Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Aug 1956

Vol. 46 No. 9

Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Order) (No. 2) Bill, 1956 (Certified Money Bill) —Second Stage.

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

Minister for Finance (Mr. Sweetman)

This Bill is designed to confirm an Order made by the Government on 24th July, 1956, under the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act, 1942. The Order increases the duties on the majority of the items affected by the Special Import Levy imposed in March last and also imposes a duty known as the Special Import (No. 2) Levy on a further range of items.

The effect of the Order is to increase the rates of the special import levy on most of the items subject to the March Order from 37½ per cent., full, and 25 per cent., preferential, to 60 per cent., full and 40 per cent., preferential. The specific rates of levy on canned fruit have been increased pro rata and commercial vehicles, except buses, have been made liable to the 15 per cent. levy on motor vehicles. The March rates on motor vehicles, newsprint, newspapers and periodicals have been left unchanged. The list of new items coming within the scope of the Special Import (No. 2) Levy consists of articles which it is felt can less readily be dispensed with. These will bear a duty of 37½ per cent., full, and 25 per cent., preferential.

The list of goods now subject to the special import levies represents about £36,000,000 of our total imports in 1955. Of this amount the goods being charged for the first time account for £14,000,000. The effects expected from the changes in the levy are a further decrease in imports of the order of £5,000,000 in a full year and an additional revenue yield, also in a full year, of some £3,000,000. In the current financial year the estimated additional saving in imports is £3,500,000 and the estimated yield from the duties is £2,000,000. The latter will be paid into the Capital Fund and will not be available for ordinary budgetary purposes.

The measures taken earlier in the year were found to be insufficient of themselves to relieve the acute balance of payments position. In the first six months of 1956 imports were £98.5 million or £5.7 million less than the corresponding figure of £104.2 million last year. This improvement, however, was offset to the extent of £4.5 million by a decline in exports from £53.5 million to £49,000,000. The surplus of imports over exports in the period was, therefore, only £1.2 million less than in 1955.

In June, imports were actually £450,000 higher than in June of last year although the full impact of the March levy should have been effective by that month. In the two previous months imports of commodities subject to the levy amounted to £3,000,000 as compared with £3.7 million in April and May of 1955. With the exception of imports of motor cars and components which declined by £450,000 the levy has had nothing like sufficient effect in these months.

Senators will recollect that last year we had a deficit of £36,000,000 in our balance of payments. We could not afford a repetition of anything like last year's deficit. If further steps were not taken to supplement the measures already in operation, our remaining reserves would rapidly be exhausted and drastic reductions in imports would be forced upon us with serious repercussions on employment and on the general standard of living.

There have been suggestions in some quarters that the import levy restrictions which I announced in the Dáil last Wednesday are the only measures on which the Government is relying for the purpose of rectifying the balance of payments. I want to make it clear beyond question that the direct effect on imports of the intensification of the levies on the March list and the extension of the levies on this occasion to the new classes is only one sector of the measures taken by the Government to relieve the situation. As such it will have an effect and assist us in achieving a better balance on external account, and it must be taken to be only one part of the series of measures which the Government is taking.

Other measures which I announced last week consist of a reduction of the exchange allowance for holiday travel abroad, a review by Government Departments and State-sponsored bodies of spending and purchasing programmes in order that we can, so far as possible, reduce or even defer purchases involving imports; and a cut involving £5,000,000 which I also announced last week in public expenditure. The cut in that expenditure will, of course, have effect in two ways, both by ensuring that there will not be spending directly on imports in so far as it affects imports, or indirectly through purchasing power generated for imports and, in addition, it will be operative in that there will not be any form of inflationary finance to that extent.

In addition to those specific measures, as I indicated in the Dáil the other day, I am already in touch with the representatives of the newspapers and periodical associations so as to achieve a better relationship in our balance of trade by a reduction in newsprint imports. The increase that there has been in the value of imports of newsprint in recent years has been a large one and one which in our present circumstances we just cannot afford. In 1953, our newsprint imports were costing us £1.2 million; in 1955, £1.7 million and, unless we take the necessary steps it is clear that in the current year they would cost us £2,000,000. That is an increase which in present circumstances we unfortunately cannot afford and steps will have to be taken to reduce our user of newsprint and so reduce the amount of money we have to spend abroad on that importation.

This economy in which we live is— thank God—a free economy and therefore carries with it, as well as the privileges of a free economy, the duties of a free economy. That is of particular importance in relation to the problem which we are considering and which makes necessary the introduction of this measure. In a free economy, everything depends, in the last analysis, not on governmental action but on the decisions of individuals and it must be the ultimate decisions of individuals throughout our country that will affect, far more than any measures the Government may take, the course of our balance of trade and the course of our balance of payments.

I have spoken many times on the subject of saving during the past 12 months. It must be realised, appreciated and understood that every additional pound saved in the present circumstances is not only a worthwhile contribution to our capital scarcity, but is also of direct use in assisting the solution of our of balance of payments problem. While we must, therefore, push saving on this side as far as we can, we must equally, on the other side of the picture, as I stressed in the Dáil the other day, make certain that every effort is made to increase production. A clear, conscious effort by all our people must be made to overcome present difficulties, to overcome the present emergency. A 10 per cent. increase in output by everyone would see us well on the road to being able to overcome the problems of 1956, but it is only by an increase in production that we can hope to achieve anything in regard to the long-term solution of our problem.

That increase must come from everyone in the community. It must be an increase, not just in terms of putting more work into a job, but in seeing that the work that we do is done more efficiently and that therefore it is done in a way that creates less national waste and adds more produce to the national pool. Until we have got over our present difficulties, it is essential that we should have stability in money incomes. The entire effect of the special import levies, for example, would be lost if we were to have greater incomes to purchase at higher prices the goods now imported and the importation of which we are endeavouring to decrease by these measures.

Again, I want to make it clear in this House that the purpose of these levies is a balance of payments purpose and that, accordingly, they are not to be considered as permanent. They will be continued for as long as it is necessary to redress our balance of payments situation. Equally, they will not be kept any longer than is necessary. But again, on the other hand, I must stress here, as I did in the other House, that if further measures are necessary, the Government will not hesitate to take those measures. The Government is determined that it will give the leadership necessary, but as I said, in the last analysis, in a free economy, everything ultimately depends on the decision of individuals. I ask the House to accept this measure.

Eamon Ó Ciosáin

Sé seo an tarna h-iarracht atá á dhéanamh ag an Aire chun an t-airgead atá á chaitheamh go mí-thorthúil sa tír seo do smachtú, is é sin le rá go bhfuil iarracht eile á dhéanamh ag an Rialtas chun cose a chur le caiteachas airgid, go mór mhór le caiteachas gan ghá. Go deimhin ní furasta a dhéanamh amach go cruinn cad is caiteachas ann ná fuil gá leis mar is féidir a rá nach ionann an cás ag gach beirt. An rud ba ghátar le daoine áirithe, níorbh amhlaidh ag daoine eile é, ach, tríd is tríd, táimid go léir ar aon-aigne anois go bhfuil an iomarca caiteachais sa tír seo le tamall anuas agus cuid de sin gan aon dea-thoradh ag teacht as, ach b'fhéidir ná fuilimid ar aon-aigne in aonchor i dtaobh cad é an leigheas is fearr atá le cur ag obair ar an ngalar sin, mar galar eacnamuíoch is ea é. Ina theannta sin, tá sé i gceist an bhfuil an galar scrúdaithe agus mionscrúdaithe againn go cruinn beacht chun an leigheas is cuí d'fháil ina chóir agus tá sé i gceist leis ar thug an Rialtas faoin ngalar do leigheas in am tráth.

Ní hamhlaidh atáim á rá gur galar do-leighiste é. Ní hea in aonchor, dar ndóigh. Ní cás le muinntir na tíre an cruatan breise atá á chur orthu má cuirtear ina luí orthu gur ar son na tíre atá a leithéid á dhéanamh agus má thugann an Rialtas dea-shompla uathu maidir le costas an Rialtais féin do mhaolú, rud atá le feiscint fós agus rud go bhfuil a lán againn in amhras mar gheall air, ní nach locht orainn mar ná feicimíd é, ná aon ní dá shórt. Is amhlaidh atá caiteachas an Rialtais féin ag dul i méid ó bhliain go bliain agus go bhfuil baill an Rialtais ar nós cuma liom mar gheall air sin. Go deimhin tá gnéithe de chás na tíre faoi láthair ná fuil aon neart ag an Rialtas air, ach tá gnéithe eile go bhfuil. Ceann de na fáthanna go bhfuil cúrsaí na tíre i ndroch-chuma ná go raibh an chéad chó-Rialtas ro-chaiteach rorábairneach agus ró-thugtha d'iasachtaí airgid. Bhíodar ar nós an dreóilín teaspaí "ag ithe agus ag ól agus ag rinnce le ceol." Anois, dála aon dreóilín tá gol an gháire acu. Tá lá an chuntais tagtha, ach ní amháin don Rialtas ach do mhuintir na tíre ar fad. Is iad muintir na tíre a bheidh thíos leis an tubaist seo ar fad agus tubaist is ea é gan amhras. Ach ní tubaist doleighiste é ná aon ní dá shórt, ach ní mór dúinn a bheith teann, trean misneamhail ag réiteach na faidhbe.

As the Minister told us, we have a free economy in this country. Everybody agrees with that and everybody is thankful for that. I agree with the Minister that a free economy such as ours carries with it, not merely the freedom inherent in it, but also the duties and responsibilities that go with it; but the trouble with our free economy, to my mind, has been that certain people in charge of the affairs of this country did not realise in time the extent of their responsibility in connection with this free economy of ours.

The first responsibility of Government in relation to a free economy is to make sure that that economy is directed in accordance with sound, healthy principles. One of these sound, healthy principles is that people will always be able to pay their way: in other words, that they will be able to pay for imports with exports, or nearly so, at any rate. That is one of the chief considerations when discussing this aspect of our national economy. It was, however, one of those considerations which was put too much into the background by certain politicians here some years ago. Certain politicians came into prominence some years ago by advocating a totally different policy from that which we have under discussion now—by advocating that our external assets were of little account and that any Government would, as a matter of fact, be justified in running through these external assets and giving the economy of the country an entirely new direction. There were certain politicians who took that view and they were not dissuaded from that view by more seasoned politicians who stood with them in guiding the affairs of this nation. I submit that that is one of the reasons why this problem confronts us to-day.

I am prepared to admit, as anybody who has studied the picture must be prepared to admit, that this is a worldwide problem and that there are other nations involved in it. Even Britain has a problem similar in character; but it must be admitted that Britain went about solving her problem a bit earlier than we did. The solution of the problem in Britain may not be quite the solution applicable to our problem here, because, in Britain, there is and has been full employment. If the restrictive measures, the credit squeeze and so forth, to which they are having recourse in Britain results there in a certain dislocation of trade and a certain amount of unemployment, that will not matter very much. Over here, the position is quite different. Here we have chronic underemployment and any measures the Government may take, which may result in a dislocation of business and trade to any extent and cause more unemployment, must be viewed with a certain amount of disquite. The imposition of these levies, coupled with the levies imposed in the month of March, will bring about a certain amount of dislocation in trade and business. Consequently, there will be a certain amount of further unemployment. That is one of the dangers I see inherent in this situation.

When the Minister introduced his proposals for the imposition of certain levies last March, some of us were rather sceptical as to their efficacy; some of us were inclined to think, because of the harshness of the levies, that the results achieved in the way of curbing inflation and rectifying the adverse trade balance would be found to be insignificant. That is what has happened. Now the Minister comes along with a second and stronger dose of the same medicine. I must confess I am still rather doubtful as to whether the implementation of these measures will have the desired effect, namely, check inflation and remedy the adverse trade balance to any appreciable extent.

The Minister has told us that he expects that the net results of these measures will be to reduce imports to the extent of £5,000,000. When one takes into account the wide field of commodities affected and the undoubted hardships that will be imposed on certain sections of the community, one must be pardoned for saying that such a poor result as that expected by the Minister could hardly justify the hardships imposed. A decrease of £5,000,000 in imports in one year is the expected result of this policy of imposing levies on certain imported goods. Of course, the Minister has now told us that if these measures are found to be ineffective, he will not hesitate to have recourse to further and harsher measures because it appears that, if they are to be effective, they have to be harsh.

We have to be cruel to be kind in these matters, but the question is whether the Minister and the Government are tackling the problem in the proper way. We are all fully aware of the existence of a very serious problem in this country to-day—a problem which could go to the root of our very existence as a nation. We all realise that and we all realise that it is absolutely necessary for the Government to take whatever steps are necessary to grapple with that problem, but whether we are agreed that the measures which are being taken are the proper ones or the effective ones is another question.

The Minister as much as told us—if I understand him rightly—in reference to the levies imposed last March that they had not had the desired effect, that, after two months application of these measures, it was found in the month of June that, unfortunately, there was no improvement. The question is whether the additional measures the Minister is now putting before us will have the desired effect, or could it happen that the people will have to suffer the hardships resulting from these measures and gain nothing pro-portionately? That is the question.

We are all alive to the seriousness of this whole question and I take it that all the members of the Government are equally alive to the seriousness of this problem; but judging by certain statements made by some members of the present Government, some of the Ministers up to quite recently did not pretend to realise the seriousness of the problem that confronted this country. One Minister in particular told his audience down the country that they had nothing to worry about and that all that was involved was a bookkeeping transaction. I am afraid there is more involved than a bookkeeping transaction. It would be well if the Taoiseach or the Minister for Finance who is now responsible for the introduction of these measures brought home to those Ministers who do not yet seem to have yet grasped the seriousness of the position how serious it really is and if we would have now from the Government an unequivocal and united statement as regards the problem that affects the country to-day. That is wanted more than anything else.

