National Development Fund Bill, 1953—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Acting-Minister for Finance (Mr. Aiken)

Under this Bill a sum of £5,000,00 is being set aside this year in the National Development Fund which can be drawn upon to meet the cost of development works. The fund is a kind of capital reserve which can be used, as may be necessary, to give an impetus to the capital development programme by making additional money available over and above the Budget allocation for programmes of works already approved and to initiate new projects which might otherwise have been deferred for some time yet. This reserve will be especially useful to combat unemployment and its existence will enable prompt action to be taken whenever the unemployment situation becomes unsatisfactory, as money will be immediately available in the fund for this purpose.

Furthermore, the relief of unemployment through the fund will be associated directly with the promotion of development projects. the fund will make it possible to carry out works which will not only provide employment but will be of lasting benefit to the economy as a whole. The existence of the fund is stimulating the examination of possibilities over the whole field of State-financed development and a number of worthwhile and employment-giving projects have already emerged. Although the fund is, relatively speaking, a small one—about 3 per cent. of total State expenditure— its existence is, nevertheless, a real incentive to development. It gives the Government a limited and reasonable flexibility in the financial sphere and ensures that various authorities will not be deterred from putting forward their plans by doubts as to whether money will be available after the work of preparing the plans has been done.

Out of this year's provision the fund is supplying £1,000,000 to the Road Fund, as well as £500,000 for special employment schemes, £250,000 for Gaeltacht projects and £100,000 for schemes under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, 1949. Grants have also been allocated to other approved projects as follows: Cork Harbour improvements, £550,000; road development works in connection with E.S.B. hand-won turf stations, £200,000; Dublin Harbour improvements, £527,000; bridge over railway connection to Limerick, cement factory, £20,000; Department of Agriculture projects, development of fish hatcheries, £25,000; progeny testing, pigs and sheep, £88,000; special veterinary research, £25,000; production of foundation stocks of seed, £150,000; cattle progeny testing, £35,000; artificial insemination stations for north-west counties, £40,000; control stations for eggs and poultry, £100,000.

That is a total, issued from the fund to date or projects approved, of £3,610,000. Projects financed from the fund will be carried out by or under the auspices of the various Government Departments and Departments receiving issues from the fund will account for the expenditure in the same way as they account for other Exchequer issues for departmental services. These departmental accounts will be in addition to the accounts of the fund itself for which provision is made in Section 8 of the Bill.

In the current financial year the full amount of £5,000,000 will be paid into the fund. The amount to be paid into the fund in each of the next three financial years within the statutory limit of £5,000,000 will be determined each year in relation to relevant factors such as the level of employment, the balance of payments situation, and the provision already made in the Budget for development works. Any balance in the fund which is not needed for immediate expenditure can be re-invested in accordance with the provision of Section 6 of the Bill. When the fund is wound up on the 31st March, 1957, any balance remaining to the credit of the fund can be expended on projects which had been approved but had not been completed before that date.

Mr. Douglas

This is, I understand, a Money Bill. It is, therefore, a Bill we can talk about but can do nothing otherwise than express opinions. I should like to ask the Minister a few questions. Quite frankly, I am not very clear as to the extent to which this represents new procedure. I gathered from a report of one of his speeches in the Press that the main effect was to provide a little less control by the Oireachtas, that is, by the Dáil, to the extent of approximately 3 per cent. of expenditure, which, he pointed out, was a relatively small sum. What puzzles me is that there is any need for a lessening of control.

I have been a member of this House for about 30 years and I cannot recollect any one case of a Government proposing expenditure which was refused by the Dáil. Therefore, whatever merit may be in this Bill as a new procedure it is not entirely due to any difficulty in obtaining money for what the Government of the day considers to be wise or satisfactory expenditure. Apparently the only gain is—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong; I am not anxious to make any points that are not correct—that this can be done beforehand whereas otherwise the sanction would have to be given by the Dáil before the expenditure took place. I wonder is this really necessary? Is it a step in the right direction?

In the statement made by the Minister a few minutes ago he used the words "capital development" and said that all the expenditure under this fund would be of a capital development nature. I am not quite sure whether that is the case. When I read the Bill I took a different view. I thought the phrase "projects of development of a public character and in the national interest" was definitely framed to include expenditure other than capital expenditure.

Many of us are strongly in favour of wise capital expenditure. By wise capital expenditure I mean expenditure which will yield in future income either to the citizens of this country or to the State thereby enabling national development of a financial and economic character. I am not happy at the moment at the competition which seems to be going on between the political Parties as to which can spend the most. I read in the Irish Times a report of one of the Ministers of the present Government who boasted that the inter-Party Government were spending £24,000,000 whereas the present Government were spending £45,000,000. It does not seem to me that the spending of money in itself is anything to boast about, whereas expenditure in the way in which expenditure can be utilised in order to produce economic benefit is something which can promote healthy competition between Parties. However, I think there has been too much of the idea: “We are better than others because we spend more money.” I think that is wrong, and the tendency of this Bill is to make it easier—only to the extent of 3 per cent. and, therefore, perhaps not very important —to get sanction for expenditure whereas I am rather inclined to think what we want is something in the opposite direction, namely, to make it rather more difficult; a too easy sanctioning of expenditure has in itself little if any merit.

Under this Bill apparently the only sanction required is that the Minister for Finance of the day considers that the projects are projects of development of a public character and are in the national interest. If he considered anything that was not in the national interest or that he thought was not in the national interest, he would not be fit to be a Minister and he would not be here.

In regard to the other phrase "development of a public character" I would be glad if the Minister in replying could give us a little information as to whether this is intended to be confined to expenditure of a capital nature. We can remember that the present Minister for Finance—I am very sorry that he is not here, although that is no reflection on Deputy Aiken— made it very clear that he was very sceptical of certain funds being set aside by his predecessor for capital development. I think the description he gave them was that they were unwieldy; the suggestion quite definitely was that they were too large. Now, apparently, they are only half big enough, because twice as much is being spent. Can we take it that any portion of the money which is voted under the £5,000,000 has to be found out of taxation or may we take it definitely as the policy of the Government that this will be of a capital nature and will be met by borrowing? That is something which has not been mentioned in the Minister's statement. Maybe if I read all the Dáil Reports it would be quite clear, but it is not clear to me at the moment.

As far as this House is concerned it does not seem to me we have much function in criticising or deciding how the Dáil will sanction State expenditure. That is one of the matters in which our function is very clearly defined by the Constitution as being of an advisory character. We have no powers.

Mr. Summerfield

I think we must all welcome this Bill in the general terms in which the Minister has put it before us. However, I want to ask the Minister in his reply to give us a little bit more information than he did in his short statement. There is no doubt at all that if this expenditure of £5,000,000 per year is to be to the lasting benefit of the nation—in other words, if it is going to be spent on investment of a definite nature which will be productive, rather than just spending £5,000,000 to alleviate unemployment here, there, or elsewhere— we will all gladly take the necessary steps to find the money. However, the Minister made mention of certain projects to which moneys had already been allotted and one of them was the Dublin Port and Docks Board to which, I think, the amount of £527,000 has been made available.

