That is one county, as far as my knowledge of geography goes. I am looking at the names of various places but I think they are one county. May I say in addition to that that transport was offered to these men by bus to the site and it was not a question of being sent to an offer of any short time employment because a long term of employment was offered? That cannot be any great news to the members of the Fianna Fáil Party, certainly not to any of those who were in touch with any of their Ministers prior to the change of Government. I have previously referred here to a conference on turf production which was held on the 9th April, 1947, which the then Taoiseach, Deputy de Valera, attended to open the proceedings. It was a time when a great drive was on to get increased turf production, a time when there was a good deal of panic and scare with regard to fuel in this country and a special effort was made. All the county engineers and county surveyors in the Twenty-Six Counties were summoned down and the matter was put on a high level by having the then Taoiseach open the proceedings. After he made an address to them in the morning pointing out the importance of turf development and putting to them that the future of the country with regard to fuel supplies was at stake and using every argument that could be used to impress upon them the necessity for this work and the urgency of the situation, the then Taoiseach handed over the conference to the then Minister for Local Government and the Parliamentary Secretary.
The Parliamentary Secretary opened by asking every person to offer his views frankly on the problem which was to get the same number of men to produce a greater quantity of turf in a shorter time. He said to them: "Do everything you can—piecework where possible—also altering the method of producing turf by private producers— contract system. Overtime." He said to them to do anything to get these men to work, and having made his very emotional and persuasive appeal he then threw the ball to the various representatives of the county councils who were around. One man opened by saying that there was a point which he did not like to mention in the morning in connection with the turf programme, that is, the unwillingness of some men to come out and work. "We had one district last year, Mr. Minister, in which we could not get the men to work. Most of those men are on the dole all the winter. Last year when we asked them to come out and cut turf they refused. I reported this to the labour exchange and all I got was an acknowledgment. There was no action taken—an extraordinary thing——" The text gets a bit stacato here: "disinclination—people do not want to work any longer—too many social services". The Minister asked why he had not mentioned that in the morning. The engineer said that he was afraid of hitting at Government policy. The Minister said: "If people refuse to work it is up to us to see that these people are not kept in idleness." The engineer retorted: "I gave particulars of these cases in writing to the labour exchange on five or six different occasions." The Minister said: "I will see that this does not occur this year," and asked if he had copies of the correspondence. The engineer said "Yes". Another said that he had the same thing. He got a grant, he said, and there were plenty of men unemployed but they would not come out to work. "First they could not walk the two and a half miles. When a lorry was provided they could not work unless they were paid every Saturday." Another man took up then, saying: "Mine is not quite the same experience. There is a general tendency to avoid coming out to work at all. If that is to be cured I do not think it can be done by dealing with individual cases but by a thorough investigation of the whole administrative side of paying doles. There seems to be——" The text is blotted here but the only word that will fit in the context is "conspiracy". "——between dolemen, guards, labour exchange whereby men can continue drawing dole and do not turn up for a recognised job. I can prove it—men working for farmers and others—possibly guards—at reduced rates. There is grave abuse..." This goes on until finally the Minister said: "Can I say it is a fairly general experience?" All: "Yes." I could give the detailed statement of these men. That is the situation. One man came to the point when he said that the only way you can get men to work on the bog is to stop every other Government work, work under the Office of Public Works, on the improvement of estates, anything in the nature of Government work. "Put the old stimulus of hunger upon these people." That was the recommendation made to the then Minister for Local Government and backed by statements and correspondence showing that work was offered and had not been taken. Let me say that I only give those examples to show that there definitely is abuse with regard to unemployment assistance. It seems fairly widespread and two Governments have had much the same experience with regard to people refusing offers of good employment. It looks, as far as that document is concerned, that that is a situation which has developed over the past 15 years, that people did not regard unemployment assistance as what people got when they were looking for work and unable to find it but as an aid to the wages they got from some other type of work. That is more widespread than to have people sitting back and refusing work and living on what the unemployment assistance amounted to.