What the people of the country want at the present time is a courageous, unvacillating lead in this matter of arresting inflation and correcting the adverse balance of trade. I feel sure that if the people get a clear and decisive lead from the Government in this matter, they will respond. We are all interested in the welfare of this country, no matter on what side of the House we sit or from what side we speak. There is no doubt about that, but I read a reported statement by a certain member of the present Government who held the view that certain leaders of the Opposition were deriving pleasure out of the present situation. I consider that an outrageous statement. It is outrageous and unwarranted for any Minister of the Government to suggest any such thing. Whether we are in the Government or in the Opposition, our interest in the ultimate welfare of the country transcends every other consideration. We are all naturally interested to see measures of some kind taken to cure the economic malady that has overtaken the country to-day.

There was one fault that we were inclined to find with the present Government in relation to this malaise that has overtaken the country, that is that the members of the Government themselves did not seem to realise the gravity of the position in time and did not proceed in time to take the necessary measures to correct it. The Minister, however, on the last occasion we debated this matter here, tried to convince us that no precious time had been allowed to elapse before the Government went about tackling the problem. I do not entirely agree with that. The Taoiseach himself, as Senators may remember, spoke at a meeting of the Cork Chamber of Commerce many months ago, long before the Minister made any attempt to deal with this position. At that time the Taoiseach referred to certain stresses and strains that were appearing in the economy of this country. Those stresses and strains were there, undoubtedly, at that time and before it. They have been there for the past couple of years and longer. They have been there since 1947 to a certain extent. In other words, inflation has been around the corner ever since then and this problem of the adverse balance of payments has also been cropping up. I am afraid that it must be asserted that the present Government did not take cognisance of those factors in time and, to-day, on 1st August, we are being presented with these proposals which are calculated to go some distance towards correcting the economic malady which has overtaken the country.

I read where the Minister said that the adverse balance of payments last year, irrespective of invisible receipts, amounted to £94,000,000. That is a hefty sum and it indicates a position that will take some rectifying. I submit that one of the chief ways of rectifying that position is to increase agricultural output. We have said that. Many of us have been saying that over and over again. We have said that if we want to get to the root, the very foundation, of this problem, we must begin with the soil of this country and induce our farmers by every means at our disposal to increase output from the land.

The question to be asked is: is that being done? Could the Minister, even here to-day, tell us of any concrete proposals that the Government may have for increasing agricultural production? If they have any plans, now would be the time to hear something about them when we are discussing this whole question of the country's economy and how it should be improved. The very fundamental consideration is the improvement of methods of production from the land, and I have yet to learn from any Minister of the Government if there are any additional concrete proposals in train towards that end. That is of the utmost importance when discussing this whole question—the curbing of inflation and the narrowing of the gap in the balance of trade. There are other ways, of course, but perhaps less effective ways, of doing something about solving this problem.

It is to be expected that the Government will give a lead in economy. The people are being exhorted, and rightly so, to practise economy, to save more, and so on, but they will naturally ask the question, what are the Government doing in that direction? We have been told now by the Minister that it is proposed by the Government to reduce expenditure by £5,000,000. That statement is welcome as far as it goes, but at the same time we should like the Minister to qualify that statement. It is not sufficient to say that there will be economy of a round figure of £5,000,000 effected over the next 12 months without stating how and in what way, in what Department of State, that £5,000,000 economy will be effected.

Remember, we were told at one time by a former Minister for Finance that economies would be effected in the Government services. That former Minister for Finance went as far as to tell us that he was so determined to slash expenditure in the various Departments that he had authorised people to go around and examine to what extent that could be done in the various Departments. Was it done? It never was. On the contrary, expenditure in the various Government Departments went up and the position now is that between 1954 and 1956 there has been an increase in Government expenditure from £105,665,000 to £118,791,000. Compare those two figures. In other words, over two years, there has been an increase of roughly £13,000,000 in State expenditure. We are told to-day by the Minister that the expected result of the levies that were imposed in the month of March and the present additional levies will be to save us £5,000,000 in the cost of imports.

Mr. Sweetman

No. The effect of the new measures last week will be an additional £5,000,000—in addition to the March figure.

Mr. Kissane

Would the Minister be kind enough to give us the March figure?

Mr. Sweetman

The figure I gave for estimating in March was £7,000,000.

Mr. Kissane

That would be £7,000,000 and £5,000,000—£12,000,000?

Mr. Sweetman

Yes.

Mr. Kissane

Does the Minister expect to reduce imports by £12,000,000 by those levies in one year?

Mr. Sweetman

It looks as if the estimate of revenue is working out exactly. If the estimate of revenue is exact, perhaps the estimate of deterrent effect may be accurate also.

Mr. Kissane

To come back to what I was discussing, we have had in two years a phenomenal increase of £13,000,000 in our State expenditure. We could not be blamed for requesting the Minister to give us a few more details as to the way in which the Government propose to reduce State expenditure by £5,000,000 over the next 12 months. The House will be very thankful to the Minister for that information.

We are all interested in this great national problem that presents itself to us to-day and that is why we are so anxious to get all the necessary information about it. I have said that one of the chief ways in which we can strengthen our economy is by producing more from the land, but what is the use in making this much-vaunted statement about one more cow, one more sow and one more acre under the plough, if positive measures are not taken by the Government towards that end? Having mentioned that, I do not propose to develop that point any further.

Another way in which we could strengthen our economy would be by paying a little more attention to the potentialities of tourism. I realise that tourism has been discussed at some length on other occasions and I do not propose to discuss it at any length now, but, as it is our second most important industry from the point of view of revenue, it is only right that we should review the position for a short space of time.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce visited the United States within the past year. I think it could be said that his chief reason for visiting the United States was to encourage industrialists there was to start industries here. I suggest it would have been a far better and far more feasible proposition if the Minister and the advisers who accompanied him spent more of their time giving the people of the United States a picture of our tourist amenities. In any plans the Government may have to strengthen the national economy, I suggest the development of tourism and its potentialities should be given a high priority in their considerations. I will leave it at that.

The position obtaining in the country to-day requires very careful consideration—and it would require that careful consideration by any Government in charge of the nation's affairs. We may not be in agreement as to the methods of approach to the solution of this problem. We realise that our people must be instructed to bear their share of the burden, but, as well as that, the Government must be prepared to give the necessary lead. They must be prepared to give a courageous lead and, when they talk about savings and exhort the people to save and save more, they must give the example themselves. In all these cases, example is better than precept. The people have yet to get that example. We sincerely hope it will be forthcoming and that the Minister for Finance will be able to announce in 12 months' time that he has succeeded in cutting down Government expenditure. That, in itself, would be a great lead for the people and I hope it will be realised.

I do not want to protect this discussion. I take it that we are also discussing the Appropriation Bill?

Mr. Sweetman

So I discovered after I sat down.

Mr. Kissane

As a matter of fact, it came as rather a surprise to me to hear an exclusive reference by the Minister to the Levies Bill and no reference at all to the Appropriation Bill. However, I think I have covered a lot of the ground that could be covered on the Appropriation Bill. There are many items to which I should like to refer, but I do not want to delay the House and, in any case, we shall probably have another opportunity before long of discussing these things.

Sin a bhfuil le rá agam anois ar an cheist seo go léir. Tá súil agam go mbeidh scéal níos fearr le h-insint nuair a bhéimíd ag cíoradh na ceiste seo uair éigin eile. Tá scéal ciosach brónach le h-insint anois. Tá tubaist áirithe tar éis teacht anuas ar an tír seo. Nílim chun aon liodán a dhéanamh anois faoin dtubaist sin ach tá sé ann agus caithfear é a leigheas. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuilimíd go léir ar aon aigne froin leigheas is fearr, ach caithfear leigeas éigin d'fháil ar an gceist seo. Fé mar a deirtear: i dtosach an galar 'seadh is fusa é do leigheas. Tá súil agam go n-eireoidh linn an galar do chur dinn ar fad agus go mbeidh ar chumas muinntir na tíre seo maireachtaint ar an méid a thuilleann siad agus go mbeidh ar chumas an Rialtais an sompla ceart a thabhairt do mhuinntir na tíre sa tslí sin.

Professor O'Brien

The first thing I should like to do is to congratulate the Minister on the courage he is showing in tackling this balance of payments problem and on the consistency of his measures since the March import levies of which this Bill is a continuation. As Senator Kissane has said, everybody in the country realises that the balance of payments battle must be won, but many of the measures which have to be taken in that battle are very unpopular and require courage on the part of politicians. As Senator Kissane has also said, in the long run —this has been said so often that I almost hesitate to repeat it—the appropriate measure for achieving equilibrium in our balance of payments is by increasing production. But in the short run, in which we all have to live, we have to take the appropriate short run measures, one of which is this import levy. It is not the only one, but it is one appropriate measure which can do good in its own place and within certain limits.

High import duties are, I think, preferable to quotas or prohibitions for two reasons, although sometimes people argue that quotas or prohibitions would be more effective. The first reason is that they are less arbitrary and more in accordance with a liberal political philosophy. I prefer that people should be free to import what they like, subject to paying the price for it, rather than that they should be prohibited from importing at all. From the liberal point of view high taxation is much more preferable to prohibitions or quotas which can be arbitrary or tyrannical in their operation. The second advantage is that the import levy, to the extent to which it fails in its primary object, is a source of revenue which the Minister can use for capital purposes in relieving his already over-strained capital budget. Therefore, these import levies are quite admirable and must be commended, but it is necessary to emphasise that they are not enough in themselves, that they may not produce the required results and may require to be accompanied by other measures of a cumulative kind.

The result of the previous import levies has not been particularly spectacular, and the result of the new levies is a matter of experiment, the results of which we must await and see. The result may possibly be disappointing, but there is a point which I made in March on the debate here on the import levies, that these import levies should be accompanied by a general policy of disinflation, that they are not disinflationary in themselves and that in fact, possibly from one point of view, they are slightly inflationary in so far as inflation means too much money chasing too few goods. In Germany, inflation has been to some extent checked by encouraging imports. Import levies are not in themselves disinflationary, but they may form a useful part of a total disinflationary policy. There has been experience in other countries that, when imports are rendered difficult, internal purchasing power has been used for domestic commodities instead and exports have been injured. Therefore, without the appropriate background of a disinflationary policy, it could be argued that import levies could do more harm than good.

The most—effective disinflationary measure in the hands of the Government—and it arises this afternoon by the curious coincidence that we are discussing the Appropriation Bill and the import levies—is the reduction of Government expenditure. I suggest that the success of the levies would be very much greater if Government expenditure were reduced. Very often these various measures have a cumulative effect on each other. Each helps the other. A policy of reduced Government expenditure might bring about an atmosphere in which the import levies might operate far more effectively than they would in a community which is pursuing an internal inflationary policy based on high Government expenditure.

As I said during the debate on the Finance Bill, it is easier to preach than to practise reductions in expenditure and the only type of Government expenditure which is capable of very severe cutting down is the capital programme. I fully admit that the current expenditure is rather rigid and it is extremely difficult for any Minister to reduce the Estimates. It is, I believe, a matter for sincere congratulation from all sides of the House that the Minister has accepted responsibility for pursuing this very unpopular course. I think it shows a very high standard of political responsibility for any Government to do something which, of its very nature, must injure a number of individual people's pockets and, therefore, must be politically unpopular. At the same time, it is so obviously right that I would expect the Minister would receive support from all sides of the House in this policy and that by adopting it he certainly makes the existing import levies more beneficial than they otherwise might appear. He might be able to avoid the necessity of imposing further import levies, further taxation, and he might even—to come back to this long period, which I hesitate to talk about, because it has been so much talked about—in the long period help to expand exports.

A sufficient amount of internal disinflation might have a healthy effect on the export position; and, accompanied by these measures a reduction of Government expenditure might help the import levies to work. This internal disinflation, apart from the long run consideration of increasing agricultural production, might actually give some sort of encouragement to exports. Even in the short run, it might at the same time help to close the gap in the balance of payments in the healthy way of increasing exports.

I make no apology for referring to the matter of Government expenditure, since I understand from what was said by the leader of the House that both the Appropriation Bill and the import levies are being discussed together. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the Appropriation Bill and I do not think I am out of order if I refer briefly to it also. Looking at the background of the Appropriation Bill, the fact is that the national income of this country has been increasing at a very disappointing rate. I do not want to quote a lot of figures, but this one is important, that, in the year 1954 to 1955, the national income increased by less than 1 per cent. and that in the last year, so far as we know, there has been no net increase in output at all.

The population unfortunately has been falling slowly as a result of emigration and, therefore, the rise in the standard of living per head which is taking place is the result of a fall in population. Production is stagnant. That is not a healthy position, but it is not one with which I propose to deal further now, beyond saying that with the background against which the Minister has to frame his Budget and his Estimates, and as against that stagnant national income, as Senator Kissane has said, public expenditure has been rising in recent years.

This rise in public expenditure is largely outside the Minister's control. It is the result, to some extent, of rises in wages and salaries of Government employees, of increased prices, of increases in debt charges—the result of our ever-expanding capital programme. It also is the result of more deliberate decisions of the Government in the field of social welfare—increased allowances, benefits and subsidies, which are quite admirable in themselves, but which serve to increase the amount of public expenditure, much of which is unavoidable, most of which is admirable and all of which has a bad effect on the balance of payments. The correct programme for disinflation is a reduction in public expenditure. However, we find, in fact, that in a period like this, Government expenditure has grown.

As I have said, it is very good news indeed to hear that the Government is really attacking this problem of public expenditure in earnest, that it is making an effort to reduce both capital and current expenditure. This is the most practical thing the Government can do towards curing the inflation from which the country is suffering. It should, therefore, receive the support of all Parties and of all people at a time of national stringency such as the present.