I was at that board meeting to-day, and I think that sum represents 60 per cent. of the money that the board is to spend. When we are dealing in terms of money and when public authorities are mentioned, I think there should be no misunderstanding in the public mind as to what the exact situation is. In other words, the board itself must find somewhere in the neighbourhood of £400,000 in addition to this £527,000 from the State. I do not want that statement to be taken as unfriendly criticism of the scheme. The board is very grateful to the Government for making it possible to do works of that size and character, involving expenditure that otherwise would not be possible, but I feel—and I am sure the Minister will not mind my saying so—that now that the picture is to be put before the public as to how the moneys are to be spent, that the full picture should be painted so that the public will know what is happening; otherwise it will be assumed that the board is overnight going to get something over £500,000, and, naturally, everybody interested in employment will be expecting new schemes to be put in hand to-morrow morning, which just cannot happen.

I am happy to say that certain very definite schemes have already been considered. There is a network of projects to be carried out at the docks and these are being made possible by the moneys now being contributed out of the scheme but I would like it to be known that as far as the item for the Dublin Port and Docks Board is concerned the £527,000 represents only 60 per cent. of the amount which it hopes to spend. I welcome the Bill.

Professor Johnston

This Bill does not seem to arouse the amount of interest in this House that it did in the other House. It certainly gave rise to heat as well as to a certain amount of light in the debate which took place in the other House. I would like to say, outright, that I am not opposed to this Bill but, at the same time, I think the principles which it embodies are not without a certain danger and give rise to the possibility of adverse criticism. It is an effective instrument in the hands of the Government to enable them to deal with unforeseen contingencies in the way of a sudden increase in unemployment.

I think the giving to the Government of a certain discretion in the handling of the matter is justified by the fact that the Dáil is not always in session and that an emergency might arise at a time when it would not be convenient to summon the Dáil and that therefore the Government should have a certain amount of discretion in the matter of the use of public money for purposes of an unforeseen emergency character.

The unemployment situation is not good: at the same time, it is not as bad as all that. If I have rightly interpreted the statistics which are circulated to Senators, unemployment in the month of January was up by 12,440, as compared with the 19th December. However, as compared with January, 1953, it was down by 5,628. Therefore, it will be admitted that it varies very considerably from month to month and no one can tell what the unemployment situation will be in a few months' time.

Undoubtedly, the Bill is open to objection on constitutional grounds. However, if the administration of this money is carried out under the auspices of a suitable organisation—and I am sure the staff of the Minister can be trusted to provide such an organisation —and especially if a certain proportion of it should be set aside to meet the special requirements of the congested districts and the Gaeltacht areas, I think it would be open to less objection on constitutional grounds. For instance, there is the problem of the onion growers in the Dingle Peninsula. I believe that by means of this particular measure it might be possible to help to organise the business of those onion growers on a permanent and more satisfactory basis, and enable them to supply the requirements of the home market more efficiently and to the greater satisfaction of all concerned.

There is always the fact that under the ordinary unemployment legislation there is regularly provided to the members of families in small farming areas in the off seasons a certain amount of money for doing nothing. The unemployment period determines the length of the time they can draw that money. If, in some way, the use of this money could be amalgamated with some saving from the other sources of expenditure to increase the opportunities for employment for such people who are now paid for doing nothing, it would be a definite saving to the public purse. That is co-ordination about which a flexible administrative organisation, which really knew intimately the circumstances of the country, might be able to make valuable suggestions which the Minister could act on in his public capacity.

It is difficult for the State, by the mere expenditure of public money on the various projects that are available to them, directly to increase permanent employment. The kind of things on which public money is generally spent are essentially temporary—the widening of roads, the removal of a bridge, and so forth. It provides employment for the time being, so long as the money is there and the work remains to be done. But when the Naas Bridge has been removed and a level crossing is placed in its stead of a kind to enable motor cars to tear into the town of Naas at 40 m.p.h. instead of 30 or 25 m.p.h., the only permanent employment you are likely to increase is the employment of undertakers and grave-diggers.

Mr. Hearne

And lawyers.

Professor Johnston

It is more a question of the objects on which that public money is spent than the mere expenditure of the money itself which is going to make any permanent improvement in the capital equipment of the country. It is extremely difficult, with the expenditure of public money, to ensure that you are going to remove the root causes of unemployment and contribute permanently to an increase in long-term employment.

In the course of his remarks in the other House, the Minister said that he would like to see individuals—farmers and others—spending their own capital in developing their own productive capacity, especially in the matter of liming the land. The Minister pointed out that an expenditure of £2 or £3 would give a return, over a period of years, as much as fifty fold in an extreme case. I thoroughly agree. I think it is really more in accordance with the character of our economy that we should encourage private individuals to spend their own capital in developing profit-making opportunities for themselves which will guarantee permanent employment for themselves and their employees than that we should develop too much the functions of the State in this matter.

I think it was the Ibec Report that pointed out that already, although we claimed to be a private enterprise economy, the State has absorbed so many of the economic functions or so much of the control of the economic life of the nation that, in some respects, we are a more Socialist community than Britain. That report warned us that we are in some danger of undermining the springs of private enterprise and that private investment of capital for one's own profit-making purposes is discouraged if the State goes too far in the way of spending capital on objects of public enterprise. My fear is that if we spend too much money, especially on inadequately considered objects of public expenditure, we may lessen rather than increase the disposition of private owners of business and firms to expend or invest their capital in their own business enterprises. After all, I take it that this additional money is more likely to come out of additional borrowing than out of any surplus available in the current revenues of the State.

Therefore, in the long run, it must add to the national debt and prevent a reduction, if it does not actually entail an increase, in taxation. Those two causes alone are apt to diminish the incentive of the owners of private business to extend their investments and provide more and permanent employment. However, perhaps the moral is rather that we should be extremely choosy of the objects on which this money will be spent. From that point of view, I hope it will not be spent in parts of the country where its principal effect would be to draw labour away from existing opportunities of permanent work but rather that it will be used to provide occupation in parts of the country where people have not the same opportunity for permanent wage paid labour.

Another aspect of this matter is that, as the Ibec Committee pointed out, already the State claims I think the whole of the total current savings of the community. Consequently, if the State expands its demand for capital for its various purposes and if private enterprise also should develop a demand for capital for various developmental purposes, the net effect must be to unbalance the balance of payments again, and to create the situation which confronted the Government when they came into office three years ago. Any unbalancing of the balance of payments must lead to a surplus of imports and to a disinvestment of external assets.

I now come to what I regard as the fundamental cause of the unemployment situation and of the migration and emigration from the country and of the slow increase in agricultural production. Farms are of all sorts of different sizes, but they can be divided mainly into three groups—those under 50 acres, those between 50 and 100 acres and those over 100 acres. Of the total manpower engaged in agriculture —which is about 500,000 people— 350,000, approximately, are engaged on farms of under 50 acres. In most cases the farmers themselves or the persons occupied are relatives of the farm family. Since 1939 these 350,000 people—on whose energies the country must mainly rely for any potential increase of agricultural production—have found the circumstances adverse to any expansion of their efforts to increase production. Those circumstances were adverse partly owing to world conditions and partly owing to Government policies, not only here but in other countries. The economy of a small-scale farm, one of under 50 acres, is inevitably based on dairying, whether that farm is in a creamery district or not.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is widening this discussion too much.