Senator Hawkins referred to increased productivity and I am glad that Senator O'Dwyer who also spoke on the matter is behind him. Senator Hawkins said that the producer who is producing more is no better off than he was before. That is not the experience of the people in this House who come from rural areas. The producer is better off but if the producer thinks that he is going to get under conditions of increased production scarcity prices which he was able to demand when goods were scarce he should think again. Senator O'Dwyer came to a conclusion quite different from Senator Hawkins. He said that prices of products should be kept at a steady level and that is a sensible demand but let there be no mistake. Nobody offers, nobody could think of offering to the producers of this country the prices they were able to command during the war at a time when the stuff they were producing was very scarce. But the producer is better off in taking lower prices for increased production. Is not that what is required? It gives the community cheaper goods and should give, in fact gives, the producer a better return. The producers of this country are getting a better return and I doubt if that can be gainsaid.
Senator Hawkins complained about the housing question. Some complaints could be easily swept aside by saying that he tolerated them for 14 years. He said that there were too many Departments, that there should be a national housing board and so on. It may be that there is to much division of authority with regard to this, but I do not think that much good would come as a result of a national housing board. In the main, one Department attends to housing and it was regarded by the late Minister for Local Government as such an important matter that he asked to have a Parliamentary Secretary allocated to him so that either the Parliamentary Secretary or himself could give what amounted to full time to the question of housing. As far as money is concerned, all that alarms me is the amount of money that has been made available for housing. Five million pounds have been expended this year alone together with the £1,000,000 which is to be found in the Vote for the Department of Local Government together with whatever funds may be got by such bodies as Dublin Corporation and Cork Corporation and put into housing.
There is an abundance of money and I understand that the wages paid to skilled tradesmen in housing bear very favourable comparison with what they can get abroad. I do not know what a Government can do except provide funds, see that some man gives what amounts to full time attention to the co-ordination of the effort and seeing that things run smoothly and see that wages are at an attractive level. If housing does not proceed apace, certainly Government activity is not to be blamed for it.
The Senator astonished me even at this late point when I thought I had gone beyond astonishment when he said that Electricity Supply Board charges had been raised. Perhaps this statement came out in the swing of his oratory but he said that Electricity Supply Board charges had been raised. The Senator concluded by saying that people were being asked to pay more for less services. In fact, the reverse is the case: they are paying less for more widespread services and services of more use. They are not being asked to pay for certain services which I was rather fortunate to have the opportunity of cutting out of existence last year, things like the transatlantic air service. Finally, the Senator wanted to know whether I could promise that there would be no Supplementary Estimate and alluded to Gaeltacht housing. The Estimate for that has been introduced already and was provided for and specially mentioned in the speech I made on the 4th May and was taken into account when the level of taxation was being arranged this year.
With regard to other comments that have been made, I agreed with Senator J.T. O'Farrell when he said that taxation is at the highest point for safety. I think there is a welcome change in the Opposition attitude. At least, I get an echo from Senator Mrs. Concannon that she, at least, from that side of the House, welcomes the air of economy. There seems to be a far different feeling in the air, and a disinclination to smite the taxpayer as they wanted to do last year. In fact, their complaint this year is of our not having reduced taxation sufficiently. That is astonishing, as last year the whole pursuit was after me with regard to every small item of economy. The aim which I have held out as attractive in Dáil Eireann and hold out still is that we ought to leave the ordinary person with more money in his pocket to spend as he likes and not take it from him to be spent by the State to give him services he may not desire or may not want, or may consider too expensive.
Senator J.T. O'Farrell questioned this whole matter of the clamour for tariffs and said that the ordinary excuse was dumping. It is not the only excuse. In the minds of certain people, every import ought to be classified as a dumped import. The other term that has lost its old significance is "competition". There is no competition nowadays except "cut-throat competition", so that when people are approached by manufacturers who say they are subject to cut-throat competition and to dumping, it is pressure of a type that amounts to blackmail. It is very specially to be characterised as blackmail when it goes to the extent it got to about last Christmas-time, when two very well-to-do manufacturers, people making very well out of two companies, locked out their workers in Christmas week and used them as pressure on the Government with regard to the tariff. Then, as Senator O'Farrell stated, after they had achieved that, they proceeded to distribute a whole lot of their shares by way of a bonus issue.