At the same time, it is only right to say that the total amount of current expenditure that can be reduced is not very great. The Minister, wielding the biggest possible axe with the greatest possible determination, cannot reduce current expenditure very much because of the very nature of the Estimates. Therefore, it becomes important to harp back again to the ever-recurring theme of the long period programme. It is important for public expenditure to be directed towards productive purposes. A considerable amount of public expenditure should be directed towards increasing production in the future.

There is a very homely analogy which is used in all the text books about the burden of the national expenditure and the national debt. The weight of the burden depends on the absolute amount of the load itself and on the strength of the shoulders which have to bear it. What would be an intolerable burden on a child of ten years of age may be easily carried by the child when he has grown into a strong man. So it is with a country. Government expenditure and Government debt must be always assessed in relation to the strength of the country to bear them, and, while the possibility of cutting down Government expenditure must be related to the desirability of increasing production, it should always be borne in mind that encouragement of production should always take first place in the Government's programme. The only reason I refer to it this afternoon is that Government expenditure itself can help to increase production.

In other words, what I am trying to say is that a cut in Government expenditure should not be allowed to affect the matter of production. Some forms of public expenditure help production, while others do not. All public expenditure is not necessarily inflationary. The Minister must use his judgement in distinguishing between the different types of expenditure, some of which are inflationary and some of which are not. A great deal of public expenditure is unavoidable; it is necessary for the country. Expenditure on the Defence Forces may be justified, but it is not productive in any narrow sense of the word. People wonder if it is necessary for this country to spend so much on defence. That does seem to be an obvious target for the Minister from which to look for economies.

A lot of expenditure is really a redistribution of the national income: subsidies, old age pensions, debt servicing are transfers of the income from one class to another. They do not increase the national income; they simply redistribute it. These types of expenditure for the old, the young, the unemployed, the sick, people who are not able to earn, are socially justifiable, but, at the same time, do very little to increase the national income and may actually help to cut it down. They certainly are not investments, except in a very broad sense of the word— possibly in relation to education—but at the same time they are necessary, within limits. Of course, they are desirable, within the limits of the general economic and financial resources of the country.

There is a third class of expenditure besides that on the Army and the redistributive type of expenditure which can be directed to production: that is, expenditure by the Government in the building up of the country's resources —agricultural development, forestry, fisheries, technical education and, as Senator Kissane said, tourism. A great deal of the expenditure of the Department of Industry and Commerce can be justified on purely productive grounds. It can be regarded as investment in the same way as a businessman looks on the money he puts into his business.

I would suggest to the Minister that, in a programme involving a general reduction of expenditure, there are certain heads under which expenditure could be profitably increased. I do not want to seem to have a sectional interest in this debate, but I think I am justified in saying that expenditure on education, in the broadest sense of the word, is productive, not only on technical education but on education generally. As I say, I do not wish to appear to be pleading for a particular section, or to be making any selfish use of my position in the Seanad, but I do suggest that expenditure on university education has already yielded a very large dividend in the last 35 years.

If you look at the various fields of development, at the E.S.B., Bord na Móna, the Department of Agriculture, Aer Lingus and other productive activities in the country, you will find they have been very largely rendered possible by the existence of a trained body of graduates—engineers, accountants and agricultural experts—who come from the universities. From the national point of view, as well as from the vocational viewpoint, extended expenditure on education can amply be justified.

There is one type of expenditure on university education to which I should like to refer. It arises out of what Senator Kissane said about a desired increase in agricultural production. We are all agreed, every one of us, that agricultural production must be increased. This has become almost a platitude, a truism. When we come to the question of the measures to be taken to achieve that increase, there is, however, a great deal of disagreement. In a debate which we had here recently, the present Minister said that was a healthy sign. This is the first opportunity I have had of replying to that suggestion. It may be a healthy sign within limits, but I should like to find some topic on which the agricultural experts would seem to be able to agree.

If there is one thing on which everybody is apparently prepared to agree in a very general sort of way, it is on the necessity for agricultural skill. That can only come from education in the broadest sense of the word. Even within this very debatable field of agricultural discussion I, as a townsman, would suggest that there would be general agreement that a skilled farmer would be more likely to achieve higher output from the land than an unskilled one. The only way you can teach farming is by having teachers to teach the farmers. If you must have teachers, you must have teachers of teachers. You will find these only in the agricultural faculty of the universities, until the day has arrived when the Agricultural Institute emerges from the realm of discussion into the realm of reality.

I suggest that the agricultural faculties of our universities should be more substantially endowed. One of the arguments against grants for university education in this country is that so many graduates emigrate. This is not true in regard to the agricultural faculties. In so far as the emigration of graduates may be an argument—and I do not agree with it—in so far as it may be true to some extent, our agricultural graduates do not emigrate. They all stay at home and they help to increase agricultural production. I have been told by people who are well instructed in this that the success of the parish plan depends on a constant stream of graduates from our universities who are capable of diffusing the necessary information.

It is well known that Albert College is at present overcrowded and that the number of students is now so great that the College will no longer be able to operate the short courses which were such a feature of its work. There is a danger that it may not be able to take the third and fourth year students, as in the past, from other university colleges in Ireland—Trinity College, Dublin, and University College, Galway. That would be a very serious and regrettable situation. I am putting this forward, not as a representative of the National University of Ireland, but as a person who believes that agricultural education is one form of expenditure that pays a dividend. I suggest to the Minister that when he is wielding his axe in regard to other types of expenditure, he should not wield it here.

As I said before, we must never lose sight in this debate of the long term objectives of policy. The Minister should exercise his judgement regarding what expenditure should be cut down. We ought to have regard to the future. Therefore, the Minister in his policy should not merely aim at cutting down expenditure for its own sake, but at eliminating wasteful expenditure and increasing productive expenditure.

Mr. Cogan

It has been said in the course of this debate that the Minister has shown great courage in introducing these proposals for the rectification of the balance of payments position. I agree with that statement, but I think we should go further and say that the Leader of the Opposition Party and members of the Opposition in this State have shown ever greater courage in supporting the measures.

Mr. L'Estrange

They are not supporting them in Cork.

Mr. Cogan

While it is the solemn obligation of a Government, as such, to ensure that the economy of the State is not wrecked during their term of office, the obligation on an Opposition Party does not always appear to be so imperative and it is certainly not always acted upon with the same energy. It will be remembered that when a similar position faced this country in 1952, similar measures were taken to deal with the position and a very strong, vigorous and vicious campaign was carried on against the Government by the Opposition Parties. The Government at that time were completely misrepresented, as the Government to-day could be misrepresented if we had an irresponsible Opposition.

We were told that there was no balance of payments problem, although in actual fact the deficit at that time was £61,000,000 as against £35,000,000 at the present time. If the Opposition Party had taken the line that there was no balance of payments difficulty, and that there was no danger of the country getting into serious trouble in regard to imports because of our declining external assets, and if they were to take the line that the Government are actuated, in taking the action which they are taking, by some ulterior motives rather than the interest of the country, then very serious harm would be done. If the entire force of all the public opinion that can be controlled and directed by the Opposition Party in this State were directed against the policy of safeguarding the national position in regard to the balance of payments position, then I think the position at this stage might be hopeless.

However, the Minister for Finance is fortunate to-day in the fact that we have a responsible Opposition who think nationally and who think patriotically. It is well for the country that we have that position. Much of the difficulty that faces the Government to-day was brought about by a wrong direction of public opinion as far back as 1947. Everyone now realises that since 1947 this nation has been strolling casually, if you like, along the edge of a precipice. The Central Bank, and other informed people on those matters, have been screaming warnings to the people and to the Government that our position has been insecure all the time. Those warnings were flouted and disregarded in a vigorous way by the various Parties that form the Government. They were accepted to a considerable extent by Fianna Fáil, both in power and out of power.

I think that the major task of the Government to-day, apart from taking whatever legislative or administrative measures may be necessary to rectify the position, is to arouse the public mind wholeheartedly to the seriousness of the economic position. There is no more effective way in which that can be done than by the Minister for Finance, or the Taoiseach, either in this House or elsewhere, publicly declaring that the attitude taken up by the Coalition Parties in 1952 was altogether wrong, that they were mistaken in taking up that attitude and that they now see that the Fianna Fáil Government, in the difficult position which prevailed then, did exactly the right thing. If that statement were to come from the Government to-day, I think it would have an electrifying effect upon our people.

Mr. L'Estrange

What about Fianna Fáil mistakes for 20 years?

Mr. Cogan

I do not think we should go back 20 years, and neither should we go back on Cumann na nGaedheal mistakes. Could we not agree to draw a curtain over those things and to start now by putting the position right?

We are dealing in the main, with a position that has prevailed since 1947. That is a difficult position in regard to our balance of trade accounts with the outside world. As a matter of fact, the position prevailed before that, but during the war it did not arise to any great extent because we could not get the commodities we desired; but since 1947 every well-informed person has realised there was always a danger of our importing far more than we could export and that in that way our country could sink into insolvency. I know that there are reasons which are well known which created that situation. We were endeavouring, I suppose, to compete with a standard of living outside this country higher than our own. We were endeavouring all the time to maintain the highest possible standard of living for our people and so we endeavoured to provide the highest possible degree of social services that we could provide here by raising money through taxation or by borrowing, as far as possible. Both in taxation and borrowing, I think we have gone to the limit.

We had also to face the fact all the time that our young people are within only a very short distance of countries where the standard of living is high and the cost of getting there is not very great, and therefore the Governments here felt that they were compelled to endeavour to give to our people the highest standard of living possible. I think nobody on either side of the House will blame our Governments for that, but, as I say, the position was fraught with danger all along, and, because of the danger, steps had to be taken in 1952 to rectify the position, and, because of the danger, steps have to be taken now to rectify the position, and the Minister is taking those steps. I say, while he deserves credit and praise for his courage, those who have not the responsibility of office, those who at the moment are the Opposition, deserve even greater praise for the stand they have taken.

Mr. L'Estrange

Supporting the Government which they detest.

Mr. Cogan

It is undesirable to use such words, though they are, I suppose, permissible. The Opposition Party do not admire the present Government. They do not think it is a competent Government; but if the present Government take measures which are in the national interest or which appear to be the best that can be provided in the present situation, then, those measures will be supported. The Opposition may not be supporting the Government, but they are supporting a line of policy which is in the national interest.

Mr. L'Estrange

Why not support them in Cork as well as in Dublin?

Mr. Cogan

I do not know whether it is right for Senator L'Estrange to be here or not; his spirit seems to be somewhere in Cork around the Corn Market, the Grand Parade or the South Mall.

Mr. L'Estrange

I happened to be listening to Deputy Childers in Cork the other night.

Mr. Cogan

I think the Senator should go along with his spirit.

Mr. L'Estrange

If you come there, I will go, too.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator must be orderly.

Mr. Cogan

I was about to say when Senator L'Estrange took me down to Cork that the Minister cannot evade— neither can the Government evade— responsibility in a large measure for the situation that has arisen. I have pointed out that their stand since 1947, and particularly in 1952, has to a great extent influenced public opinion against any measures that could be taken to rectify the balance of trade position and that stand, consistently taken by them while they were in opposition, is in the main responsible for our present difficulties. To prove that, I should like the House to hear a few words from the speeches delivered by the present Minister for Finance when introducing his first Budget in 1955. He opened by saying:—

"Despite some setbacks such as the disappointing harvest and the widespread winter flooding, the economic picture for 1954 is, on the whole, satisfactory. In all the main branches of the economy progress was made. The external trade returns showed a further improvement, consequent on a turn for the better in the final quarter of the year."

This is from the Budget Statement of 1955, on 4th May.

Mr. Sweetman

I am grateful to the Senator for adding the last phrase—I was afraid he might not.

Mr. Cogan

I could go on and give his comments on the balance of payments:—

"The deficit for 1954 is estimated at £5,500,000, the lowest figure since 1946. We earned a slight surplus with the dollar area, which, though it may be purely temporary, is a phenomenon without precedent in our records and is, therefore, worthy of comment."

On exports, on imports, on terms of trade and on production, the Minister at that time had a cheerful picture to present to the country, but when he came into the Dáil last week to advocate the imposition of those additional levies, he had an entirely different picture to present. Everything now appears to be going wrong. What has happened in the past 15 months——

Mr. L'Estrange

Cattle prices fell by 20 per cent.

Mr. Cogan

——to bring about that situation? What disasters have befallen the country since then? Surely, it is well to remember at the outset that the Government to-day cannot say they inherited an unsatisfactory or impoverished condition when they took office.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

Mr. Cogan

When the present Government took office, the economy of the country was in a reasonably sound and healthy condition, as was pointed out in his Budget statement by the Minister for Finance. How has it come about that conditions have deteriorated so rapidly over a period of 15 months since that Budget statement was made? I have my own views about that, but Senator L'Estrange says that it was all due to the fall in the price of cattle. In regard to the balance of payments, the only figure before us is that for the year 1955, and in that year there was no decline in the price of cattle. As a matter of fact, the average price of cattle in that year was the highest in living memory. Not-withstanding the fact that in 1955 the price of cattle was the highest of all time, there was a deficit in the balance of payments of £35,000,000.

It is a remarkable thing that, after less than two years of Coalition policy, the balance of payments deficit amounts to that figure. When the first Coalition Government went out of office, they left a balance of payments deficit amounting to £61,000,000. When Fianna Fáil went out of office in 1954, they had brought down that deficit to £5,500,000, It would appear that there is something in Coalition Government policy which adversely influences the balance of payments position. I would say that, in the main, it is the reckless disregard of the problem and the decision to let all inflationary tendencies work themselves out to the limit and so allow this position to arise.

That was the state of affairs in the first Coalition and it has been the state of affairs right up to the present day. Now we are hoping that the Government are really alarmed at the position and are taking effective steps to cope with it. I endorse what the Minister has said about ours being a free economy in which all the people have the right to do what they like, particularly in regard to the management of their own business and farms and in regard to the expenditure of their own money. It is essential that all the people, irrespective of their political views, be of one mind on this matter and agree that the situation is so serious as to call for some special effort on the part of each individual citizen.

