Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Jul 1962

Vol. 55 No. 11

Appropriation Bill, 1962 (Certified Money Bill) — Second Stage (Resumed) and Subsequent Stages.

Professor Quinlan

Last night, in opening my contribution to this debate, I dealt with some rather general principles. Today I want to go back to three or four of the most important Departments, and the most important sections of our national life, to examine them and to make suggestions as to how they should be changed to face the challenge of the Common Market. We have to investigate every Department to see what we can do to meet this tremendous challenge.

Taking first things first, we must take the Estimate for the Houses of the Oireachtas. In this House we are rather conscious of the part played by Seanad Éireann. In time to come Seanad Éireann will either have to be abolished or changed drastically to make it fit the part of the Upper Chamber, so that in the years to come, it will give a positive lead, and take positive action, in the way the Second Chamber should, rather than be as it is today, unfortunately, a very pale replica of the Dáil. In this Estimate, we see that our salaries are voted at £750 per annum. I do not think we are giving value for that, or that we are provided with the opportunities to give value for it. We see on all sides Senators who are quite capable and eager to make far greater and more positive contributions than they are able to make at present.

To that end, I would suggest that if we are to justify our position and justify our allowances, the recommendations of the Commission on the Seanad should be implemented without delay. They sought to make at least an improvement in the method of election.

An Cathaoirleach

I wish to draw the Senator's attention to the fact that legislation may not be criticised or advocated on this Bill.

Professor Quinlan

It probably would require legislation to amend——

An Cathaoirleach

It certainly would require legislation.

Professor Quinlan

Very many effective committees could be constituted in the Seanad, and these would work together as committees do and they are capable of handling many facets of the problems connected with the Common Market.

We have the excellent work done by the Committee on Industrial Organisation. I believe that the Seanad should be able to handle in a very responsible manner the problems connected especially with the political side of the Common Market and with the constitutional and other aspects of it. I think we would all welcome the opportunity.

Again, we are conscious of the salaries paid in Dáil Éireann. Here, I might say that the Deputy's allowance of £1,000 per annum has not been brought into line with modern thinking. We have made provision for other sections. I do not think the Seanad deserves any more—in fact it is overpaid — but definitely the members of the Dáil are underpaid.

An Cathaoirleach

These are matters of legislation. The salaries of members of the Dáil are regulated by legislation.

Professor Quinlan

I might remark that the present position, the status quo, means effectively that professional people or people in salaried positions are, by virtue of the very lowness of the salaries offered, unable to give up their present occupation and to seek to become members of the House. I think that is a very regrettable position. It is one that prevents these classes from playing the part which the corresponding classes play in all the progressive Parliaments of the world today. Certainly, if we are to join the Common Market, our representation from all sections will have to match up with the representation available in the other countries.

I should like to point out that less than 25 per cent. of the members of both Houses are degree-holders in any respect. I am not claiming any undue advantage for that except to point out that, in the modern day, with the opportunities that are available to all young men, it is now within the scope of all to carry their education to the fullest possible limit of their abilities. We hope that will be possible here within a very short time. Consequently, we should seek for a great increase in the number of graduates in both Houses of Parliament because from what investigation I have made it would seem that we have the lowest percentage of university graduates of any Parliament in Western Europe today.

Again, in dealing with Dáil Éireann, the same applies to Ministerial salaries but we are prevented from advocating that. I can only point to the fact that Ministers today, with a salary of £2,000, are paid less than the third rung of authority in their various Departments. When we hear so much from the Minister for Justice and others about the necessity to pay adequate salaries so as to ensure that the people concerned can live up to their position, I would just point to the contrast of a Minister presiding over a Department in which the top three rungs of authority are paid higher salaries than he is. That does not prevail in any Parliament in Western Europe. It is an anachronism and should be removed as soon as possible.

The next Vote I wish to comment on is the Vote for Agriculture. First of all, I will take the methods used to increase production. The introduction of the subsidy for fertilisers was a worthwhile incentive but the results are most disappointing and, indeed, are negative in so far as the effect of the subsidy should be the growing of more grass which would feed more cattle. In point of fact we had rather a heavy selling in the past two years and to-day we have something like 150,000 or 180,000 fewer stock than we had two years ago. That in itself shows that there is something wrong. I think what is needed are more positive and definite steps to increase the cattle population. I would suggest that there would be a subsidy put on cattle in order to ensure that they are retained in the main for breeding rather than for slaughter, as has happened to many due to rather attractive prices for beef in the past. Our main objective should be to increase the cattle numbers. We have not done that over the past 50 years.