I think I have answered Senator Burke when he spoke of keeping an unemployment register giving a reflection of the real unemployed in the country. We are aiming at that, but there will have to be a certain amount of harshness shown regarding people who got into bad habits in the last 14 or 15 years. Senator Burke referred to revaluation. I would ask the Seanad to take it that I have nothing to do with that. It is done by a particular Department which has its own rules and regulations. The initiative ordinary is taken by the local authority and when premises are revalued there is always resort to the courts. If a person thinks he is too highly valued, he can go to the courts and get the independent judiciary to consider whether the increased valuation is proper or not. When the courts are considering the matter, one of the standards—I do not say the only standard, but certainly an important one—is the valuation of premises in the neighbourhood of the building under criticism. I think the code is as fair as anybody could get, but if anyone likes to offer criticism, we can have it considered.
Senator Seamus O'Farrell spoke of the incentive to work. I have associated myself with that viewpoint for a long time. There is not much in asking people to work harder if they do not get any personal benefit from the extra effort. There is a warning there in connection with the amenities and social services the Government is asked to provide. The view expressed by Senator Concannon has been expressed recently in Dáil Eireann by Deputy de Valera, that you may easily get to the point when you kill incentive, when you leave a man with certain facilities and amenities and services which he can get if he is idle and the difference between that and what he may get by hard, laborious, intensive work may not be sufficient to encourage him to do the hard work. I have discussed this with representatives of trade unions. I was surprised that one scheme suggested to the Congress of Irish Unions brought their retort that it required full employment and directed labour. The particular example I gave showed that a particular scheme had been inaugurated at a time when there was nothing like full employment and certainly no direction of labour. I was hoping those representatives would reconsider that matter and see if they could put pressure on some of the firms enjoying very heavy tariff protection to give the workers who share in production a chance, and let it be worked through trial and error, to see if anything could be got out of it.
I would like to refer Senators to the Official Report of Dáil Eireann for 24th June, 1949. It contains a speech made on the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare by Deputy de Valera, recently Taoiseach. Senators will be debating social services one of these days and I would like them to inform themselves of what has been said by Deputy de Valera. It is given in column 1462 and onwards, and I am summarising part of it. He said that, in our whole approach to this subject, there will arise the question of what is reasonably possible and what is wise. He goes on to point out that the producing section of this community compared with other communities is relatively small. He takes it for granted that all the means for the provision of social services have to come out of production in some form or another. He speaks of the possibility that you may so strain a small section engaged in production, by loading too heavy burdens on them, that you will fail to get production and in the end cause a breakdown in the whole state of society, by attempting to go too fast or to give too much.
Having said that on the matter of what is possible, he also said that there is the question of wisdom. On that point, he says that we would all admit it would be very unwise not to leave the ordinary incentives to the individual to do the best he can for himself. He continues: "I think everybody will admit that there is a danger that, if the community as a whole makes it almost as valuable to the individual to be idle as to work, the natural incentive to work would disappear." He returns to that later, in column 1464, and points out that "we have always to be careful to see that there is a reasonable margin between the reward he gets for work and the sum that is given to the individual by the State to maintain him because he is not at work." Later, he comes very nearly to the point of saying that the best solution would be to recognise people as members of a State who were prepared to do their work in the State, to do their duty as citizens, to play their part in production, and to guarantee to them, by the State a certain minimum, irrespective of the individual it was. That gets very near to the point I have urged here, that the best way of having social services in any community is to let people provide them for themselves by giving them sufficient wages, instead of letting them depend on the State. However, all this is a very big breakaway from the talk about social services for many years. I think that quotation answers what Senator Colgan said here.