I have suggested that, in order to bring that home more effectively to the people, it is desirable that the Minister or the Taoiseach should make a statement admitting that this Government have been wrong in the past, admitting that the position on another occassion was serious and that the steps taken by the then Fianna Fáil Government were the right and proper steps to take. From that point, we could then go forward in a united effort to put the country right. In a statement in the Dáil, the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy de Valera, said:—

"We are throwing our weight in because that is the way in which we believe co-operation can best be given in national work through this House. People have been talking about unity. The required unity is in this House if every Deputy in it, whatever side he belongs to, feels that he has a responsibility to work for the nation."

Mr. L'Estrange

That is like Stalin talking about peace.

Mr. Cogan

That is a clear-cut responsible statement from the Leader of a responsible Party. Some people have suggested that, in order to achieve real unity, representatives of the Fianna Fáil Party should come into Government and become Ministers. I think Deputy de Valera was dealing with that point when he said that unity on any major national issue can be effected, irrespective of whether or not all Parties are represented in Government. All Parties, whether or not they are in Government, can play their part honestly, if they have a proper sense of responsibility. If that is done, then the country's economy will be put on a sound basis. Leaders of the Fianna Fáil Party do not require the solace of office in order to give of their best. They are prepared to give of their best whether they are in office or out of office. That is a point that ought to be clearly understood.

A facade of unity achieved by bargaining between a number of Parties is no use. Real unity arises when all Parties have a sense of loyalty to the nation and are prepared to do their best. I think the Fianna Fáil Party have shown that sense of loyalty in this crisis. They could have taken an entirely different stand; they could have said there was no balance of payments problem, as their opponents said in 1952. They did not chose to do that, because, had they done so, they would have been encouraging the people of this free economy to do the wrong thing in this crisis, and it is essential that everybody, whatever his or her position in life may be, should do the right thing for the ultimate good of the nation as a whole.

The Minister said something with which I partly agree and partly disagree. He said if everyone produced 10 per cent. more, everything would be all right. That is true in so far as we are dealing with people who are producing goods or services. If members of the legal profession—we have them on both sides of the House—were asked to produce 10 per cent. more, would it be of any value to a nation? What the Minister really meant was that people who are producing something of little value to the nation might be left out of this, while the people who are producing useful goods and services should be encouraged to produce at least 10 per cent. more.

We all know that it is possible for those who are engaged in production to produce 10 per cent. more. People who own a few square perches of land, for instance, might perhaps set an example in this crisis by using that land to the utmost of its productive capacity. It is all very well for people in towns and cities to say that the farmers are not pulling their weight and getting the most out of their land while, at the same time, the owners of these few square perches are producing nothing at all. In a national emergency such as this is, even the owners of the few square perches should be called upon to use that land to the best advantage.

During the war, in Britain, there was a slogan: "Dig for Victory." I have not much faith in slogans, but I think it is desirable that everybody, irrespective of how much land he has, should use that land to the best advantage. The Government could give a lead. Various Departments of State hold tens of thousands of acres and a large percentage of that is practically waste. It is land which is being abused and neglected. The Department of Defence may ask: "What can we do with the Curragh?" or "What can we do with the large tracts that are used as firing ranges?" If the Government were serious, they could exert their minds to solve this problem, and they would find some useful and beneficial purpose to which this land could be applied. If Senators on the Government side of the House look out through the windows on their right, they will see a patch of land growing the worst type of weed that land can grow. That is a little patch of land which is typical of thousands of acres held by various Government Departments. I believe it is Government property and it might not be a bad suggestion if Senators were to come up next week and cultivate that piece of land and get it into a useful condition.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is aware of the fact that he has a motion on the paper which deals with the question of promoting the expansion of agricultural production. He may not debate his motion or conduct the debate on his motion if he chooses to discuss the expansion of agricultural production on the Appropriation Bill.

Mr. Cogan

I thought the small patch of land was too small to be included in the general motion on agriculture. In any case, I was dealing more with Government activities in regard to Government property and the suggestion I made was that the Government should set a good headline to the community not only in regard to economy in spending but also in regard to production, wherever it is possible for the Government, through its various Departments, to increase production.

In this connection, Senator O'Brien, whom I regard as one of the cutest politicians in the country, advocated that the Government should go all out to reduce expenditure ruthlessly, but he was very quick to point out that this reduction must not be at the expense of the universities or higher education. The line he took in regard to that could be taken by practically every other interest in the State. For instance, the farmers could suggest to the Government to reduce expenditure, but not at the expense of the farmers. Workers could suggest— and would suggest—to the Government to reduce expenditure, but not at the expense of workers. When it is a question of reducing governmental expenditure, the Minister for Finance does not need to be reminded that every interest would rise up in arms to defend their sphere of activity.

Senator O'Brien also took what I thought was a contradictory line in regard to the imposition of the levies. He was in favour of those levies, but at the same time he regarded them as inflationary. That may be true, but if the purpose of those levies is to reduce imports, one would imagine that a more effective measure would be a physical restriction by way of quota on certain commodities. As Senator O'Brien pointed out, when you increase the price of an imported commodity, you increase the general cost of living, perhaps, in some cases and production in others, whereas if it were possible to exclude certain imported products and substitute for them home produced goods, you would achieve a twofold object. You would not increase the general cost of goods and at the same time you would encourage concentration upon the home produced alternative.

It is an appalling consideration that we imported in 1955 under the heading of food, drink, tobacco and live animals, £46,000,000 worth of produce. All that produce came originally from land in some part of the world and a great portion of it could come from the land of Ireland.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator may be entitled to argue that on his motion which is in course of discussion.

Mr. Cogan

I am not arguing that aspect of it.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator may not argue any aspect of it on this Bill. It is open to the Senator to argue the matter when he resumes the debate on his motion.

Mr. Cogan

I will deal with that matter to-morrow. I am quoting that as an example. There are other types of produce such as coal which is the raw material of industry. We might be able, with a long term policy, to restrict our imports of coal and at the same time substitute the homeproduced alternative. In that case, we would not be imposing an extra charge but rather restricting by way of quotas. That is the point I am trying to get at.

The machinery for implementing such a proposal would be more difficult to set up and operate than the simple machinery of levying a tax, but at the same time the long term effect would be much better for the nation. I am dealing with such things as tinned fruits, tinned fish and commodities of that kind which come in from abroad. Restricting the import of these goods would actually promote the manufacture of the alternative commodity here, thus achieving a twofold purpose, whereas, by a mere levying of a tax, you are possibly only achieving one object. It is quite possible also that, by achieving that objective, you simply add to the State's revenue instead of reducing imports.

I suggest that as an alternative to the levies; I suggest that quotas and restrictions on certain types of imports might be the more effective means of dealing with this problem. I think that something like that has been found workable in regard to newsprint and that is an example of how practical that idea is. There is no doubt that it could be extended much further.

Mr. Sweetman

I do not want to interrupt the Senator, but, perhaps, he could develop the argument in relation to the other goods he has in mind and say how to overcome the black marketing difficulty which is easy enough in regard to newsprint, but would be an obstacle in regard to other articles?

Mr. Cogan

I quite appreciate the difficulty there, but the beneficial results might be sufficient to justify fighting that difficulty and overcoming it. Even with taxation, you have the danger of black marketing. I assume that you have the danger of smuggling in regard to these levies, so that you have got to fight those things. During the war period, we were in the position that many goods were excluded. There was a certain amount of black marketing, but at the same time there was a certain amount of development and there would have been a far greater amount of development if we had been in the position we are in now when capital, goods, plant, machinery and the like could be acquired. They could not be acquired during the war and it was very hard to develop industries.

We should concentrate a little bit more even at this stage on the protectionist side of these levies, with a view to developing our own industries. I am not permitted to mention agriculture, but there could be a big boost in the manufacture of food at present being imported, and in tinned fruits which are being imported and, for example, in the production of turf so as to cut out to a certain extent imports of coal. While the Minister's intention is undoubtedly right and is supported for that reason, I feel, and I am expressing my own personal feeling, that this problem might have been tackled in a different way.

There is associated with these levies on imports a credit squeeze, which some people call the Sweetman squeeze. Restriction of credit restricts consumption and I suppose it is intended for that purpose. It also affects production. Banks operate in a blind sort of way and refuse loans, not only to those who want to spend the money foolishly or on luxuries, but to people who want the money to increase agricultural, industrial or manufacturing output.

The Government must step in directly and influence the provision of credit for such purposes as appear to be beneficial, such as agricultural and manufacturing purposes. There should not be restriction of credit in any line that is likely to improve our economic and balance of payments position. An increase of production is as effective as a reduction in consumption in redressing the position.

The question of general Government policy, apart from the levies, arises on this debate. There is only one reference I should like to make in regard to that. A question was asked in the Dáil on July 3rd, dealing with the cost of living, which was as follows:—

"Mr. Colley asked the Taoiseach if he will state the cost-of-living index figure, to base 1947=100, at 18th February, 1948, June, 1951, June, 1954, and at the latest available date."

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, Deputy O'Sullivan, replied:—

"As and from November, 1953, the title of the retail price index was changed from the "Interim Cost-of-Living Index (Essential Items)" to the "Consumer Price Index". The Consumer Price Index is based on mid-August, 1947=100 but differs in scope and weighting pattern from the Essential Items Index. In particular, the Consumer Price Index covers a wide range of sundries— including tobacco, cigarettes, alcoholic drinks, newspapers, etc.—which were not covered by the Essential Items Index.

The index is computed at the quarterly intervals, mid-February, mid-May, mid-August and midNovember. To base mid-August, 1947=100 the index was 99 at mid-February, 1948, 109 at mid-May, 1951, 124 at mid-May, 1954, and 134 at mid-May, 1956."

It will thus be seen that the cost-of-living index figure rose by 20 points in the two periods of office of the Coalition Government since 1947.

An Cathaoirleach

Will the Senator please give the number of the volume and the date?

Mr. Cogan

Yes. The reference is Volume 159, No. 1, and the date is 3rd July. As I say, it will thus be seen that the cost of living rose by 20 points under the Coalition Government in their two periods of office as against 15 points in the period of office of the Fianna Fáil Government.

Mr. L'Estrange

An average of four per year for the inter-Party Government and an average of almost seven per year for your Government.

Mr. Cogan

I am dealing with this question that was asked by a Deputy and with the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach. I do not think anyone will question its accuracy. It deals with the period from the time the consumer price index was first introduced in 1947 and shows an increase of 20 points during the two periods of office of the inter-Party Government and an increase of 15 points during the period of office of the Fianna Fáil Government.

It is no harm to have that statement on the records of this House because I raised this matter some time ago, and my statement was challenged. It was indicated that I was not giving the true figure. I do not think anybody will question the figures I have quoted which were given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach. That is the answer to anybody who says that Fianna Fáil, during their period of office, increased the cost of living unduly, or to a greater extent than the inter-Party Government did. One would like to have those issues cleared out of the way.

No Government deliberately increases the cost of living and I am sure representative Ministers of the present Government will hotly deny that they were responsible for the 20 points increase in the cost of living during the two periods of office of the Coalition Government. Neither were Fianna Fáil responsible for the 15 points increase during their period of office. Yet, those increases occurred and they cannot be questioned or denied. It is no harm that the House should be aware that the accusation so frequently made against the Fianna Fáil Government, that they were responsible for the high cost of living, was without a shadow of foundation.

As Senator O'Brien pointed out, there is a grave question in the people's minds as to whether the Government are wise ar not in regard to the expenditure of public money. While Senator O'Brien was very determined that under no circumstances should the finances of the university be touched, he did suggest that defence might be a good target for attack where economies are concerned. This is a matter on which it is difficult for laymen to speak. It is difficult to say with any authority the amount of defensive material or manpower that is essential or desirable.

However, I notice that the newspaper that is sometimes described as the Coalition Pravda was strong in its condemnation of the recent purchase of jet planes by the Government. Many people are inclined to ask what three jet planes can do for the defence of this country. It may be that some years ago it might have appeared desirable to have this type of defensive armament, but we have to deal with matters of this kind from year to year, or even from day to day, as conditions change. I think that conditions are now changing so rapidly in regard to armaments that it is questionable whether any expenditure on war material can be justified at the present day. On the other hand, I would say that Army defence might be justifiable because it is desirable to have a trained military force. Even though it might not be what could be called a striking force, so far as international war is concerned, it might help to protect the civilian population or guard them in an emergency.

There are differences of opinion on this matter, but the Irish Independent seems to be coming down strongly on the side that this type of armament is unnecessary at the present time. They did not suggest, although they might have, that powerful aircraft of this type which are capable of high speed and reaching a high altitude might be able to rise above the cost of living. However, they did not make that point.

The Sunday Independent also, I think, surprised many of its readers when, in its editorial of 22nd July last, it printed the following statement in connection with a ceremony which took place when the Tánaiste opened the new K.L.M. offices:—

"Perhaps the occasion gave Mr. Norton food for thought, food for speculation as to what might have been had the first inter-Party Government not swiftly cancelled the all-but-started trans-Atlantic air service...?"

The statement continued:—

"Who knows but by now we would have been occupying a proud place in the trans-ocean flying world, conquering space and bringing Irish imagination and skill to bear on aviation problems?"

I was surprised that that criticism should come from such a source.

An Cathaoirleach

I do not see what it has to do with the debate.

Mr. Cogan

The only point relating to it is that we are dealing now with general governmental policy and also with the balance of payments problem. It might be a part of general governmental policy to undo the mistake, which, as the Sunday Independent points out, was made at that time and set up an air service similar to the Dutch airline service. That country has made a success of trans-ocean air travel.

An Cathaoirleach

The House is concerned at the moment with the views of Senators and not with the views of newspapers.