Professor Johnston

I suggest that our real object should be to remove the permanent causes of unemployment.

An Cathaoirleach

We cannot have a discussion on problems of dairying and of small farms on this Bill.

Professor Johnston

If we could bring about an increase in agricultural production by improving the economic situation and outlook of those 350,000 people who are occupied on 50-acre farms, it would do more to cure the permanent causes of unemployment in the country and in the towns, than anything that is likely to be accomplished by means of this Bill.

Mr. McGuire

I suppose nobody could object to the terms of this Bill, as the money to be voted is to be utilised for the employment creating projects which the Minister enumerated. Taking the broader outlook which Senator Johnston touched on—and which he was not allowed to deal with in too much detail—I think that, in the main, he was on the right track. First of all, there is much perturbation in the public mind and in the minds of business people—I do not mean big business people, but all people who have to make their money the hard way—at the necessity for this Government priming of the economy in dealing with the unemployment situation. If our economy were good, if business were prosperous in agriculture and industry and commerce, I wonder would this Bill be necessary. It really stems from the fact that the unemployment situation was getting serious, that it was becoming politically embarrassing and that it was absolutely necessary that something should be done to keep the unemployment figures from getting bigger month by month.

The fact that unemployment was growing, after 30 years of self-Government, surely points to the fact that there is something wrong with our whole economy. I know there is something wrong. What I believe is wrong is that we have no proper basic policy behind our economy. We say it is a private enterprise economy, but we make it impossible for private enterprise to function, because the Government takes too much on itself. We are told by certain individuals that private enterprise is a failure, but no system could succeed if it is not allowed to function properly. It is hamstrung in all sorts of ways—by taxation and by control, as well as by a psychological atmosphere that makes it impossible for it to function. The things that make for a prosperous private enterprise economy are success and wealth. If we are to have successful private enterprises certain persons and bodies must be allowed to get rich. But to get rich, for an individual or a corporation, is forbidden by law and is impossible. But what is wrong, what is the necessity for the Bill, is that we have not wholeheartedly made up our minds as to the kind of economy we want.

If we want a socialist economy, where the Government is asked to do all sorts of things, let us say so and get on with it, let us know that it is a socialist economy and let us know what our limitations are; but if it is to be a private enterprise economy, let us make our laws such that they will make it possible for the private enterprise economy to function, let us make our laws and our taxation system such that people will be able to build up and utilise capital. If I were to see any force exerted in this country, if we are a private enterprise economy, I would like to see the force exerted in making people create capital, in making it almost obligatory to create a certain amount of capital. Of course, we never would do that, but at least let us create the incentives. This Bill is in fact a symptom of the fact that all is not well with our economy.

I thought up to recently that perhaps the situation here was not different from that anywhere else, but this last week-end I had the owner of one of the leading departmental stores— the leading departmental store—in England as a guest in my house and I asked him how was trade in distribution. He said it was excellent, indeed, better than last year. I had a lady here at the same time from America—from one of the leading stores in New York. This lady is a buyer for that store, turning over some $3,000,000 a year, which is £1,000,000. This year she is expecting that $3,000,000 turnover to go up by another $500,000. That is the picture from two of the leading stores—in New York and London—to-day. In my own business, the textile trade, it is no secret that in both distribution and manufacturing things are not good at all.

Senator Douglas referred to two matters—he asked the Minister if this Bill would be dealt with through taxation or through borrowing. I suggest that, whichever way it is done, it is going to be bad for our economy. If it is through taxation, it involves more taxation on to that which already so heavily weighs us down. If, on the other hand, it is by borrowing, I would suggest that a peculiar situation will arise. It is well known that we are under-capitalised in private enterprise in this country. It is made impossible to build up capital, by our taxation laws; but at the same time, having made it impossible to build up the capital we need, through taxation, the State is engaged in borrowing at a very high rate of interest. The last loan was floated at 5 per cent. Such an attractive rate naturally succeeded in mopping up very large amounts of risk capital. What some people have not noticed is that, at the same time as this high rate is being offered by the State for capital, industry and commerce is being controlled by tribunals and inquiries of all kinds and is being prevented from showing a proper return to investors of capital in private industry. The result is that we get the comparison as between State investment, which is gilt-edged security, giving this high rate of interest, and private industry is prevented from giving a proper rate of interest on risk capital. Therefore, the State is having it both ways and, as I say, it is paralysng our private enterprise economy.

For that reason, I feel that if we should even now make up our minds as to whether we are a private enterprise economy or not and if we could get down to these questions of taxation, creation of capital and so on, a Bill of this sort would not be necessary and it would not be necessary to provide these sums of money through State organisations to create employment. As Senator Douglas says, we have no power to do anything about the Bill, but we can at least express our views on it, and all I can say is that I am very sorry that such a Bill should have to be introduced at this time. After 30 years of self-Government, I feel that our unemployment situation should be dealt with for the most part through the ordinary channels of private enterprise industry.

Professor O'Brien

Everybody in the House will agree on the necessity for national development. It is a matter on which all Parties in the State are in substantial agreement. The history of this country is one of underdevelopment in the past. There have been a number of unfortunate influences impeding the development of the national resources and it is a very right and proper thing that an Irish Government should do everything it can to build up the resources of the country. At the same time, I agree with Senator McGuire that private enterprise is the best way of developing the country. Everything he says is, in my opinion, true; but I am afraid we have to admit that private enterprise, in the circumstances of Ireland at the moment, is unlikely to develop sufficiently fast to solve the unemployment problem to any great extent and to open up investment in all desirable directions.

There is a certain lack of tradition of investment in Irish business and a certain lack of knowledge of opportunities amongst the agricultural community. As was said by Senator Johnston, the ideal type of national investment would be the investment by farmers of their savings in their own farms. That, we hope, will come with the passage of time—it is largely a matter of education of farmers regarding the openings and the opportunities in their own industry.

I also agree with Senator McGuire that the high taxation of individuals and companies has a deterrent effect on private enterprise. It is extremely difficult for anybody to-day to save any money. The whole system of income-tax, profits tax and death duties is a deterrent to saving. I am glad that the Minister for Finance, whose absence from this debate, we regret, has acceded to the wishes of the Seanad in setting up an inquiry into income-tax—with special regard to the effect of income-tax on business. The result of the report of that committee may be to take away some of the disincentive effect of the present taxation system.

We must all agree with Senator Douglas that the spending of public money is not an end in itself, that, other things being equal, the less public money is spent the better, and that anything in the nature of competition between political Parties on a spending spree is wholly deplorable. Having said all that, we must admit that the present Bill is justified in the circumstances of the situation. Public investment is being pursued in every country in the world to-day, and, although I quite agree with what Senator McGuire said regarding the mixed type of our system—not being clearly either capitalist or socialist—we are only following many other countries, which are quite as individualist as ours, in extending the field of public development. I think the extension of public investment is inevitable in the 20th century. My attitude towards the Bill is that it is a regrettable necessity. It is a second best, but, at the same time, it is a necessity, and therefore we should welcome it. We should direct our attention in the Seanad to making some constructive criticism in the direction of seeing that the Bill does the most possible good and the least possible harm.