Senator Douglas requested information on taxation. I have not that material at hand at the moment. He queried the rate of interest in taxation and how it bears upon people and the effective rate of tax on certain incomes. He will find a good deal about that in the Annual Reports of the Revenue Commissioners. The one I have here is the 24th Report, for 1947, on page 112 of which the relative taxes on certain incomes are given. Senator Douglas has spoken of the person on £600 a year. Taking what can be regarded in this country as the average, the married man with a family of three and where the income is all earned, the effective rate of tax is 3½d. in the £ on him. On £600, he would pay about £9. It is interesting to note that in Great Britain a man in his position would pay £28 10s. 0d. I have not the other figures the Senator requested at the moment, but if they are required I can get them at a later date.
Other comments have been made with regard to increasing taxation on certain people and those described as the wealthy class. The trouble is that, in this country, from the tax-gatherers' point of view, there are not many of that class, there is no great class in this country from which we can draw to provide for smaller people. I feel embarrassed by Senator Burke's argument that, because a rural worker gets £4 a week, he does not pay tax and gets no benefit from the reduction in income-tax. I cannot meet that point, except to say that when taxation is lowered he will get whatever remission there may be. It is not possible to have for each group a special remission that touches the group each year. Probably the rural worker smokes and takes a glass of beer and, if so, he got what is, from the revenue point of view, a very heavy remission in respect of these taxes last year.
Looking at the general picture and coming to my own view, I would like to remind Senators of the situation that faced us in 1947. I have already quoted from Deputy de Valera's statement that emigration has been there as a trend since the famine and that perhaps nothing can be done about it. Speaking on the 2nd July, quoted in the Press on the 3rd July, 1947, he said that agriculture was a problem and that a consistent decline in the numbers engaged in our basic industry raised a question as to whether there was any solution to it or whether it was a natural decline. He faced the Dáil and said: "If anyone can give us a solution to the difficulties of agriculture, we will consider it." That is what passed for policy in July, 1947. I do not think people can say of the present Government that they paraded themselves in Dáil Eireann and said: "If you can give us a policy, we will consider it." We have tried to do something on our own, and we have been fairly successful so far.
I have a quotation from the Irish Times of October, 1947. I choose the Irish Times deliberately as they had a most spectacular headline indicating the then Taoiseach's aspect: “Taoiseach tells Dáil that Wages are to be Pegged.” That was the policy of October, 1947. Underneath that headline is the report that the Government wanted to control wages so that they could have a general fixation of prices such as was in operation from November, 1943, to October, 1947. That is the period in which, in the main, distortion was caused to the lives of the community by having a particular stand-still in regard to wages and very far from a stand-still in regard to prices.
In September, 1947, one of the Parliamentary Secretaries of the last Government returned to this country from a tour in certain parts of Europe and decided to tell the people of Lanesboro in County Longford of the wisdom he had derived from his sojourn on the Continent. I raised the question a few times in Dáil Eireann and, as far as I could make out, his speech was to be regarded as an official statement of policy. He said quite a lot that was somewhat enigmatic, but he made one very precise statement. He spoke of heavy subsidies involving heavy taxation as being a vicious principle because it was merely a pretence in the long run. That was a speech made in September, 1947. I put it in contrast in Dáil Eireann to the policy that was adopted in October, 1947, when the then Government came in with their only policy, as revealed to the House in the Supplementary Budget, an adoption of this "vicious principle"—increased taxation, mainly on beer, spirits and tobacco; and subsidies. I am asked in the House—it is put as a double-barrelled sort of argument—to increase the subsidies, or at least to allow bread and other commodities to go off the ration but to keep them at subsidised prices. I suggest that we have followed a policy which is better than either of the two policies paraded here.
We have kept a ration which is generous—certainly, which is sufficient. I do not think there is any complaint on that point, regarding any of the things rationed at the moment. We have kept those, at a very heavy cost to the rest of the community by subsidies, but we have released certain extras and said to people: "If you have more money to spend and like to pay a higher price, we will use the fruits of what we get from you to keep taxation in line." I cannot see how that policy can meet with disagreement. I could imagine comment being made if the ration were not generous or if the rationed food were not of good quality, but I assert that both these conditions are met, that the quantity is generous and that the material being subsidised is of good quality.