Mr. Cogan

I am inclined to assert that there is substance in the comment made in that issue of the Sunday Independent and I am inclined to endorse it and to suggest that there should not be any lighthearted scrapping of any particular project, simply because public opinion can be worked up against it. If an industry is produicing a luxury article, for example, it is very easy to work up public opinion against that industry and to say it is a burden on the community. We can remember the campaign against the purchase of Tulyar. That purchase was represented as a sheer waste of public money. It was an investment which paid the taxpayer. The taxpayer did not lose one shilling.

Mr. L'Estrange

Do you know anything about the diesel engines that were bought and that did not fit the railway lines? They cost millions.

Mr. Cogan

One gets all kinds of instances. One even gets Senators who do not fit in very well in the House or Ministers who, perhaps, do not fill their positions very well. It is always possible, even with the best intentions in the world, to make an error in regard either to production or manufactures. I have found that, with the best intentions in the world, in one aspect of governmental policy—and one with which I am in complete agreement—both under Fianna Fáil and under the Coalition, there was an enormous waste of public money. Many grave mistakes were made in regard to land development. Although it is a very desirable thing and everybody agrees with it, nevertheless, grave mistakes were made.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is putting himself out of order by debating that matter now, by virtue of the fact that he has a motion on the Order Paper. He will please avoid that matter now.

Mr. Cogan

I do not intend to pursue the matter now. However, it is an instance—and there are many other instances—where, even with the best intentions, a Government can make mistakes. When turf development was introduced, certain mistakes were made. In the first year, some politicians were holding the whole project up to ridicule. Nevertheless, the scheme proved a great success eventually. In the same way, the dieselisation of our railways was a sound idea and completely justified those who introduced and carried out the change-over to diesel traction. I do not know whether or not any mistake was made, but, if a mistake was made, it is something which cannot be avoided. To err is human, to forgive divine. It is a good thing that there are people in this country— as I hope there always will be both on the Coalition side and on the Fianna Fáil side—who will be prepared to take the chance of making a mistake in an effort to do something good for the country.

Mr. Woods

As a newcomer to this House and as one not very well versed in procedure, I trust I shall keep within the rules of order. I have the honour to represent the smallest county in Ireland with the two great and progressive provincial towns of Dundalk and Drogheda, followed closely by Ardee.

I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister for Industry and Commerce on his great fight to try to hold the G.N.R., which I consider to be one of the life-lines of this country, intact. I am particularly happy about the course he has taken, due to the fact that, should that railway be cut, it would mean very considerable unemployment in the great works at Dundalk. Should that happen at the present time, when there is a great danger of unemployment, particularly in the boot and shoe industry in Dundalk, it would have very serious consequences and tend to increase the emigration which we are all very anxious to stem.

Although we have in County Louth, as I say, two very progressive provincial towns, we also have in my part of the country what I would describe as two ghost towns, the towns of Carlingford, to which I am proud to belong, and Greenore. There I must mention an outstanding problem and it is the question of the close-down of the Dundalk and Newry-Greenore railway which supplied the deep-water port of Greenore, the only deep-water port between Belfast and Dublin, thereby causing unemployment to about 160 employees of the railway company. It is quite true to say that for a very considerable time, during the demolition of that railway line, there was a good deal of employment, but it is just too bad to think that that employment meant demolition, destruction.

Dr. McHugh

I hesitate to collide with the Senator on his maiden voyage, but is this strictly relevant?

An Cathaoirleach

Absolutely.

Mr. Sweetman

Is it not usual also never to interrupt a maiden speech?

Dr. McHugh

I hope you will forgive my maiden interruption.

Mr. Woods

The people of the area thought that industries would be set up to take the place of the employment which was taken away by the closing down of the railway line. Some efforts were made in that direction and many questions were asked by Deputies in the other House in connection with the starting of these industries. We have in that area some beautiful scenery on the shores of Carlingford Lough, where the Mournes sweep down to the sea. There is a magnificent hotel belonging to British Railways. Several attempts were made to sell that hotel, but people were not interested in buying it, because they did not know what the position was in regard to the setting up of industries, but so far as the tourist traffic was concerned that hotel gave very considerable employment.

As regards the employees who were dismissed when the railways closed down, many of them were transferred to Dublin, which means centralisation; others bought houses which belonged to British Railways and remained in the area, perhaps because their people for generations before them had lived there and because they hoped other employment would come along. I suggest that the Government should keep this port in mind for a ferry service. Should the Government in the future contemplate, which they may do, a national ferry service, this port would be ideal for such a purpose. We thought that Greenore might have been selected for the oil refinery, but it is going to Cork. Again I would point out that as this oil refinery and the plans for it develop, Greenore should be kept in mind as a distributing centre. I presume that small coastal tankers will be sent around the coast as a cheap way of distributing the products of the oil refinery and Greenore would be ideally situated as a distributing centre.

I come to the second ghost town of Carlingford. Many years ago, very considerable employment was given in the granite quarries there. The granite was exported from Carlingford to many of the cities of England to build up their streets, before the days of tarmac, with granite sets from the Carlingford quarries. It was also a very well-known fishing centre and I am pleased to note that the Department of Fisheries have voted additional moneys for fisheries and I suggest that the Department of Fisheries might cast an eye in the direction of that old-time fishing centre. I believe also that if some industry such as a fishmeal industry or some other such industry were established, we would contribute very generously to the national economy. We have there a very safe harbour behind which lies Slieve Foy which acts as a great protection to the harbour and to ships. By the way, we believe "there's gold in them thar hills". I have made several attempts to invite industrialists to the district and at the moment local men are doing some minor excavations and I feel confident that this area will prove rich in deposits. Should that be so, again I would ask the Government to come to our assistance in this matter.

When we look across Carlingford Lough, we see the interest that our friends in Northern Ireland are taking in afforestation in the district overlooking Warrenpoint and then look from the border of County Armagh right along the Carlingford side we see bare, barren hills. Many attempts have been made to make land available for afforestation and questions have been asked quite recently in the lower House by the Deputies interested in relation to the progress made in the matter of afforestation in part of the Carlingford electoral area, in the Omeath district and a few other townlands where land has been offered for afforestation. I know there were difficulties in regard to title, but, due to the new legislation introduced recently, this is made easier now.

I would welcome any attempt on the part of the Minister for Lands to expedite afforestation in that district, as this question of afforestation is a very vexed question among the mountain graziers who have small holdings. However, I am pleased to say that, in the Carlingford district, and going north to Omeath, almost two miles of mountain grazing have been recently offered. The graziers have given their consent to the taking over of this land for afforestation.

I believe, if this is done, it will be a big step towards giving employment in the district. There are great tourist potentialities in that district. The road from Northern Ireland through Newry is the most easterly road from Northern Ireland into this State. If this afforestation could go on, I believe it would do a great deal to encourage more tourist traffic along that road. We must all realise the value of tourist traffic to the country. In one of the last accounts the annual income from tourism was given at £13,000,000.

From the Omeath district, there is a considerable amount of seasonal emigration; some hundreds of boys and girls go across to the seaside resorts of Blackpool, the Isle of Man and elsewhere each Easter and do not return until the end of the summer season. They receive good remuneration. This emigration has been going on for a number of years and will continue unless local employment is made available. These workers all come from small holdings along the mountainsides of Omeath; they lock their houses and emigrate for several months of the year. When they return, they remain there only until after Christmas. I am trying to make the point that there is a lack of local industries in north Louth.

It would help considerably if the Government could see their way to provide an industry or two, at least during the winter season. There is no doubt you will always have emigration, but a good day's work would be done if the Government would try to provide local industries for the boys and girls in that area, which would enable them to remain at home for such periods as would be necessary to look after their small holdings. If such local employment is not provided, there is no doubt that the area from the Border right along the South Carlingford Mountains will be barren and that the house will be closed up.

As I have said, I am delighted to see that additional money has been made available to the Department of Lands for afforestation and to the Fisheries Branch of the Department of Agriculture. I believe these two Departments could assist us very well, if they came along and cast a kindly eye on that district of North Louth with a view to helping us out with a little industry or two.

Mr. Murphy

Might I begin by offering my congratulations to Senator Woods on his contribution this evening? It is obvious from what we have heard from him that he will be a very useful member of this House, whether we agree with his views or not. Personally, I found myself in agreement with practically all he said. The only point on which I would disagree with him was when he ventured the opinion that Greenore might be more suitable for the oil refinery than Cork Harbour. Being a Corkman, I could not go that far with him. When introducing these extra levies in the Dáil last week, the Minister said the Government were dealing with a matter of the gravest national importance. I think the Minister has been quite right in giving the country a jolt, both in regard to the balance of payments position and to the lack of savings. However, I venture the opinion that there may be the danger that we might go too far in regard to our assessment of the position. There might be a danger that we would create gloom all round, that the impression would be given that this old country of ours is done for and that there is no option for the remaining population but to emigrate as quickly as possible.

A lack of confidence might be created, and I want to suggest that, while the position may be serious, it is not insoluble. I want to suggest, furthermore, that the steps already taken by the Government—the levies in March, the Budget in May and these additional levies—will undoubtedly cure the balance of payments difficulties. When the Minister this evening referred to the balance of payments position during the first six months of the year he suggested that those first six months showed no great improvement, which necessitated the further action of the imposition of these extra levies.

I agree these further levies were necessary, but I do think the Minister, though probably right, should have had regard for the fact that the levies were not introduced until March of this year. It is not quite a fair comparison to refer to the first six months of this year and the first six months of last year. A more proper comparison, to my mind, would be a comparison of the month the levies were introduced in 1956 with the corresponding month in 1955. The levies introduced in March obviously have had an impact on our imports because our imports for March, 1955, were some £20.9 million, while, in 1956, they were down to £16.2 million.

Again, in April and May of 1956, they were substantially below the 1955 level for the same months. In June, they went above the 1955 level by, I think, £450,000. The Minister referred to that figure, but I feel sure he is aware that the imports last June were completely out of line with the general trend of imports in 1955; they seemed to be substantially lower than in other months in that year and seemed to be at an unusually low level for June of any year. Again, the £450,000 extra imports for June of this year are made up of figures which, I suggest, should not alarm us unduly. Figures released by the British Board of Trade show that, in June of this year, we imported some £337,000 extra worth of horses for service in this country, a temporary import and, I think the House will agree, a very welcome import.

Then there was an additional £150,000 for railway equipment and £210,000 for machinery. Again, another addition was £251,000 extra for coal, made up not simply by an increase in the price of coal, but due also to an increased quantity being imported in June of this year. I want to suggest that the import of coal in any year is rather limited and this extra import in June might be said to be an import of more coal which will be saved later on. It will mean less coal at possibly further increased prices later this year. All these items to which I have referred total some £948,000, practically £1,000,000 extra, for what I would suggest are welcome imports, for one reason or another. That is the position in regard to the imports and the exports also show that there is a tendency towards recovery in the past few months.

The exports for earlier in the year were lower than for the corresponding months in 1955, but, in May, they practically balanced. They were at equal level to May of the previous year and, in June, the tendency was reversed. In June, our exports were some £1.7 million above the level of the corresponding period last year and I think there is a general feeling that our exports are tending to improve. We are turning the corner in regard to our exports; the market is improving; and I venture the opinion that the July figures, when published, will show a substantial improvement over the figures for July, 1955.

In making these comparisons of imports and exports, we always have to have regard to the fact that the terms of trade have been unfavourable to us because the index of import prices, what we have to pay, has risen between May, 1955, and May, 1956, by some 3.5 points, and, taking the basis for 1933 as 100, in 1955, the index in May was 105.4 and in May, 1956, had gone up to 108.9. On the other hand, the index of export prices went down. In May, 1955, it was 104 and in May, 1956, it was 101. The point can rightly be made in regard to these indices that the levy which the Minister imposed in March has had a greater impression on the volume of imports than would be readily visible when we look at the amounts paid out for our imports.

As the Minister points out, the balance of payments was bad in 1955, but when we look at 1956 we have to look at the date from which the Minister applied his levies, and we find that the visible balance of trade for March was substantially better—or, should I say, less worse—than it was in the corresponding month in 1955. Again, in April it had gone down to £6.8 million and taking those four months, March, April, May and June, and comparing them with the corresponding months in 1955, I find that we have reduced the adverse balance of trade by £7,000,000. That is £7,000,000 in four months, when it can be said that the levies would not have had full effect on imports—they will have a gathering effect. This would mean £21,000,000 in 12 months and the point which I am making is that, instead of this country being on the rocks, we can see that by the early action, and the determined action, taken by the Minister for Finance, the balance of payments difficulties will be solved and solved very clearly. If the price of exports and the tendency to improve our exports continues, then we can hope that, by the end of 12 months, instead of having a balance of payments deficit of £36,000,000, it will be down perhaps to £5,000,000 or there-abouts.

Whilst talking about the balance of payments difficulties we can never forget—some of us, anyway—that we are talking about a balance of payments with a background of some £500,000,000 external assets. The Minister, of course, might say that as well as external assets, there are also foreign investments here, but the point I am making is that we can afford to have an adverse balance of trade, providing we spend the money properly in importing capital goods. I think the Minister was quite right in correcting the very steep adverse balance of trade and correcting it as he did by imposing a levy on luxury goods. These steps, to my mind, are to be commended. They will solve the problem, if we can properly interpret the current figures, and they will solve the problem without the necessity for taking any other action.

Coupled with the problem of the adverse balance of trade is the lack of savings. One other effect of these levies on luxury goods is that, by imposing them, the Minister is putting some money away for capital investment. That, of course, as he has pointed out, is not anywhere near sufficient for the necessary capital works and I can assure him for myself, and for trade unionists generally, that there will be as much co-operation as possible with his efforts to encourage saving so that the essential works and the development of the country can proceed as quickly and as safely as possible.