A particular aspect of the Bill which strikes me as requiring discussion is the need for a consistent policy by the Government in administering it and clear thinking regarding the purposes of the Bill. One matter which I wish to emphasise very strongly is that, in the debates in the Dáil and in the Bill itself, there seems to be a certain confusion of thinking between the aim of employment and the aim of national development. The two are frequently spoken of as if they were synonymous, the fact being that measures which give a great deal of employment may not do much to develop the country and measures which do a great deal to develop the country may not give much employment. It is necessary for the Seanad and the Government to be perfectly clear what the object of this legislation is. If I thought the object of the legislation was merely to deal with demonstrations of unemployed, I would be entirely opposed to it. I have frequently said in the Seanad that the finding of work out of public money for work's sake is not justified in our situation to-day. Therefore it is very important that we should have an assurance from the Minister that the object of the Bill is not merely relief works or doles or the giving of employment but definitely the building up of the resources of the country, with the hope of giving not merely temporary employment, but, as Senator Johnston said, some measure of more permanent employment, so that when any particular scheme has been completed, the employment will not come to an end and another problem will not have to be faced.

Therefore, I think the question of the choice of investments is very important and I will come later to that question again—who is to make the choice of investments? We are giving in the Bill considerable discretion to somebody to invest public money without specific parliamentary sanction, and, in doing so, there should be clear guidance given to the Government as to what are the wishes of the Legislature regarding the directions in which that investment should take place. In the first place, I should say that one object that must be ruled out is work for work's sake. The classical case which is always quoted is the Keynes example—digging holes and filling them up again. That is not the type of employment which we wish to see given under the Bill.

In choosing schemes under the Bill, choice will have to be made between schemes with a high labour content and schemes with a less high labour content, and I suggest that the labour content of a scheme should not be the decisive criterion of its desirability. I suggest that, where schemes are more or less equal in other respects, a high labour content is preferable to a low labour content. I suggest that there might be some preference given, even when things are not entirely equal, to schemes with a high labour content, because we all agree that the stemming of the tide of emigration is a benefit for which the country should be prepared to pay a certain price.

I gathered from the Minister's introductory observations here and the debate in the Dáil that the amount of money spent under this Bill will vary with the condition of the balance of payments. I gather that the powers in this Bill will be used as a sort of thermostat to keep employment stable, that when the balance of payments is good more may be spent and when it is bad less will be spent. It is perfectly proper and in accordance with all modern approaches to the trade cycle and balance of payments that the Government is entitled to vary the amount of public expenditure in accordance with changes in the business climate and the state of trade.

I take it that it is the intention of the Government that, if the balance of payments position is unsatisfactory, no money will be spent under this Bill and that if the balance of payments position is unfavourable all expenditure under this Bill must be clamped down. The justification given by the Minister in the Dáil for the introduction of the Bill was that the balance of payments had become favourable and that, therefore, expenditure of this money could be afforded. I take it that the Minister accepts the truth of the converse of that proposition— that if the balance of payments position becomes unfavourable expenditure under this Bill cannot be afforded and will, therefore, come to an end. Even if the balance of payments is favourable, it is to be hoped that the expenditure under the Bill will be of a kind which will help to make it more favourable in the future, that the criterion of expenditure will always be ultimately the strengthening of the balance of payments.

A mere temporary improvement in the balance of payments caused by some quite fortuitous factor, such as an improvement in the terms of trade, should never be allowed to justify a mere spending spree on unproductive expenditure. Even when the balance of payments is quite favourable, expenditure under this Bill should be very judicious and very carefully chosen and not wasteful. It should not be designed simply to provide work for work's sake and to stop unemployment at any cost in order to keep the unemployed quiet and prevent them from sitting down in the streets of Dublin.

As was suggested by a previous speaker in the debate, there always is the danger that expenditure of this kind may help impair the balance of payments. Therefore, I suggest that the Oireachtas is giving the Government in this Bill certain powers which may be used for good but, if unwisely used, may be harmful in their consequence. The justification for the Bill is that certain circumstances change rapidly. The Dáil is not always in session, Estimates have sometimes to be debated at length and action must be taken without delay. There are many circumstances which change in an unforeseeable and rapid manner.

The unemployment situation changes not only in regard to nations as a whole but in regard to particular localities. As Senator Johnston has indicated, the cessation of some types of public works may leave a train of unemployment in its wake. The openings for productive employment change from time to time. Governments must have the same keen eye for productive openings that a good business man has. Finally, the balance of payments itself changes quite rapidly as a result of changes in the terms of trade, import and export prices and all sorts of influences which may develop quite rapidly and quite unpredictably. The fact of these changes and the necessity for rapid action are the justifications of the Bill.

Parliament is abrogating part of its function and part of its sovereignty in this Bill. It is giving to the Administration the choice of the objects of public expenditure and the handling of public money without specific votes and individual estimates. It, therefore, becomes a matter of great importance for Parliament to be sure, in abrogating its function, that these powers will not be abused. The question we must all ask is: "Who is to make the decision under this Bill?"

In previous debates on cognate subjects in this Chamber I referred more than once to the recommendations of the Banking Committee for a national investment council. That is a matter which was not implemented in the Central Bank Act which implemented other recommendations of the commission. I always thought that it did not receive sufficient attention from the Government of the day. The growing volume of public investment has rendered the recommendation of the Banking Commission more rather than less urgent.

When this Bill came forward, it occurred to me that some sort of advisory body of that kind might be usefully constituted to supervise the operation of the Bill. Parliament is handling over a large amount of money to be spent without direct responsibility and, therefore, there should be some sort of check on this large public expenditure. In reading the speech of the Minister in the Dáil on the 10th February, column 95 of the Parliamentary debates, I see that there is a reference by the Minister to the National Development Committee. It seems perhaps that the body for which I have been pleading has existed all the time, but so far as I know this is the first reference in a parliamentary debate to the existence of this body.

The National Development Committee could be a body of very considerable importance in the country. It is not, as far as I know, provided for in the Constitution or in any statute. Therefore, I would welcome some statement from the Minister in his reply to this debate as to precisely what is the composition of this National Development Committee to which he referred in the Dáil, for the first time, to my knowledge.

What I suggest is that, where Parliament is giving to the Government powers of a discretionary nature in spending public money, there should be some machinery for combining the general principles laid down in the Bill with the requisite flexibility necessary for rapidly adjusting policy to changing circumstances. There should be some compromise between the dilatory procedure of individual estimates, which may take months to go through the Dáil and quite arbitrary decisions taken by Ministers, possibly on the advice of a committee of this kind which we have now heard about for the first time. Such decisions may be dictated by purely political considerations and even if not dictated by purely political considerations, may be regarded by public opinion as being so dictated especially at times of approaching elections.

Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that some sort of machinery is necessary to combine consistency and flexibility, and that in introducing this Bill a very good opportunity has arisen for reconsidering the recommendations of the Banking Commission regarding the necessity for a national development council. Those are the only observations I have to make on the Bill which I welcome in its general principles.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

This Bill is not only necessary, but essential, though perhaps not quite in the form in which it is here. Senator Johnston suggested that this Bill did not evoke much interest in this House but it appears to have evoked a great deal of interest on this side of the House. It does not seem to have commended itself very strongly to members on the other side of the House and the reason for that is that the necessity for the introduction of this Bill is a complete confession and an acknowledgment by the Government of the entire failure of their economic and financial policy.