I would like to get this matter of taxation and aids into some sort of proper perspective. I want to claim again that before the 1948 Budget the Government of which I am a member reduced the taxation on beer and tobacco at a loss of £6,000,000 to the revenue. I do not think I am wrong in saying that this year the reduction in income-tax has cost the Revenue £1,000,000. Certain other concessions are being made in connection with income-tax this year which will cost in a full year £500,000. I find myself then in the position that £7,250,000 of taxation have been put back into the hands of the people to spend as they chose. While that was being done additional amounts were given to old age pensioners and that cost the Revenue £2,400,000. In addition civil servants got increased emoluments under an agreement which was left to me which cost the taxpayer £700,000 in a year. Last year the increased tea ration had cost £1,500,000 to the taxpayers. This year various aids and increases to the Guards and increases to the Army, yet to come, amounted to a total of £750,000 in a year. Under various other heads there was provision made for almost £1,000,000. This is a total of £4,350,000 or to use a round figure £4,500,000. If the Government had in cash these extra aids and increases we would have a further £4,500,000 to play with and we could have reduced taxation by £11,500,000. Instead of reducing taxation by that amount we applied this £7,250,000 and gave these increases.
At the same time we gave our blessing to a movement going on in the industrial world to increase wages. We threatened no standstill but we did advise the people to be careful how they spent and not to have too much volume of money in circulation. While that was going on we have provided in various schemes at least £16,000,0000, leaving out the land reclamation project, for works of a capital nature this year and I do not think it can be denied that production increased in the last 18 months. On the whole I suggest there is increased productivity, better wages are being paid and better care is being taken, by the provision of increased rates, of those who are infirm and unable to look after themselves. The increased productivity has not reached the volume that we had hoped for.
There is one last matter to which I would like to make a reference, and that is the question of devaluation. There has been a demand for me to make an authoritative statement on sterling devaluation. I have been faced with a number of problems in the last 14 months but this one appals me. I cannot take on myself the responsibility at this point of making a statement that could be called authoratative. Nobody knows whether devaluation is going to take place and no one can say what percentage the devaluation will be if there is devaluation. I do not think I attach too much importance to what I might call the ancient enemy of this country when I say that the United Kingdom is in a far more difficult position in this matter than this country. The reserves of the United Kingdom and the position of the United Kingdom in the world have an importance that far surpasses anything that even the most enthused nationalist of this country could claim for it. Nobody, not even the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the other side, has made an authoritative statement on this subject. Some questions have been asked of the Chancellor as to whether he was assenting to devaluation and were answered by statements of a decidedly negative nature with a certain amount of brusqueness about them.
There is taking place in Paris at the moment a meeting at which this question is being discussed. It is only when results emerge from that meeting that the facts will become so clear that policy in this matter of devaluation can be decided. As I said in the Dáil it is appreciated that there is pressure for the revaluation or devaluation of the £1 and it is dangerous to mislead public opinion by statements of an irresponsible nature such as Senator O'Brien referred to here to-day. Reading the various newspapers circulating in England I think one can safely conclude that in England a good deal of harm has been done to their situation by some of the newspaper comments that have been made. In any event, while sterling may be under suspicion at the moment its true position must be recognised. In the race so far as currency is concerned the dollar has so far outstripped it but outside dollars sterling is the best currency in the world to-day. Neither the Belgian nor the Swiss currency has anything like the same value or is as widespread a medium as sterling is. Sterling, whatever may be said about it, is an important currency and many countries have to regard it as hard currency.