I think we have rather fallen down on savings for some years past. I have contacts with organisations in Northern Ireland, and the attention that is paid to savings and the arrangements made there for deductions from pay sheets of the workers have impressed me for many years. Here, we do not seem to have devoted much thought to savings at all. As well as co-operation by the workers, the co-operation of the employers generally should be forth-coming to assist in the savings drive. We know that in the Civil Service, for instance, there are arrangements for deductions from the salary at source of any amount agreed to by the employee to be put aside as savings. I think in other large undertakings, indeed in the semi-State undertakings and others, there should be the same co-operation. That would give some assistance to saving. I think the Minister would welcome any assistance at the present time.

Mr. Sweetman

Hear, hear!

Mr. Murphy

I hope that the campaign being carried on to encourage savings will have every success.

When the levies were being discussed in March in connection with the Central Fund Bill, I expressed some disappointment that the Minister had not taxed or put levies on what I regarded as wasteful imports, wasteful capital expenditure, namely, commercial goods vehicles. I think it only right that I should say now that I am glad the Minister has put on the levies on what I regard as wasteful expenditure in the new measures. I suggested, at that time, that the problem of public transport which was Northern Ireland's then would be the Republic's tomorrow. I am sorry that "to-morrow" has reached us so quickly, because since then we have run right bang up against a major problem of public transport in this country.

Here I am going from No. 2 into No. 3 on the Order Paper. Some time ago, the Minister, as the Minister responsible for Industry and Commerce, decided that the whole question should be thrown to a committee for examination, so that that committee could advise as to what the proper course was to be taken in regard to public transport now. I referred at various times to the apparently contradictory policy of the Government in regard to public transport in that the Minister for Industry and Commerce was encouraging C.I.E. to invest big money in dieselisation. He was holding out against the Northern Ireland Government in the proposal to close sections of the G.N.R., to which Senator Woods referred, while at the same time we had a tax on the fuel being used by the diesel locomotives and a generally deteriorating position of public transport in this country.

The problem has reached a critical stage and the Minister has, I think, rightly summed up the position in saying that there were three choices before the country; and if we are to have the railway system, we could only have that either by a curtailment of road transport or alternatively by subsidisation. I think it would probably be wrong to venture a firm opinion in those circumstances as to what the cure should be, except to say—and I think every Senator will be in agreement with this—that we must have a public transport undertaking, and in the present circumstances it does seem that a railway system, as such, is essential in this country. It is essential to the economic development of the country and to the well-being of the community as a whole, and we cannot lightly envisage the situation of a public transport concern with some 25,000 employees, paying out, I suppose, over £10,000,000 per annum in wages, being abandoned, as it is generally thought, is the policy of the Government in Northern Ireland.

I think we would rightly agree that a public transport system is essential and that steps should be taken to maintain that system. A committee has been appointed to look into the matter, but might I suggest that there have been many committees? We have had them down through the decades; there has been crisis after crisis for the railways, whether they were called G.S.R., C.I.E. or anything else. It is unfortunately a fact that the employees of public transport are thoroughly discouraged just now in regard to the whole position. They feel that no matter what we do, we are constantly running into difficulties. One year we may just reduce the loss, and the next year we are worse than ever—what are we going to do? I think it is likely in those circumstances that the Government should have an examination of the position and make up its mind firmly one way or the other what sort of public transport system we are to have.

Too often we have been patching the ship. We have been bringing in legislation appointing a new board maybe, giving them new capital, and then giving them a slap on the back and our blessing and saying: "Go off now, boys; you are surely all right." A most blatant example of that was the creation of the new C.I.E., where we took over C.I.E. (1944) in 1950. It was collapsing, and we nationalised it, as we said. What we did, of course, was to compensate the shareholders. We fixed those up and we increased the capital charges of the new C.I.E. and threw on them the liability of the Grand Canal Company and later on, we threw them the liability of the Dun Aengus and then we said: "Because we have nationalised you, you should be O.K."

We shall have to make our minds up one way or the other, and I am suggesting that the railway system, as such, is essential to the economic development of the country. How the preservation of that system should be accomplished—whether by curtailment of road transport or subsidisation—is something that will have to be considered very carefully. I have no objection in principle to subsidies, but when I contemplate subsidisation of transport, it seems to me that we would not be subsidising public transport but that we would be subsidising private transport, because what is happening at the moment is that public transport is utilised by merchants, traders and private individuals simply as a standby.

They take in their own lorries the full, well-paying load. Afterwards, the odd stuff is thrown to the public transport organisation, and they are expected to take it to the ends of the country. A most cheeky example is the fact that some distributors in Dublin send a van load down the country to a particular town and distribute it in that town, but if they have 12 or 14 packages for various hamlets scattered over a ten-mile radius, they hand them into the nearest C.I.E. depot because it would not pay them to bring them in their own vans.

Subsidisation of a system like that would really mean subsidisation of private transport, and I wonder can we as a nation afford to contemplate that sort of system, especially when we are at the same time spending such substantial sums on our roads? I mentioned it before—and I think some Senators do not believe what I say— that the latest available figures for 1954-55 show that we spend £213 per mile per annum on the roads of this country. That is not simply a sum thrown in as a capital investment which would not need to be spent again for years. Since 1939, the amount spent per annum per mile on the roads has tended to increase. It was £66 per annum per mile in 1939; it is now £213. That is three and a quarter times the 1939 figure. You could imagine it doubling, because of the change in the value of money, but here we are spending three and a quarter times; and there is every indication that, if we go on as we are, we will be spending increasing amounts on the same mile of road every year.

It is lovely to have good roads—we might question whether they are terribly safe when they are of the best quality—but I suggest they are a luxury that this country cannot afford. We have at some stage or other to call a halt, to look at the position of transport generally, to see what we want and what we can afford. We cannot continue indefinitely this system of spending all this money on the roads, having the stand-by of the public transport undertaking for the private operators, and, at the same time, letting them career throughout the country as they wish without any regulation in the public interest.

I talked about various committees and commissions being appointed. There was another committee of the trade unions which looked into the affairs of C.I.E. in 1952. They made recommendations then for the improvement of the finances and the working of C.I.E., but I am not aware that any one of their recommendations have been acted upon since then. I do not think I should go into the recommendations made by this committee, except to point out that there are such recommendations in the Department of Industry and Commerce and to say that they are still relevant in the present situation.

There was talk at that time of the curtailment of heavy lorries of two tons and over unladen weight. There was a suggestion that they should not be allowed to operate outside a 20-miles radius. Here again it is interesting to study the figures. At that time, the figures available were for August, 1951, and of the 26,000 lorries registered for haulage of their owners goods at that time, some 22 per cent. were of two tons weight and over. In August, 1955—the latest date for which we have figures—we find that the percentage has increased to 24 per cent. The tendency is, as disclosed by these figures, for heavier and heavier lorries to be put on our roads. Can we afford that type of transport, while at the same time maintaining a public transport organisation?

We have as well the illegal haulage which, to my knowledge, is rampant throughout the country. The people not allowed to haul for reward are engaged in that business. The other day a friend of mine pointed out a lorry to me. This merchant was described on the sideboard of the lorry as a "coal exporter". The Minister will be glad to know that we are now exporting coal from this country. Of course, there are many people—we will call them general merchants—who, I am afraid, are engaged in this illegal haulage business. It is a fact that most of the fairs in the west of Ireland are crowded out with illegal operators coming in from Nothern Ireland to take away the handy traffic from the public transport organisations.

I understand that there are two Gardai appointed to investigate illegal haulage in this country. There are two Gardai who specialise in this work. I really would suggest that, even in these times of financial stringency, some more assistance should be given if this problem of illegal haulage is to be properly tackled. There are two Gardai specialising in that work here in Dublin, but nobody else specialises in it in any other city or centre. It is no wonder that illegal haulage is rampant throughout the country.

Might I at this stage refer to a few items in the Votes in the Book of Estimates and make some comments? I note that, in Vote No. 2, there is provision for the payment of increased allowances for travel for Senators and T.D.'s. Here again, I am afraid, we are back to public transport—my old hobby horse. I note that a matter was mentioned in the Dáil—and I would mention it here again—and that is the desirability of encouraging our public representatives to support the nationalised public transport organisation which they themselves own. It is a fact that, if they travel by train— generally there are good train services available to them—they would save money to the State and, I suggest, they would save a lot in their own health and safety.

I know that, because of the low level of allowances to T.D.'s, there is an encouragement to them to travel in their own cars. I understand the allowance is 10d. per mile for a ten horse power car, and the cost of such a journey for someone living 180 miles from Dublin would be £15. First-class rail fare for the same journey would be about £5. It might be better in the long run if there was a serious examination made of the allowances paid to T.D.'s, allowances which have not been changed since 1947, with subsequent discouragement of the allowances in order to effect some saving.

The inadequacy of the allowances paid constitutes a greater threat to the Labour Party than it does to any other of the Parliamentary Parties, because we are fast reaching the stage wherein good, intelligent, earnest, honest people, who we would like to go forward for election, cannot afford to do so. That is a bad thing in a democracy. We look for our representatives amongst the ordinary working people, possibly the salaried workers, and there is to-day a hesitancy on the part of such people to go forward because, on the allowances paid, they cannot afford to do so. The position may be all right for the other political Parties which are constituted of merchants, large farmers, traders and so forth; they may be able to afford election to the Dáil as a sideline, perhaps an amusing sideline. For our people, who have to leave their work and who have no other means of support, the allowance is entirely inadequate.

I cannot understand why it should be necessary to subsidise our own restaurant by £2,000 per annum. When we talk about greater efficiency and less waste, we might perhaps have a look in our own house, first of all. I do not know why it should be necessary to subsidise our restaurant to the extent of £2,000 per annum. Certainly it cannot be said that the charges are any cheaper than elsewhere.

Mr. Sweetman

They are dearer.

Mr. Murphy

And, with that restaurant, there is also a bar where, I am told, the drink is a little dearer than it is elsewhere.

Professor Hayes

Perhaps it is a little stronger, too.

Mr. Sweetman

Surely the Senator was not only told.

Mr. Murphy

There might be grounds for looking into this. I do not want to raise any hue and cry, or anything like that. I suggest this £2,000 subsidy might not be necessary, if the whole thing were properly examined.

I expressed disappointment last year that, even though we were not members of U.N.O., we had not applied for membership of U.N.E.S.C.O. This year, we are members of U.N.O.—a welcome development. It is right that we, as a small nation, should play our own small part in the world about us. I suggest we can also play a part in U.N.E.S.C.O. Even though that may cost something, I hope the Minister will look into it again and see if it would be desirable that we should apply for membership of U.N.E.S.C.O.

With regard to the levies, I want now to refer to the possible effect these levies may have on prices. We all know that a levy on imports is bound to put up the price of imported goods. We would be happy if the price of the article increased by the amount of the levy collected and not by any extra amount over and above that. For example, an article costing £5 at import will now bear a levy of 60 per cent. That means that the import price will be increased to £8, an increase of £3. It would be undesirable if, instead of an increase of £3, the price of that article were to increase by some extra profit on top of that.

Mr. McGuire

What about the interest to the bank?

Mr. Murphy

Must the trader always borrow from the bank?

Mr. McGuire

Of course he must.

Mr. Murphy

Not at all.

Mr. McGuire

He is not allowed to build up capital otherwise through taxation.

Mr. Murphy

That might make an interesting point for discussion, but I am serious in suggesting to the Minister that there is a risk here. Suppose there is an article costing £5; the levy goes on; the article will then cost £3 extra, or £8. Suppose the merchant is already taking a 50 per cent. profit on an article costing £5 on import; the sale price at present would be £7 10s. Now, the sale price should only be £3 extra, namely, the amount of the levy. It would be a very bad thing indeed if, instead of being £3 extra, there was also a 50 per cent. profit by the trader on the amount collected by the Minister, the price thereby going up by £4 10s.

Mr. McGuire

The extra £3 is part of the initial cost price. The Senator must see that. Run a business for a day and the Senator will see it quickly enough.

Mr. Murphy

I stick to what I have said. If there is to be this tendency to make more money out of the levy necessarily introduced by the Minister, it is arrant foolishness——

Mr. McGuire

They are not making more money. They are paying their way.

Mr. Murphy

——for anybody to ask trade unionists to exercise restraint.

Mr. McGuire

They are putting up all the prices.

Mr. Murphy

It is arrant foolishness to ask trade unionists to exercise restraint if we are to have this piling on of extra profit, using this levy as an excuse, with some people getting more money into their own pockets.

Mr. McGuire

It is not extra money. It is an ordinary profit on ordinary costs.

Mr. Murphy

That is all very interesting.

Mr. McGuire

It is a fact.

An Cathaoirleach

I presume Senator McGuire will take the opportunity to speak.

Mr. McGuire

I will not say any more because it is only wasting time.

Mr. Murphy

It is only wasting time. I quite agree with Senator McGuire. The reaction on workers generally would be very detrimental if there is this feeling that this levy, necessarily imposed by the Minister, may be used as an excuse by other people to do better for themselves.

Mr. Sweetman

The two Senators are saying the same thing, but neither can understand what the other is saying.

Mr. Murphy

We are not saying the same thing.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Tá mé cinnte nach raibh aon dul as agus an socrú a rinneadh an dhá Bhille do phlé le chéile. Tá an oiread le rá i dtaobh an dhá Bhille go mb'fhearr iad do phlé ina gceann is ina gceann. Admhaím ar an bpointe nach bhféadfainn-se, agus an méid atá le rá agam, taobh istigh de achair gairid. Mar sin féin, tá a fhios agam nach bhfuil morán ama againn agus go dteastaíonn ón Aire go bhfaighidh sé deis ar shaoire. Bhí obair chruaidh aige agus tá sin tuillte aige. Déanfaidh mé féin oiread agus is féidir liom chun an méid is mian liom a rá do ghiorrú.

