it simply for the reason that their parents cannot afford to pay.

Thirdly, that we should provide for our people a health service adequate to meet their essential requirements, and to approximate at least to such services as are now available in every civilised country in the world.

Fourthly, but by no means least important, to ensure that there will be houses available for all those who need them, and that we shall make an end of the detestable scandal of having families disrupted in our towns and cities because their houses are falling down and we have no other place to offer them as a home.

I do not deny that from that programme Fianna Fáil borrowed much. In so far as they have borrowed their educational aspirations from Fine Gael, I am glad. I do not think they can ever claim, with any verisimilitude, that they have gone far to abolish poverty in our community. I do not think they can claim—as they admit in the Minister's Budget Statement—they have found the solution of the problem of providing an adequate health service for our people that would give them the minimum that is now commonly available in most civilised communities. I do not think they claim to have provided all our people with a home.

I do not want today, when we are considering a very grave situation— much graver than the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Davern, seems to realise—to dwell unduly on events of the past. However, I want to remind the Parliamentary Secretary—he is a young man who, I think, has a future in public life in this country—that there are certain fundamental economic facts of which we must all be conscious because they are unalterable in whatever sort of society we live, whether it be totalitarian, as in Russia or elsewhere, or in a free democracy such as operates in this country. One of these economic facts is that the longer you fail to face them, the more catastrophic are the measures requisite to correct them. He seemed to speak with some contempt of the situation obtaining in 1956-57. There is a lesson for the Parliamentary Secretary to learn there.

There is no doubt whatever that, in 1956, we ran into serious balance of payments difficulties because we were building too many houses for the people. They were not office buildings. We were not tearing down houses to build new office buildings to provide profits for foreign investors who were bringing funk money into this country because they were afraid of the depreciation of the British £. They were houses built by and paid for by our own people. We proudly and deliberately and consciously ran into balance of payments difficulties. What happened?

In the spring of 1956, we put on the levies. They were special customs duties designed to restrict imports. I remember speaking from where the present Parliamentary Secretary is sitting and saying to the House: "We do not want anyone to pay these levies. If these levies do not yield one penny of revenue, that is what we want. We want people to abstain from buying the imports on which these special levies are being imposed. That is the whole purpose of the levies." To underline that, we said, "If anybody buys these imported commodities and pays levy on them, we shall appropriate the resources of the levies paid to capital purposes. They will not be taken into revenue." We said, further: "If, in the autumn, the rate of levy we now impose is insufficient to restore the balance of payments, we shall raise the levy."

I remember Deputy Briscoe's father and other Fianna Fáil Deputies weeping floods of tears from these Opposition benches for the "poor crathers" that could not get oranges without paying a levy on them. Fianna Fáil was breaking its heart about them because they could not get sweeties without paying a levy on them: they liked Mackintosh's toffee and could not eat Irish toffee and had to pay the levy. In addition they had to pay the levy on the comics. The welkin was made to ring about the awful injustice to the little children, the "crathers", without their sweeties, oranges and comics and all the children were portrayed as fading away from under-nourishment because they could not get their oranges without paying a levy on them.

Because we acted promptly, the levies came off in the following April and, in the year 1957, we had a favourable balance of payments of £12 million for the first time since the State was founded. With one instrument— levies on goods which no human creature in this country needed to pay because they were exclusively on goods which might be esteemed luxuries, even if they were luxuries which it was inconvenient to go without—because we acted promptly, effectively and consistently, within 12 months we restored the balance of payments to a surplus of £12 million for the first time in 30 years.

The mistake made in 1964 and 1965 was that, as this Fianna Fáil Government ran into deeper and deeper balance of payments difficulties, they were afraid to take the necessary steps to remedy the position. We had the extraordinary spectacle of a man for whom I have a high regard—the present Taoiseach—getting up, on the occasion of his Second Budget, and asking in my hearing in this House, "What went wrong with my Budget of last year?" I remember commenting that I thought it was one of the most pathetic introductions to a Budget speech I had ever heard—"What went wrong with my Budget of last year?" I do not believe he wanted to precipitate our country into the economic crisis into which in fact he did. He acted with the best possible intentions but in folly.

I make these comparisons for the benefit of a young man starting out in the public life of this country. The consequences of that folly wrought great havoc in this country, very largely on the most defenceless elements. Prompt action in 1956 bore on no one except those who dealt in luxuries and no single one of them need have been paid one penny of the levy. Without any serious inconvenience whatever, they could have foregone every single item on which we imposed an import levy.

I think we made the right move and I think we made a move by which Great Britain, as well as this country, might have taken an example. If they had done so, Great Britain would have avoided the terrible problems she now has to face, and we should have avoided the agony which we are so wont in this House to brush out of our minds and to sweep under the carpet. I shall never forget, so long as I live, the spectacle of the small farmers of this country enduring the rigours of 1966, 1967 and the early part of 1968. It is all very well for us to say here: "Cattle prices are now going up." That is poor consolation to the man who sold his cattle for £18 or £20 a head, poor consolation to the man who sold a calf for 10/- or £1.

It is quite true that prices for cattle are now going up, but there are many small farmers who recently suffered as heavy losses as were suffered in this country during the Economic War— and I have represented these small farmers in this House ever since I came into it. I know the suffering they endured. If they sustained economic losses such as the folly of the present Government imposed upon them in the years 1965, 1966 and the early part of 1967, I want to pose again—because it is one of my proudest recollections —that, as a result of the activities of the Government of which I had the honour to be a member, when we left office we had more houses built than we had tenants to go into them.

I say that on the authority of Deputy Seán Lemass who said in this House that one of the first things he did was to send for Dublin Corporation who said to him: "There is no need to build any more houses. We have too many houses. We have not enough tenants to go into them."

You will nearly believe it yourself. You almost believe it.

On the previous occasion I said that, it was suggested that I provide the reference. I denied any such obligation but with courtesy to you, I sent you a typed reference. I sent it to the responsible Ministers, so that they could have it to refresh their memory. It is true and I will prove it to you.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share