As to whether devaluation will take place, to what extent it will go and, more particularly, what is to be done in this country in face of a revaluation or devaluation, is an entirely different matter and so full of hypotheses that I do not think anybody can, with reason, ask me to go through all the various circumstances that might arise. I should like to associate myself, in the main, with what Senator O'Brien said. I might put a note of interrogation here and there, mainly on matters of history, but I do not think that anybody could ask me to make a better statement than that which has come from the Senator. There may be a debate on this hereafter—not a very useful type of debate—in which the question will be raised as to whether, following Senator O'Brien's line, if we had been wiser in 1926 or 1936 or 1939, other and better arrangements might not have been made. I am sure that those who accept the present situation and regard it as almost inevitable will say that that position arose through circumstances of history and our economic relations with Britain. In any event, whatever the reason, this country has now to accept the position that the greater part of its assets held foreign are sterling assets. If there was any time at which evasive action could have been taken in connection with sterling, supposing that devaluation had been thought of as a possibility years ago, the only time anything could have been done about it was when there was supposed to be full convertibility as between sterling and dollars. That was only for a few months in 1947, and, although it was supposed to be full and free convertibility, it only applied to what were called current operations. That opportunity did not occur in my time or in the time of this Government. We have to meet whatever change comes as best we can when it does come.
May I say that it would be rash to conclude that if there should be a revaluation downwards, our assets abroad would lose a great part of their purchasing power or all their purchasing power. In relation to the sterling area, there will be little change, if we followed by devaluation here, and, in relation to those areas where sterling at the moment is a desirable currency, there most likely would be no change, because it is to be assumed that the currencies in Western Europe generally will have to suffer their own series of revaluation. So far as what is called the sterling area itself, or the area where sterling is a desirable currency, there need not necessarily be any great change. The question of prices remains outstanding, and there would be considerable difficulty with regard to the price situation.
The other way in which devaluation would effect the British situation and affect us would be that anything we might have to buy from the dollar areas would be increased in price. Dollar goods would be increased in price seriously or only to a small degree, according to whatever the percentage of devaluation might be. Again I say that I do not believe anybody can with reason ask me to go into this matter authoritatively or in detail or consider and decide on the many hypothetical situations that may arise. There is this to be mentioned on the other side, that, if dollar imports become dear and particularly if items of foodstuffs which England imports from dollar areas become dear, that might present a better opportunity for producers who could supply substitute goods from this area, where of course there would not be anything like the same currency difficulty. I have dealt with this matter very hesitatingly because it is not a matter on which anybody but a real expert could pronounce, and I do not put myself forward as a real expert. I should like to attach myself again to the comments of Senator O'Brien and ask people to read these, with whatever exceptions, minor exceptions, I have made.
Senator Burke raised a point with regard to the 5 per cent. tax on houses and I am very glad to get the opportunity of clearing up what appears to be a mistake in that connection. Speaking in Dáil Eireann on 23rd June, I did say, with regard to one of these stamp duties on property, that, at a fairly early date, apart from being driven away from this tax by pressure, I hoped we would get rid of it on our own. That referred to the 25 per cent. tax and it was only in that connection that I held out any hope of an early remission of the tax, and, even though I did say that then, I do not see how anybody could have believed that I was thinking of removing that tax in a period of weeks or months. If it is to be taken away, it will be next year— even the 25 per cent. tax.
With regard to the other, I ask those Senators, if they are pursued by anybody with the statement that I made a promise, to read column 1308 of the Dáil Debates of 23rd June. My reference to it is not too happily phrased, but my point of view is made perfectly clear. I said it was a tax which I would aim at getting rid of, but I went on to say that I hoped that anything I said would not prompt any expectation of getting this remission at an early date. I said there were quite a number of other things which, to my mind, would have priority and I mentioned the income-tax code, such things as increased allowances which had to be brought to some better stage of consistency with the present value of money and other matters. I said that the 5 per cent. tax was one which I hoped would disappear, but that there was no question of its disappearing in weeks or months or years. I believe that tax will be with us for three or four years yet. I want to say that because during that debate one Deputy —a Dublin solicitor Deputy—had put it to me that a condition of uncertainty with regard to this tax was very bad because people who believed the tax was coming off might refrain from making purchases of house property which they might otherwise indulge in. It was to still that condition that I spoke in this way, but I apparently have only added to the uncertainty. The 25 per cent. tax might come off in a year or two; the 5 per cent. tax, I hope, will come off sometime but I am not even promising that it will come off in a year or two.