We must accept the decision of the House come to to-day to discuss these two measures together. I certainly support that idea, while, if I were left to myself, I would disapprove of it. The issues involved in both Bills are of a very grave nature and I feel it would have been far better in the interests of the State if we had been able to direct our attention fully to what is involved in the Levies Bill and, after that, devote our attention fully to what is involved in the Appropriation Bill.

After all, the Appropriation Bill in a way sums up the work of the Government for a year and an examination of that Bill will reveal generally the policy laid down and followed by the Government. With regard to the Imposition of Duties Bill—

Mr. Sweetman

The Senator is aware that I did not ask for that arrangement?

Liam Ó Buachalla

I quite understand that the Minister was not in any way responsible, nor am I in any way quarrelling with the House in coming to that decision. I supported that decision just as I supported the Bill we are discussing—the Imposition of Duties Bill—while I may disapprove of it. The Minister may think there is some inconsistency in that, but, if he likes, later on I will develop it for him. In any case, I may say at once——

Mr. L'Estrange

It is necessary to explain that.

Liam Ó Buachalla

I often wonder whether the Senator who has just interrupted makes his interruptions with a view to assisting the House in its discussions or whether he just cannot help making what are commonly called rude noises. I was going to remark that the Bill does not come as a shock to many of us. The Bill is a continuation of the Bill introduced in March and a continuation of the Budget introduced in May. I say that the Bill does not come as a shock to us.

This Bill was inevitable. There was no escape from it. In our circumstances, the only chance we would have of avoiding it would be if we were to reap some kind of a windfall or, on the other hand, if we were to be offered something by some rich neighbour or by some friend. Help of that kind does not often come our way. Nations in the ordinary way have to fend for themselves. We will not get help because we are Irish. We will get little by way of gratitude for what we have done to uphold the principles of freedom over many centuries. The order of the day has been and still is that nations must fend for themselves.

In other words, nations must take positive action, if desirable aims are to be achieved. We are now being given something in the way of positive action and we did get something in the way of positive action in March and in the Budget. The position we are in now is not one that has arisen suddenly. It is one, as has been pointed out here to-day, that has been developing over quite a number of years and I think that the administration has failed in not taking timely action.

With regard to the balance of trade, there is no need, as one Senator has done, to go through the figures relating to that matter. We are given these figures in the trade and shipping returns every month. When it was quite clear for the past 22 months or so that the balance of trade was against us to a very high degree, no action was taken until March of this year, although the trend was quite clear for more than two years. Again, the dangers that we were facing were emphasised by the figures available to us regarding the balance of payments.

The figures for 1950 have been quoted so often that one hates to quote them again, but I think it is no harm to draw the attention of the House to these matters. This whole problem is very serious. It is very grave and we should be fully informed as to the gravity of the situation. We should take every chance we get to inform the public as a whole as to the gravity of the situation, because, unless it is realised how grave the economic, social and financial position is, we cannot get the action that is necessary to save the State.

I was going to remark that, in 1950, the balance of payments, according to the official statistics, was against us to the tune of £30.2 million. In 1951, it was double that—it went to £61.6 million. In 1952, it had fallen—there is no need to go into the reasons—to £8.9 million; in 1953, to £7,000,000; in 1954, to £5.5 million; and, in 1955, it jumped back to £35.5 million. What that means is that in a period of approximately six years, we lost £148.7 million. Let us call it £149,000,000. Taking the period from 1947 to 1955, we had lost £207.8 million of our external assets; that is, we lost well over £200,000,000 of what one might call our capital.

The list of commodities covered by this Bill is very formidable. When one couples with this list the March list and when one remembers the threat of more to come, one cannot but feel uneasy regarding the future and it is with regard to the possibilities in the near future that I mainly want to speak this evening. It would be very easy, if one felt like it, to use on this occasion the terms that were so much in use a few years ago, such as "cruel", "austerity", "hairshirt" and so on. Indeed, if one were to act in an irresponsible way, one could imagine all the adjectives that could be used with regard to the Administration of the day that is responsible for the policy that is now being implemented.

Mr. L'Estrange

You could have used them for 20 years before that, when Fianna Fáil were in office for 20 years.

An Cathaoirleach

Order!

Liam Ó Buachalla

I understand the Minister's difficulties and I understand the national dangers. I shall not congratulate the Minister on what he has done, because I do not think congratulations are due; but if I cannot congratulate the Minister on what he has done, I can sympathise with him in the task he has to face. I can wish him well and can promise him every cooperation that it is possible to give him in getting over the difficulties with which we are faced.

The list, which has been so often described as a list of luxury goods, covers everything from tea to tobacco, from perambulators to plastics, from oranges to hatpins, even if some of the hatpins are ornamental.

As I said, generally I am supporting this Bill but, as I have already hinted, there is a good deal involved in this Bill of which I do not approve. I often have to support things of which I do not approve. I take the Minister's word when he says that the position is serious and that there was no way of getting over the difficulties other than the proposal he has put to us. There is nobody who should know better than the Minister for Finance, the senior Minister in the Cabinet, what the difficulties and the dangers are.

At the same time, if it were left to me, I would have sought some other way of doing the things that the Minister is now doing. For a country such as ours, which is to a considerable extent backward in regard to equipment of a capital nature, it is very much to be regretted that levies, hire purchase restrictions and credit restrictions, high rates of interest and so on, should be so widely and so heavily imposed as they have been imposed.

A Senator has referred with pleasure to the fact that levies have been imposed on the purchase of vehicles of a certain kind. We are concerned with getting efficiency and we want to get the best we can in the way of gear and equipment. That applies, not merely in the case of vehicles required for transport and all kinds of services, but equally to the provision of a washing machine in a house, in either the town or country.

I have no doubt that, as the Senator said a few minutes ago, these measures will likely result in bringing the balance of trade and the balance of payments to heel. That may be a good thing, or it may not be quite as good as some people seem to think. I am old enough to remember what efforts at devaluation meant in the past. I am old enough to remember the effect of the restrictions of all kinds. I fear that the restrictionist policy that we are now engaged on may lead to a situation something like the situation we had to face in the late '20s and in the '30s.

Certainly, I do agree that these measures will help to bring both the balance of payments and the balance of trade to something like a reasonable level. Indeed, it is hard to think of very much more being done under a dictatorship than we are doing at the present time. I hope we will not have to pay too high a price for that achievement. I hope the Minister will not feel hurt if I try to express to him the dangers that I fear lie ahead as a result of this. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

I remember on one occasion in the not so distant past when we were threatened with serious financial repercussions here as a result of financial policy in Britain. I mentioned on that occasion the danger of devaluation of the British £ and I tried as gently as I could to draw the attention of the Minister then present to the dangers that were inherent in that for us and I asked if cognisance had been taken of that, if anything had been done with regard to it. The answer was of a most facetious kind. Unfortunately, it was only a matter of ten days or a fortnight when the £ broke and we suffered heavily in consequence. No preparation had been made to meet that situation. It is because I feel uneasy with regard to the present policy that I am trying to impress on the Minister and the Government that there are dangers inherent in this policy.

It is very difficult to estimate the effects of this policy on trade. One Senator has treated us to a dissertation on what is going to happen. According to him, everything will be well. I wish I could feel as confident as he feels with regard to the outcome of all this. The fact is that this policy of restriction will lead to diminished trade. It will lead, I am afraid, to unemployment. It will lead to unemployment at the ports, to unemployment in commerce, to unemployment in other sectors. Perhaps I should not be so positive as to say that it will lead to unemployment. It seems to me that it is likely to lead to unemployment and, if it is likely to lead to unemployment, we had better face up to it and lay our plans accordingly. I believe in the policy of staring truth straight between the eyes. Too often we indulge in whistling when we are passing the graveyard.

We all cry out in these days for increased production. One is almost ashamed to mention increased production. I fear we are creating an atmosphere inimical to that desirable aim. What is the position as it is at the present time? As I see it, there is uneasiness and there is no use in denying it. Men just do not know what is going to happen. There is an element of risk in all this. There is, as I say, uneasiness. There is a tendency for trade to fall. Someone mentioned a few minutes ago a fall in imports. It may be a desirable thing but, just the same, a fall in trade could easily start something that would snowball and have very grave consequences for us all. Prices in some very important sectors have been dropping for quite a time.

I was rather surprised at some of the remarks made within a matter of minutes with regard to our export trade. The Minister is probably aware of the unhappy position that existed in the market to-day for cattle. Prices came down very much. It is a question as to what way they will run in the next six months. If the prices of cattle continue to fall or to keep down as they are, that will have a very serious impact on our balance of trade and the balance of payments. Is that not as clear as clear can be? When people glibly talk about this question of the fall in the price of stock, just visualise what it means. I do not know the precise figure, but I will not be too far wrong if I say that we have in the neighbourhood of 3,000,000 cattle above the yearling group. To give a very conservative average, they will have fallen at least £10 per head and that involves a £30,000,000 fall in the capital of the Irish farmer. I know there will be other ways of looking at it, but nevertheless we have to face the fact that a fall of that nature involves the men who are raising cattle in very considerable loss. It involves them in loss here and it will involve the State in loss when we come to export the cattle.

I am not saying these things for the pleasure it would give me of saying them. I am not hysterical; no man can accuse me of being hysterical. Do not use the word "unrealistic" or say that I am not realistic. In such matters, the only thing to do is to face facts. We ourselves get a firm appreciation of the position and let us convey to the public what the true position is. Unless we do that, we will not get the drive we require in order to improve the position. We have these prices sagging; we have high unemployment. The trend in that direction is not a very happy one, even though we have had a very high emigration rate for the past few years. We have financial restrictions of all kinds. Furthermore, we have an uneconomic and a deteriorating nationalised transport system, to which a Senator referred a few minutes ago. These are factors that are not likely to engender confidence in either producers or workers. That is a hard fact. Perhaps some Senator would say it would be better not to mention these things or that this is an occasion when facts of this kind ought to be kept under our hats. I do not subscribe to that view. I would not speak as I am speaking this evening, unless I felt that the situation is serious.

The present policy is an easy one; it is an easy policy to impose restrictions. It has been said by Senator O'Brien that it is not a popular one. That is true, too, but nevertheless it is an easy one. It is a negative policy, particularly when one remembers the main features of our economy. I would rather see the problem tackled from another end. I should have liked to see more evidence in the past few years of its being tackled from that end than I did see, that is, by a courageous effort to step up production—

Mr. L'Estrange

By slaughtering 1,000,000 calves.

Liam Ó Buachalla

—both in agriculture and industry. I should have liked to see production stepped up to meet home needs fully and to provide that surplus which we all think so desirable for export.

Mr. L'Estrange

"To sell on the British market that is gone, and gone forever, thanks be to God."

Acting Chairman (Mr. Kissane)

Order!

Liam Ó Buachalla

Many of the items in our import list could, I think, be met from home resources. Some of them could be met without delay. I will not go into these things now because the Minister will think of them immediately. If I were to mention them, the Minister would say: "I do not agree that you are right in that." Nevertheless, I am expressing my conviction that there are very large items, running into millions of pounds, in that import list that we could meet from our own resources without very much delay. There are others in that list that, if steps had been taken a few years ago— as they should have been taken in view of the trends that were indicated by returns of one kind and another—to organise their production, could have been met. Therefore, the amount of inconvenience, to put it mildly, that people will now have to suffer could have been eased to a very great extent.

Mr. Sweetman

Would the Senator mind giving a couple of examples as to the types of things he has in mind? I want to see what types of goods they are.

Liam Ó Buachalla

I will not go into these things now. I wish to inform the Chair that it is not my intention to carry out an argument over them, because it would not be quite in order, but immediately I would mention wheat.

Mr. Sweetman

I wanted to see what was in the Senator's mind.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Then there is the question of the production of grass meal for which, as far as I can make out, at the present time an export market at a reasonable price would be available. I just mention these as examples. If opportunity were available, we could discuss these things and make a list and go into many of them.

Mr. Sweetman

These are two on the agricultural front. Would the Senator like to mention the industrial front?

Liam Ó Buachalla

Grass meal would be an industrial product.

Mr. Sweetman

That would be on the agricultural front. Has the Senator anything to suggest in respect of the industrial front?

Liam Ó Buachalla

I am making these comments not because I want to indulge in something like carping criticism but to point out that a policy of restriction is a negative policy and is not enough in our case. Let me give an example of the consequences that I fear we may have to face some day. I hope we will not. I mentioned the fear I have that this policy is likely to lead to unemployment. Remember that emigration has been running at a very high level and also that the British economy is not as sound as it was a few years ago. Supposing anything happens on the other side and that even 10 per cent. of the Irish workers in Britain are unemployed and sent away, that 10 per cent. would mean a return here of between 30,000 and 40,000 men and women. You can consider then our high unemployment figure and the result that would follow from the damming of the emigration flow. Add to that the number of people who would likely be sent home here as a result of any break in the economy at the other side. If you visualise that, you will have an idea as to why, if one thinks of the whole problem, there is ground for uneasiness.

In view of the time at our disposal, I feel I shall have to curtail my remarks. I should like to emphasise again that the position is serious and while I say that, I agree with the remarks that have been made that it is possible to redeem the situation If we all bend our backs to the tasks ahead, the burden will then be well distributed and if we all co-operate, the position can be retrieved. One might start with the household. If each household in the country realised the position and decided to do its best, much would be achieved. There are, I think, about 400,000 households in the country. If they do not appreciate the position and do not bend their backs to this task, then there is very little use for us in the Seanad or in the Dáil to speak about the dangers of the position and very little hope of our achieving anything.

People will be made unhappy as a result of these restrictions. This is another reason why I feel uneasy. We find people wanting to go away because for some reason or another they believe conditions are better outside the State than they are within. Anything that will tend to make these people unhappy will add to the desire of people to leave the country. Even if there is no chance of their leaving the country, then those who will remain in employment, because of their unhappiness, will not work with the will that is necessary if we are to achieve the results we think should be achieved, the results that are essential if the State is to be saved from the direst of consequences.