This Bill is essential to relieve the serious unemployment which exists. This Bill, called the National Development Fund Bill, should be really called the "Relief of Unemployment Bill". This Bill is brought in because of the serious state of unemployment which has been worsening every week since the Government attained power. It is for that reason and for that reason only that this Bill is introduced.

In my view it is nonsense to talk about capital development works. So far as I know capital development works have, in the main, been provided for from time to time by the Oireachtas. Each Minister concerned with capital development has put forward his requirements in Bills which were brought before the Dáil and the Seanad giving the Minister the necessary power to deal with capital development works. These schemes for developing poultry stations, artificial insemination stations and so on— is it not childish to expect us to believe that these are really in the nature of capital development works? This Bill is brought in merely to relieve unemployment, serious unemployment which has been caused as a result of the policy of the Government. If the Government had any decency they would have resigned months ago or they would have given this Bill its proper title.

Following these few remarks some little interest may be shown from the other side of the House in regard to this Bill. This Bill will have my support. I am not deterred by the fact that it is a Money Bill from making recommendations, as I propose to do, later on. It seems to be suggested here that because this Bill is a Money Bill the Seanad can do nothing about it. We can make some recommendations which, it is hoped, will be given consideration elsewhere.

I would recommend that the Minister be given this £5,000,000 for only one year, for the year ending on 31st March next. We could then review what the Minister had done with these moneys and if he satisfies us we can give him a further £5,000,000 for another year. The Minister should account every year for the manner in which he has expended the £5,000,000.

Senator O'Brien referred on a number of occasions to the balance of payments and stated that the Minister had given some indication that the moneys to be expended might have to be considered in regard to the state of the balance of payments. I do not know if there is anything in the Bill— I do not think there is any obligation on the Minister to have regard to any balance of payments. Under the Bill, he may spend £5,000,000 per year. I am afraid the balance of payments will have nothing whatever to do with the £5,000,000 to be or not to be expended. What may have something to do with it, as Senator O'Brien perhaps suggested when he was concluding his speech, is the balance of votes. I am not suggesting that the Minister for Finance would be concerned solely with the balance of votes, but he might decide, on the balance of votes, to allot the moneys in a particular way. If I were right in thinking that that might occur, that is another reason why we should not give the Minister power for four years but only for one year.

I would like the Minister to give us in a little more detail particulars of the proposed development works. He has referred to one or two schemes, but he has merely given us headings. I have no clear idea as to how the money might be spent. Would the Minister think that in cities like Galway, Cork, Limerick and Dublin he could or would allot moneys for, say, the construction of car parks to relieve very serious problems in those cities? Such works would give a great deal of employment and would be of lasting service to the particular city.

The Minister has told us a considerable portion of the money is being allotted in regard to roads. There are roads in other big towns throughout the country in a bad state of repair with which, apparently, the local authority will not for some reason deal. Perhaps roads of that kind might be dealt with and moneys given to the local authority to enable them to repair these roads.

Let us be quite clear about this Bill. I submit it is brought in, quite properly, to relieve the unemployment situation that has been caused. The money, despite what some Senators have suggested, will be used in the main to relieve unemployment; otherwise there is no point in asking us to approve the Bill at all. The unemployment situation is such that it must be relieved.

As I say, we should not be asked to give the Minister the power to spend up to £5,000,000 per year for four years. How do we know what he will do with this money? He may think the purchase of another Tulyar would be a proper purpose for which to expend money, on the claim that such a purchase would be for national development. Subject to giving the Minister the power for one year, I fully approve of this Bill.

Mr. O'Donnell

It is, I understand, a common practice, when a person is suffering from anaemia, to give him a blood transfusion and, to a certain extent, that is what this Bill is. This Bill is an indictment not alone of this Government, as Senator O'Reilly has suggested, but of all the Governments that have been in this country so far because the time has arrived when acknowledgment is made of the fact that underdevelopment has been allowed to exist for a long period of time. This transfusion of £5,000,000 into the body economic is an overdue injection and it would be a very foolhardy person, no matter what Party he belonged to, who would object to such an injection. Let us not be fooled into making political capital by holding the present Minister responsible. All the Governments of this country, no matter who their Ministers for Finance were, were just as guilty as the present Government. With regard to underdevelopment and unemployment, unless the State proceeded in certain circumstances in the matter of private enterprise, as has been suggested by Senator O'Brien, nobody would do it. Might I say here, as an aside, that private enterprise probably fails to do it for the reason that the majority of the people of this country who compose that peculiar thing known as "private enterprise" are people of small means. The wealthy people of this country had no national outlook. They were not interested at all in national development. Those who have grown up in private enterprise to-day are people who came from the soil. I suggest that where this Government and previous Governments have failed is in their failure to champion national finance through national spending sources in the persons of those people who came up from the soil and who were under-capitalised because they came from the people themselves. That failure is the cause of this Development Bill to-day.

We created certain Government institutions here, one of which was the Industrial Credit Corporation which has now become, contrary to its original objective, a profit-earning corporation for the Government. May be that is desirable in its own way but it was not the original objective of that corporation that it should be profit earning. The original intention was that development schemes would be governed by private enterprise, behind the running of which would be men of integrity, of imagination and of knowledge, who would be financed through that Industrial Credit Corporation. It has been obvious to many of us for many years past that the entire operations of that corporation are not directed upon those lines. The Minister has now come before this House with this Bill and the inference of this remarks is that we must have some fusion of finance in the body politic. In other words, he is refuting what the Minister for Finance stated two years ago and he is doing now what other political Parties have for years been asking this Government to do, that is, to admit that there has been underdevelopment in this country.

I welcome this Bill. Let us, however, not sail under any false colours in regard to it or claim glories in respect of it or say that the reason for this Bill is because a situation has now arisen which we did not foresee. It should have been foreseen. This country has been underdeveloped not since to-day or yesterday but for hundreds of years past. I do not care what Government it may be, any Government which did not finance national development from its own resources is as guilty as the present Government of failure to implement a policy of national development. Five million pounds is a welcome fusion into the purchasing power of the country but I suggest that that amount will not make any radical change. I should prefer to see the greater portion of our external investments converted to the same purpose and, for that reason, I am not in entire agreement with what Senator P.F. O'Reilly said on this matter.

Senator O'Brien spoke about how the financing of this £5,000,000 would take place—whether it would be by way of loan or by way of taxation. I am wondering why it should be either of these two ways. We have Government funds under our own control—funds which are externally invested at the moment. I suggest that those funds would be much better invested in our own country where there are plenty of opportunities for development whether in capital works or otherwise. Whether or not the Minister agrees with me now, there was a time, in his early days, when he did not like to see financial spending under the complete control of a Government, as such. It is rather a bad principle to find in this National Development Fund Bill this statement: "The National Development Fund shall be under the control and management of the Minister."