For the vast number of men and women, farmers, business men, professional men and others who form the Party to which I give allegiance, I think I can promise that whatever they can do to help tide the Minister over his difficulties will not be left undone. However, until the people belonging to the Party to which I give allegiance realise how grave the situation is—and they are a very national body of people —I myself would not expect from them that effort which I believe is so essential if the economy is to be saved. Out of adversity comes good. Though we all regret that this Bill had to be introduced, I think that a great deal of good will come out of it. It will bring many of us to our senses and not the least of the good it will do will be that it will bring many politicians and public men to a sense of responsibility. I hope we shall hear less ballyhoo from now on with regard to banking and credit and about the wonderful economists who seem to have sprung up overnight and who were going to cure all our ills almost as fast as a streak of lightning would run to earth.

Reference was made to Government policy and Government spending. I myself feel, and have felt for quite a time, that we ought to get a firmer grip of the problem of our economy than we seem to have. I believe in private enterprise, but, while I believe in it, I am afraid that much of the work that has to be done will hardly be done if we are to wait for private enterprise to do it. I have said elsewhere that the most the protagonists of private enterprise have been able to do in the past is to denounce anything that was being attempted through Government organisations, through Government agencies, in the economic field. I am thinking of the West of Ireland and of what we had hoped would follow from the Undeveloped Areas Act. I see day after day the flow of emigration from that area. I look at the incentives that are given there through legislation for the setting up of industries and though it may be too soon to assess the success of that Act, I feel uneasy as to its outcome. The Minister should be very careful in his approach to these appeals for a cutting down of Government activity. It can be very serious in more ways than one.

I think it was my colleague, Senator Kissane, who made reference this evening to the conditions that obtain in the British economy and who made some comparison between these and the conditions in our economy. In Britain, they have full employment; in fact, they have over-employment. In Britain, they have full utilisation of capital; in fact, the trouble there is that they think they could use their capital in still more profitable fields. There there is full use of natural resources; there is a country with an enormous population that must export or starve.

The conditions in Ireland are totally different. Here, as has been said, we have chronic unemployment and heavy emigration. We have unutilised resources in the bogs and outside the bogs. We have a shortage of capital. Yet we seem to adopt the identical measures to cure our ills that the British have adopted to cure theirs. I mention that again, let me emphasise, to draw the attention of the Minister to the difficulties that are inherent in his policy. I for one—and I think I speak for my colleagues—hope this will work out well. It would give us no satisfaction that any citizen of this State should suffer in any way. We feel the Minister would not impose these restrictions if he could avoid them or see any other way out; but I want to impress on him that he should be very careful when taking counsel with his advisers, both inside and outside the House, to find out what the consequences are likely to be.

There are a few other matters that I want to refer to. They would bring me more to the Appropriation Bill than to the Imposition of Duties Bill. Let me refer to one or two remarks made by one of the Senators who spoke before me. He had some criticism to make of this matter of travel by train as against travel by motor car. I should like to remind the Minister—and I feel sure I hardly need remind him—to be careful of what people living in Dublin have to say about these things. You have got to remember the country Senator who has business to attend to, who will be here until 10 o'clock or perhaps 10.30 at night and who must then go back to his business in the morning. He may have to attend to his farm or go to a fair. I could quote my own case and the difficulties involved for me if I did not have the opportunity of travelling by car.

By all means, if he has special influence over the transport authorities and if he is so versed in the economics of transport, then he can provide suitable public transport for public representatives. We will be only too glad to avail of the public transport services that will be available to us. However, the Minister has got to think of the country Senators who have to go around their constituencies. It is all very well in Dubln where they can hop on a bus; it is a far different problem for the country Senator.

Again, the Senator's criticism of the restaurant was hardly called for, particularly in this House. I am one of the people who come in here often at 10 o'clock in the morning. I find so much to do all day that I cannot get out of the House before 10 o'clock at night. It suits me to have my lunch here. I meet my colleagues; and there are other reasons why I should stay in the House. It suits me also to have my tea in the House. It is all very well for the Dublin representatives who can slip home for their meals. Country men must come up here sometimes when the Houses are not sitting, but the restaurant is expected to keep open and cater for them, and properly so. I hope the Minister will turn a deaf ear to the appeals made to him by the Senator who spoke a few moments ago on these matters.

Now I come to a matter to which I refer with some diffidence. It arises properly on the Appropriation Bill. It has to do with this question of Partition and what we are likely to do about it, especially since an opportunity has come our way now through the United Nations' Organisation. Partition, as I see it, has its aspects. There is the over-riding aspect of the reintegration of the national territory. That is a matter for long-term policy. I subscribe to the view that it is difficult, and I subscribe to the hope that it will be resolved and resolved within a reasonable time.

There is then the short-term aspect of what are the conditions that obtain in the Six Counties. I think it is time that we took up this whole question of the application of the charter of human rights. I raise it simply because I know people are uneasy; people have spoken to me and challenged me that we were forgetting all about it and that that was a very dangerous thing to do on our part. People have written to me; in the last few days I got a letter from a very responsible citizen, mentioning his anxiety about the whole thing. I should like the House to be patient if I mention what I think ought to be drawn to its attention.

I have here the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as adopted by the British Government. I am going to quote from Her Majesty's Stationery Office Report, Command Paper 7662, where the Articles of human rights are set out. I shall draw the House's attention only to some of the more important Articles, and if I do that and if we realise their significance, I think it will be readily understood why I, for one, appeal to the Minister for External Affairs and to the Government to take some positive action in regard to this matter. Article 2 says:—

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, birth, property, or other status."

Article 3 says:—

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the security of the person."

Article 7 is as follows:—

"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."

Article 12 says:—

"No one shall be subject to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

Article 13 (1) says:—

"Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State."

Article 15 reads:—

"(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) None shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality."

Article 18 is:—

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion on belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

Article 19 says:—

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive or impart knowledge and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Article 20 sets out:—

"Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association."

Article 21 reads:—

"Everyone has the right to take part in the Government of his country directly or through free chosen representatives."

It will readily come to the minds of Senators how thousands are disfranchised in the Six Counties. Article 21 continues:—

"(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."

Article 23 is:—

"Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."

Article 26 says:—

"Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children."

I am satisfied from information conveyed to me that these fundamental rights are denied to our fellow nationalists in the Six Counties. The position is a very grave one for them as individuals and for us from the point of view of the nation. I should like to say that I do not believe that the people down here are indifferent to the conditions under which their fellow countrymen are living in the Six Counties. I do not know how it can be done, but I do think that it is essential that we should take some steps to convey to the people up there that we are interested in their fate and that anything we can do to bring the conditions under which they are living before world opinion will be done. These special rights are being abused in the Six Counties and it is only right that world opinion should be informed with regard to the position.

The second question I want to refer to, and I have already referred to it in passing, is the question of emigration. We have had a commission to inquire into it. Has the Minister or the Government made up their minds as to what is to be done about emigration? I agree that it is a very, very difficult problem, but it is true that the public were led to believe that the Government had a way of resolving it and we are still waiting for the programme that will lead to its solution. I should like to bring home to the House how this question of emigration is serious. We are losing ground. We had a certain satisfaction in the years gone by in noting that the figure for emigration was gradually being pulled down and we were very happy a couple of years ago to note that we had reached a position where the population had held firm for the first time for centuries. Now we are somewhat disturbed by the information that we have lost almost 250,000 in the past few years.

Here is the significance of that. Here, as a progressive democracy, we are anxious that children should go to school; we make them go to school compulsorily. Sensible people have come to the conclusion that it is in the best interests of the children and of the State that the school-leaving age be raised. We would do that to-morrow if we had the organisation to cater for the children between 16 and 18. We want to keep as many children in schools for as long as possible. At that end of the scale, the burden is increasing on those working. On the other hand, we are anxious to let people retire at as early an age as possible, if they want to do so. We want to keep them with us as long as possible and that is an ordinary Christian, human desire. The burden is increasing at that end, but, in between, that group between 18 and 55, the working group that is bearing the burden at both ends, is increasing, but the back to bear the burden is decreasing. It could be argued there is nothing to worry about and that we can get over it by increasing the efficiency of those working. I only wish we could see reasonable evidence that our productive efficiency is increasing.

Senator O'Brien mentioned the fact that our productive capacity seemed to be stagnant; that we are not progressing. That should bring home to the House the gravity of the question of emigration. I am not saying that I have a solution for it, although it often occurs to me that it would not be unjust, if a man leaves this country without good reason, to deprive him of citizenship for a number of years. I am not saying this is a conviction, but I am saying it does occur to me to bring home the gravity of their act in leaving the country, particularly when men and women walk out of reasonably good employment. I sympathise with the Minister in the job that has to be faced. It is a terrible job and I do not think he will find an easy solution to it. I know it is not capable of an easy solution but I wish that something would be done to face up to the situation.

Another matter to which I want to refer is of a rather local nature and it would be a matter more for the Minister for Education or for the Minister for the Gaeltacht than for the Minister for Finance.

Ba mhaith liom go mór dá bhféadfaí feabhas do chur ar taistil idir an Mórthír agus Árainn.

Professor Hayes

Ar cad é?

Liam Ó Buachalla

What I am referring to is this question of communication between the Aran Islands and the mainland, and I want to pay a tribute to the captain and the crew of the Dún Aengus because they are very gallant men and rendered very gallant service to us during the war. I know that even in the short 30-mile journey between Galway and the Aran Islands, they very often have to take very heavy risks and face very great hazards, but I think the conditions obtaining with regard to transport should not be tolerated for very much longer. The boat runs, when possible, twice a week. The service is being run at a very great loss and to run the boat more often would obviously involve C.I.E. in a still heavier loss. What I would suggest is that until something can be done with regard to providing a better vessel, a more effective vessel, for transport purposes, it would be worth spending say £5,000 or £10,000 on a good boat of the lifeboat type and have a service between the island and Rossaveil so that people could get in and out reasonably frequently.

I want to draw attention to the difficulty of food supplies. I happen to have been marooned there, owing to the storm during the week-end, and it was then that this was brought home to me. Take the bringing in of bread. Bread came in on the Saturday and no more bread came into Aran until the following Saturday. There are a couple of thousand souls on the island and I think it is possible to do more for these people than has been done. In any case, our outlook on these things, our attitude to these things, has changed; our idea of standards has changed and so I should like the Minister for the Gaeltacht to take the earliest possible opportunity to look into that question of transport between the islands and the mainland.

There is the difficult question at the moment of fuel. No turf is coming in and no turf has come in for quite a time. The Connemara men find the risks and the costs heavy and the people of the island are finding it difficult to pay the higher prices necessary if turf is to come in. The difficulty of getting coal is equally great.

These are not all of the things I wanted to discuss but I have kept the House unduly long. However, for quite a while, it is not often I have availed of the opportunity to speak and I do say with all sincerity that it is with regret I had to speak in the terms in which I have spoken to-night. I can assure the Minister that it was not in a spirit of carping criticism of what he is doing or trying to do that I have spoken as I have spoken. I have tried to draw attention to the difficulties that lie ahead and to point out that there are serious shoals that will require very careful navigation if we are to get safely past them. So far as I am concerned, I shall support the Imposition of Duties Bill, although I dislike it, and I hope, as has been said by so many people on the other side, that it will lead to a solution of the difficulties of the country.

Mr. McGuire

Having listened to Senator Ó Buachalla this evening, apart from the understandable references he made of a Party political nature—I do not use the expression in any wrong sense; I can understand it as part of the Opposition's function— I must say I agree with most of what he said. I think his was a very good and a very thoughtful speech. We see him a good deal nowadays, but we do not hear from him very much because of his position as Leas-Chathaoirleach.

I am glad to hear a speech like that, and I think, reading the Dáil speeches also, there has been apparent a more constructive form of criticism by the Opposition than has been customary for many years from any Opposition. It is a good sign of our political maturity that we have come to that comparatively happy state of affairs now.

The Minister's speech in the Dáil on Wednesday last gave a very full and excellent report of our economic and financial position at present and it is a speech that should be read in full by all citizens. Unfortunately, I think it is quite apparent to any of us, who meet not only Deputies and Senators but people outside, that that speech has not been fully read and digested. I suppose there are so many speeches made by so many Ministers on so many occasions over years past that not only the public become tired of reading them but some of the members of the Oireachtas themselves do not read them.

This speech of the Minister was a very important one and it should be read by everybody, especially those who set themselves up to criticise the policy of the Government, or those who set themselves up as important leaders of any sections of the community in which they are in a position to influence our economic policy and trends. The Minister quite rightly said that the solution of our difficulties is a task for all our citizens, and the emphasis is on all and every citizen, but it seems to me still, that quite a lot of citizens think all this talk has nothing to do with them, and already we find quite important groups of the electorate ready and anxious to pass the buck to somebody else, saying: "It is the other fellow who will have to do everything; it has nothing to do with us." It is has, perhaps, they do not want to see that it has anything to do with them. Yet, the Minister suggested in the Dáil last week and again in the Seanad to-day that everybody could make a contribution when he said that, if everybody contributed but 10 per cent., it would go a very long way toward getting over our difficulties.

Even some newspaper leaders have asked how could the citizens make this contribution and it was almost suggested by their remarks that the Minister was unpractical and unrealistic in asking each citizen to do something. It was asked: What can a bus driver do to increase production or what can somebody else do to increase production? But the Minister asked not only for increased production but harder work to make money more valuable, and he also asked for sayings. There is nobody in the whole population who cannot either work harder or save something, and if these two things are done by every citizen, the 10 per cent. that the Minister asks for should be achieved. This applies not only to every citizen but it applies to the Government itself. If can save. It has been pointed out by several Senators and by the Minister himself that Government spending is a very important factor in our present inflationary situation.

Debate adjourned.

The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 2nd August, 1956.