I would reinforce the plea which Senator O'Brien made that what I might term a national economic council be formed for consultation about and implementation of all such schemes proposed by this and future Governments. In fairness to the Minister himself and to anybody implementing this scheme, I think that that should be done. No matter how justly the Minister may administer any proportion of the scheme, it is open to suspicion that there will be a political bias on any scheme which he fosters. If a certain road down in County Meath gets attention it will be said that that was probably because the Minister had a Deputy there who was a friend of his and who was able to put up a good case. Senator O'Brien's suggestion should have been acted upon long ago by this and previous Governments. I should like to see the Minister far removed from any atmosphere of suspicion in this matter. Senator O'Brien's suggestion is not new. It was made by the Banking Commission he mentioned and it was made earlier than that by organisations of industrialists and Irish cooperative ventures. The old I.D.A., in the early twenties, completely outlined that principle and the Federation of Irish Manufacturers asked on many occasions for the establishment of a National Economic Council.

I would be in complete agreement with Senator McGuire in his desire to ensure that as far as possible investments of this nature should go through private enterprise rather than through what I might term Government-sponsored projects. I am quite certain the Minister will agree that State investment is not the best and most economic form of investments. What is nobody's business is nobody's business. Moneys which belong to the State are spent by people in a manner in which they would not be spent if they belonged to those people themselves. How the Minister can divert any portion of this fund towards private enterprise projects is something I cannot say but I suggest exploring the avenues he has through the Industrial Credit Corporation and other similar institutions and that judgments in the granting of credits to proposed industries be based not entirely upon the profit motive.

The original idea was that young men who went out and fought for this country and did their best for this country and who wished to partake in the industrialisation of this country in the early days would be given an opportunity through the Credit Corporation of going into the economic life of the country and taking their part in it. That was not done generally. If it were there would not be this necessity on the Minister now to ask for £5,000,000 for national development to-day. I am not blaming this Minister in particular in this connection: I am blaming all our Governments for failure to implement in the best way they could the policy to which they espoused themselves of developing the country through private enterprise.

I hope the Minister will believe me when I say that I am not trying to make any political capital whatsoever out of this Bill. As a matter of fact I welcome this Bill more than I have welcomed any Bill which has come before this House since I became a Senator, because it is the first time that I have heard the Minister say publicly that there are problems in this country which can be and which must be solved by our financing them, whether it be done through Government sources or through private enterprise. In effect that means that we may recover and invest in our own country some proportion of those external investments which could more properly be invested in our own country.

Five million pounds are an extremely small sum. I should like to see the Minister go much further in this matter. I have perfect confidence that any Government, in the matter of the dispersal of such a fund for national development, would do it as good and honest men. I have that faith in every, what I might term, politician in this country. We should not say that any Minister would use it for political purposes. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that, to save himself and any successors he may have, from any such aspersion it would be advisable to take the advice of Senator O'Brien and create a national economic advisory council.

I think that this Bill is too small, too insignificant, and that it will not make any great mark on the body politic. However, in so far as it is a step on the right road, I welcome and support it.

Mr. S.T. Ruane

I rise to give my support to this Bill. I regard it as a continuance of the policy of providing capital for national development, initiated by the inter-Party Government Minister for Finance, Deputy McGilligan. I had not an opportunity of being present when the acting-Minister for Finance made his statement here to-day but looking up the Dáil reports I found no indication in the Minister's introductory speech there as to the manner in which this money is to be spent. We know that when Deputy McGilligan produced the dual Budget, the capital Budget, the items of expenditure of a capital nature were definitely specified in the Book of Estimates—so much so, that members of the Oireachtas had an opportunity of discussing the matter and drawing the attention of the Minister and the Government to questions which they felt might be dealt with more fully or to certain matters or developments that might be left in abeyance while others were more in need of attention. We have not that opportunity here. My trouble to-day is to find out what is capital development, as the Minister understands it, or what is the capital development on which the £5,000,000 is to be expended annually.

Coming from a rural area, I have my own ideas as to how quite a considerable amount of the annual provision of £5,000,000 could be spent. If I refer specifically to one county it is because I happen to be, naturally, more in touch with affairs there. I believe that the details to which I wish to draw the attention of the House are common in every county of the TwentySix Counties. I understand that part of this money can be spent on roads and I should like to draw the attention of the Minister and the Seanad to one class of roads that are sadly in need of very special attention—roads that accommodate the vast majority of the people in the rural areas and that have deteriorated very much during the past ten, 12 or 15 years because they had to carry traffic of a kind for which they were never intended: I mean the county roads. Of these, we have in County Mayo 2,300 miles. These roads were mainly intended for horse-drawn traffic, vehicles with iron-shod wheels. They served that purpose very well. The local bodies, by way of contracts, made ample provision for the repair and maintenance of these roads. However, that is a thing of the past. For the past ten or 12 years, and certainly for the past five or six years, these roads have been carrying very heavy traffic and trucks conveying ground limestone to areas in which the land rehabilitation scheme is being given effect to. They are carrying travelling shops, vans, bulldozers and other vehicles of a kind for which the roads were never intended. Those roads were never soled as the main roads are. This year in County Mayo, to provide for a new contract—because the three year period expires, and we could not look forward to contractors taking these roads on, at anything like the price they took them three years ago—we have found it necessary to step up the expenditure on roads by 1/3 in the £. That means that for these roads in County Mayo the rate-payers have to find £27,000 this year if they are to get contractors to take them on for the next triennial period. Even if they do, I do not see how these contractors, even at the higher price, can keep them in repair, if they still have to carry the traffic like they have had for the past three years.

The Government made a very serious effort to cut across that traffic, by putting an extra heavy tax on motor vehicles, but did not succeed. I hold that a very useful way in which some of this £5,000,000 could be spent would be in helping the local bodies to put these roads in a state of repair and to keep them that way, by providing the machinery which the contractors cannot provide.

We have not been told—as some speakers have pointed out—how this annual contribution of £5,000,000 is to be provided—whether by taxation or borrowing. I imagine it is not the intention of the Government to provide it by taxation, as the Taoiseach himself has said that taxation has reached the highest level and that the people cannot bear any more. If it is to be met by borrowing, it would be interesting to us to know the rate at which it will borrowed. Since this proposal was mooted, I know that the Chief Executive Officer in County Mayo has circularised different members of public bodies, asking them to put up proposals that could be met by grants from this fund. Several proposals have come forward. One is for the provision of a piped water supply for areas that so far have been deprived of that particular amenity. I take it that, before any local body can avail of the financial benefits provided in this Bill, a local contribution will be necessary.

Without wishing to come back to the question of roads, I wish to state that the local bodies are making a very liberal contribution at present, in order to secure a substantial slice of this annual amount of money provided for national development. I trust that before the Bill becomes law we may have a clearer idea as to how this money is to be spent—whether it is the intention of the Government that it will be spent so as to increase production and thus enable the people to pay the interest on this money, if it is to be obtained by borrowing. I certainly would not like to think that the only dividends the Government expect to get from the expenditure of this money are political dividends. We would rather see economic dividends forthcoming.

Mr. Aiken

Senator Douglas referred to this fund as something new in Government procedure and procedure in the Oireachtas. Surely he remembers the Transition Development Fund? It was put forward by me in 1946 in order to meet the situation that existed at that time. We were then shortly after the war and material for all sorts of development work was very hard to get. We were anxious that local authorities should go ahead with housebuilding, that the E.S.B. should get ahead with the rural electrification schemes and that various Government or semi-State organisations like Bord na Móna should go ahead as rapidly as possible with national development. In order to deal with the uncertainties of supply and the difficulty of pricing a job ahead of time in those days, we undertook to meet extraordinary costs relating to the period out of that fund, if these various authorities and organisations would go ahead.

I am certain that the existence of that fund enabled us to get very rapidly into our stride after the war and indeed we were ahead of a number of other countries in the rapidity of our development. Our housebuilding, notwithstanding the difficulties, jumped from very few houses per year to a considerable number, even by 1947; the rural electrification scheme got under way very rapidly; and other schemes also got under way with speed. When the Coalition Government came in in 1948, they paid me the best possible compliment, a few years in arrear, by continuing the fund and adding another £2,000,000 to it, although, by 1948, things had become as normal as they are likely to become for some years in the future.

This National Development Fund has the same basic idea underlying it as the Transition Development Fund. We want to take advantage of all possible opportunities to have capital development carried out, and we want to stimulate activity on capital development that might, perhaps, be postponed for a number of years in the absence of this fund. I have given the Seanad, as I gave the Dáil, an indication of the type of works for which we are prepared to draw on the fund, and I did not hear any Senators or members of the Dáil criticise any of the items in the list I gave here and in the Dáil.

Senator Johnston and Senator O'Brien were anxious about the general financial stability of the country and the effect of this fund upon financial stability. I am quite prepared to agree that, when there is a heavy adverse trade balance, Governments should find the money for necessary works and for current expenditure other than by means of borrowing or any other system of raising money which would add to the volume of money circulating within the country. Back in 1947, we introduced a Supplementary Budget in order to take, through taxation, some of the excess purchasing power floating around, when we wanted to raise funds for certain expenditures. That was not very popular with certain members who are now very enthusiastic for Government expenditure. In 1952, the Minister for Finance introduced a Budget which had in it increased taxation, and he imposed that increased taxation in order that the Government might meet its current expenditure and promote capital development, without causing an inflation in the volume of money, an inflation which would have the result which Senator Johnston pointed out, of drawing on our past reserves.

In the present situation, it is open to the Government to borrow and to spend this money, if there are projects available which will add to the national wealth. We have those opportunities available and, at the same time, we have a number of unemployed in the country. It was because our international balance of payments was reasonably right and because we had a number of unemployed in the country and opportunities for productive work, for productive schemes, that the Government reintroduced the principle of the Transition Development Fund and established this National Development Fund. I think that if it is used properly it will help the general policy of development in which this Government has always been interested. I do not know where Senator O'Reilly got the idea that national development was started by Deputy McGilligan, ex-Minister for Finance. Senator O'Reilly must have gone round a lot of election platforms recently to get that dinned into his ear. There is no basis of truth in it.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We are dealing with the National Development Fund Bill.

Mr. Aiken

Senator O'Reilly made that statement and if he did not want it replied to he should not have made it. The myth that the Coalition Government were responsible for starting capital development in the country is completely without foundation and the majority of the people know it. It does not matter how often it is repeated by Senator O'Reilly it is not going to be believed——

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

It was Cumann na nGaedheal started it.

Mr. Aiken

——by the sensible people throughout the country. Senator Johnston said that the principles upon which the Development Fund is based are not without certain dangers. The sum of £5,000,000 is, of course, a big one to an individual, but in relation to our national income and to our national expenditure at the moment it is not a very huge sum. It amounts to approximately 3 per cent. of our total national expenditure and it is not 1 per cent. of our total national income. In times like these I think it is not over-dangerous to give the Government which the people have entrusted with the authority to run the country a sum of money equivalent to less than 1 per cent. of the national income to meet extraordinary situations and to take advantage of opportunities for development that have not been foreseen and provided for ahead of time.

In spite of the fact that we have a very good statistical service, and that the Revenue Commissioners and other Government Departments are very good at forecasting what is likely to happen a year ahead, it is impossible for human beings, in the present state of the world, to be 100 per cent. accurate in their forecasts. We want to have the right to spend up to 3 per cent. more than the expenditure this year in order to meet a situation that exists both in the numbers of the unemployed and the opportunities for employment.

Senator McGuire was very pessimistic about business in this part of the country. Judging from the returns in respect of the turnover in business throughout the country the volume of business was greater than in any previous year. I think Senator McGuire is making a case in public that he could not sustain in private. Take the bank debits, which are a fair indication of the turnover in business throughout the country, and you will find that in every month this year the daily average turnover is much greater than in any previous year. Indeed, if you start off with January, 1953, and compare it with January, 1950, you will find that the average bank debits were £600,000 more in January, 1953, than they were in January, 1950. It does not matter what month of the year you take. Let us take June of 1953. The figure was £6,070,000 as against £4,570,000 for June, 1950. Take June, 1951, which was the month in which the Coalition Government went out of office, the bank debits were £5,360,000 as against £6,070,000 last year.

Not necessarily. It happens in practice. It is not one of the immutable laws of nature but it is one of the underlying practices of trade and industry. I should like to say to Senator McGuire that the statistics of employment and unemployment show that there has been a decrease of about 9,000 people on the unemployment register at the labour exchanges. That has been going on now for quite a long time. On the latest date for which we have returns, the 13th February, the registered unemployed were 9,300 fewer than they were in February of the previous year.

A number of Senators, including Senator Johnston and Senator O'Brien, adverted to one aspect of national development, and that is the importance of private capital being used to the utmost extent to develop the national resources. This National Development Fund or the £40,000,000 odd that the State is spending direct through State organisations and semi-State organisations is no substitute for the proper expenditure of private capital. If the nation is to prosper, every possible opportunity should be seized by people who have capital of their own or who can borrow to develop the business in which they are engaged. It is of great importance that we should get agricultural production increased, that we should have greater production per acre, per person employed in agriculture. The best fund that is available to the farmers is the amount of money that they have on deposit in the banks and it is well known that that is a sum of about £73,000,000 on which they are getting only 1½ per cent. If they invested that £73,000,000 or even 50 per cent. or 25 per cent. of it in bringing their land to a state in which it would come somewhere near maximum production, undoubtedly agricultural output would increase enormously.

The oportunity for increasing agricultural production exists, I am sure, on 95 per cent. of our farms. If we could bring the farmers of Ireland as a whole up to the upper 5 per cent. we would double agricultural production, if we could bring the 90 per cent. up to the upper 10 per cent. we would probably add 50 per cent. The opportunity is there for the increase and the knowledge of what is to be done is fairly widespread. If a farmer does not know exactly how to treat his land all he has to do is to call in his agricultural adviser. He can have his land tested and he can be told exactly or within a fair measure of exactness how much of the essential elements such as lime, phosphate, potash, and so on, he should add to his soil in order to put it into a state to obtain the maximum production with proper seeding and cultivation.

The Government has made provision, is so far as the Government can, to help those who are not in a position to help themselves in this matter. The banks have promised the Government that they will do their utmost to give credit to creditworthy merchants and farmers to enable an increase of artificial fertilisers and lime to be put on the soil. So that there would be nobody left out, the Government, through the Department of Agriculture, is making loans available for the same purpose. If the farmers of Ireland were only to take 25 per cent. of the money that they have on deposit in the banks and put it into their soil where it is particularly needed it would do one hundredfold more in the immediate future for the increase of the national wealth than we can do by means of this £5,000,000. The farmers have the opportunity of applying these essential elements to their tillage crops but they could apply them at once to their grass crops and if they cannot do it before they get the other crops in, they can apply them throughout the year.

Senator O'Brien spoke about a national investment council and Senator O'Donnell spoke of a national economic advisory council. In the present state of the world there is one national development council which can work. Wherever responsibility of that kind is placed there should also reside the power to deal with the situation. I cannot see either the people or the Government setting up a national development council, giving it very large sums of money—anything like the sums of money that the Dáil votes and passes for the Government —and giving them carte blanche as to how the money should be spent. When a Government proposes an expenditure that proposal is reviewed very carefully and very critically in both Houses of the Oireachtas. Take the amount of money that the Government is spending, apart from this National Development Fund, on capital development works this year—a sum of nearly £40,000,000. What five or ten men could we get whom the people would trust to spend that money without a close day-to-day supervision and criticism? It could not be done.

Mr. O'Donnell

I think the Minister is not interpreting Senator O'Brien or myself quite correctly. The suggestion was that they should act in an advisory capacity only. They are not spending the money.

Mr. Aiken

The Government have not only one national development council in the sense which Senator O'Donnell now defines it: they have dozens of such councils. Every board of a semi-state organisation is such an advisory body. The Department of Agriculture, the Department of Industry and Commerce and other Departments give advice to the Government as to how money should be spent and how much should be spent and, in the final analysis, the Government is the national development authority or the national development investment council which Senator O'Brien advocated. In present circumstances, I can see no other body to do the work. If the investment programme of the country is not great enough the Deputies or Senators can criticise the Government and if they have suggestions to put up, can put forward such suggestions.

There has been a suggestion that this Bill should only be given for one year. Actually, what the Bill asks is that each year the Government should have the right to approach the Dáil for a sum not exceeding £5,000,000. This Bill is giving no money to the Government. It is giving the Government the right to go to the Dáil and ask for an Estimate of £5,000,000, to be spent in this way. Last December, the Dáil passed a Supplementary Estimate, in anticipation of the passage of this Bill, for £5,000,000. If the Government want to spend an extra £5,000,000 next year, the Dáil will have to be asked for the money. It will be seen, therefore, that, in fact, there is no basis for the suggestion that the Seanad, by voting this Bill, is voting a sum of £20,000,000. It is doing nothing of the sort. The Dáil will have to vote the £5,000,000 each financial year.

Senator Johnston said that 350,000 persons are employed on farms under 50 acres and that if we could get production going on those farms we would be doing a lot more for permanent production than we can do under this Bill. Quite a lot can be done by the farmers, as I have said, but quite a lot can be done, too, to help both those farmers and the other producers in the nation by means of a fund of this kind. I am certain that, for a great number of years and perhaps for centuries, the work which is being started now under this fund will bear good fruit. In the list of projects I have read out, there are several that have been mentioned and frequently proposed in public debate and in private conversations throughout the country. I think that a lot of the projects upon which this money is being spent are very long overdue. A number of people particularly interested in some of them would say that they are very much overdue. Take, for instance, the development of fish hatcheries.

I think no one will contest the fact that if we had good fish hatcheries throughout the country, making available the young fish for our rivers and lakes, we could improve the fish population in these waters very considerably within a few years. The progeny testing for pigs and sheep— on which, under this measure, we propose to spend £88,000—is, many people would say, long overdue. If we are to keep pigs and sheep, it is necessary we should have the best breeds, the breeds that will give us the best production of meat or the best production of wool for the least food.

I need not say anything about the special veterinary research proposals. That research is already well known throughout the country.

The production of foundation stocks of seed is a problem regarding which several efforts have been made already. There are some of our highly specialised institutions producing seeds. There is the Glasnevin Agricultural College, which is doing extremely valuable work in producing foundation stocks. What is necessary is to have those foundation stocks multiplied under careful control so that they will be available to most of the progressive farmers throughout the country. They then can grow good crops of oats, wheat or barley and distribute some of the seed to their neighbours. For that particular project we have here a sum of £150,000.

Before the war we had a Pedigree Seed Merchants' Association which was composed of a number of merchants and some co-operative organisations. They bought the foundation stocks from Glasnevin, had them grown by farmers under supervision and then sold the seed crop widely throughout the country. Having good seed makes all the difference in the world. You may have excellent land, well manured and well cultivated, but if the seed is not of good quality the results may be negligible. What we want is not only good land in good heart but good seed and good cultivation. Unfortunately, in 1948 the pedigree seed merchants' scheme was thrown out the window and there was nothing substituted for it. We lost three or four years in promoting good seed for these cereal crops—we lost the years between 1948 and 1951.

I need not talk about beet, as the Irish Sugar Company is engaged in intensive research on that matter. They produce their own seed under their own control. However, you have potatoes and turnips and mangolds and flax and grass. We are very far behind in the grass that exists throughout the country on the vast majority of our farms. It is ridiculous that in the present stage good ground should be encumbered with the poor, weed-like vegetation that covers a great part of our farms. It is impossible to develop good grass seeds without the foundation stocks, which should be provided by research institutions. Glasnevin has done extremely good work also in grass. These foundation stocks should be developed in larger quantity and then distributed under supervision throughout the country.

The next project is that of cattle progeny testing. There again the scheme is one that a lot of people would say is overdue. From time to time we have certain controversies in the country as to what is the best breed of cattle; but whatever the breed or breeds there is no reason why we should not have the best of their kind. The only way to discover what is the best Shorthorn strain or the best Hereford or Friesian strain or Ayrshire, is by having the cattle tested. We should not only see how much milk they give and what weight they put on in a certain period but we should also see what it is costing the farmer in food units to produce the gallon of milk or the pound of beef on the back.

The next case is that of artificial insemination stations for north-west counties. Throughout the dairying districts in the South and in the East you have the artificial insemination stations open now for a year or two. It is proposed under this to build further stations which would cover from Sligo to Mayo and Donegal and that general region.

The next and last item on the agricultural side is the control station for eggs and poultry, £100,000. If we are to have an export trade in eggs and poultry, we must produce and pack both in the best possible way so as to get the best possible price. The price will be improved to the farmer if, instead of producing poor eggs and packing them badly, the eggs are well produced, clean and safely packed so as to obtain the highest possible price on the foreign market and so that the best price will trickle back to the farmer.

I now come to the other schemes that Senator Summerfield spoke about. Regarding the improvement of Dublin harbour, he pointed out that this fund was given only 60 per cent. of the total cost of the harbour improvements in Dublin. The same thing exists in regard to the Cork harbour works for which £550,000 is being provided out of this fund. There is a small scheme for road development works for the E.S.B. hand-won turf power stations. As Senators know, it was decided last year to go ahead with four power stations, using hand-won turf, along the western counties. It will be necessary to improve the roads in the regions of the power stations so that the turf can be transported safely and as cheaply as possible. The sum of £200,000 is being set aside out of this fund, to improve the roads in the regions which will deliver the turf to the power stations.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

He is entitled to a certain amount of time.

As I have already said, this day week will not suit many of the members.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

Why will it not suit them? What is on this day week that will prevent the Government from keeping a House?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senators are entitled to their rights to put in a recommendation and they must get time to consider it. The earliest possible date is this day week.

Mr. Fitzsimons

To-morrow week.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 4th March.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 24 Feb 1954