There has been a welcome increase in the number of sheep but we are still making less use of our grass relatively speaking than we were two years ago. Taking the numbers on the land, according to the recent economic statistics we find they continue to slide downwards. The June statistics show that there are 5,000 more members of the family on the farms in June, 1961, than there were in June, 1960. That is a figure that is hard to believe. Of course, I realise the errors that can occur in such a census. It does seem the trend is still continuing as it was before. There has been a reduction of about 6,000 per annum in the numbers on the land. The numbers have gone down from 421,000 in 1954 to 380,000 today. The numbers of members of the family on the farms have gone down at the rate of about 4,000 per annum. What do these figures mean? Are they significant? You can look at it two ways. Perhaps, the best way is to examine the intake of young people into agriculture. We find from the census reports that roughly 6,500 young men in the age group between 14 to 16 enter agriculture each year. Out of 6,500 young men, who go to work on the land, 3,000 or 3,500 of them leave before reaching their early 20's. We have an input at most of 3,000 young men into agriculture each year, between 3,000 and 4,000. That means that since the war young men have been coming into agriculture in numbers only sufficient to produce a population on the land of between 150,000 and 200,000. That is a catastrophic figure and it spells ruin for us. You may not be disturbed about the fact that the numbers are going down some 5,000 or 6,000, and say that we would be better off with fewer on the land and with a better living for the remainder, and that we would level off at 300,000 but the input shows that that is not what we are aiming at. We are aiming at 150,000. When that day comes we will have become the beef ranch of Europe and that is a position none of us wishes to see.

What is the remedy? It is shown here. We have money provided for agricultural organisations and agricultural schools and so on, but that is not enough. The problem can be analysed simply. I speak from the practical experience of one born and bred on a farm in Limerick and who visits that farm regularly and knows the problems that are there and one who has also spent a long time with rural organisations. The problem is simply that the industrial revolution, or the living revolution, has reached the farm with electricity, running water, transport, communications and so on being available. We find that up to the age of 20 or 21 work on the land is, if anything, more attractive for young men than work in corresponding occupations in the city because the young men have what they like— contact with tractors and such challenges as are presented by modern mechanisation. It is wonderful to see how young men respond to that. The result is that young boys of 15 or 16 on the land are earning more than their counterparts in industry where you have apprenticeships and where wages are geared. Fortunately, there is no such gearing down of wages in the agricultural structure. Therefore, the young boy can earn more money on the land than if he was employed in the city.

It is, however, after that that the difficulty arises, when having reached the level of commanding £5 plus his keep, or £7 in all, there is then no future available above that and so he leaves and we are the losers. At that stage, this farm apprenticeship scheme which has been promised for so long——

An Cathaoirleach

I must draw attention to the fact that there is a motion on the Order Paper covering that matter, and, therefore, it may not be discussed on this Bill.

Professor Quinlan

Can I get some idea of when that motion is likely to be taken?

An Cathaoirleach

That is not a matter for the Chair. The Chair is concerned only with matters of order.

Professor Quinlan

The motion has been on the Order Paper for two years now and there still does not seem to be any sign of taking it.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator to continue on the Bill.

Professor Quinlan

If it would facilitate order, perhaps, I could have the motion withdrawn at this stage, because I am sure that my seconder, though he is not here today, would approve of that course. In any case, we may hope that in the next five years we will have an opportunity of discussing the farm apprenticeship scheme.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator will now return to the Bill.

Professor Quinlan

On the Bill, we have the vote for the agricultural schools which are a vital element in any country for the development of a progressive agriculture. We find in Vote 43 the increases given due to the eighth round are shown here for extension and development. The increase is just 2½ per cent. to the private agricultural schools whereas the increase to the State schools is the usual one of 16 or 17 per cent. In interpreting those figures you have to make allowance for the fact that, as given on page 199 of the Estimates for 1962-63, the sums seem to be comparable. The total is £175,000 as against £178,000, but there was a land purchase involved in the Munster Institute, which distorts the figure to the extent of £21,000. Consequently, the State schools, as shown in these detailed estimates, got 16 per cent. increase. I am not quarrelling with that. It is probably not even enough. I should like to see much more given there: but the private agricultural schools, which are carrying the main burden of the education of our young men, and such wonderful establishments at Pallaskenry, Warrenstown, Gurteen and the rest, have been given an increase of 6d. in the £. My calculations, which it is not necessary to give in detail, show that pupils in the private schools got only about one-sixth to one-seventh of the amount spent on corresponding pupils in the State schools.

We hear private enterprise attacked very often, the implication being that the State can always do better, but here is a clear case of a grave injustice to our private schools. In this case we might take a line from a country that may be one of our companions in the future, that is Holland, which jealously keeps an even balance between public and private schools. In the case of training a pupil in a public agricultural school in Holland the pupil's individual grant is calculated to the nearest fraction, and everything is included, including contributions that do not appear here from the public works and other perquisites from State establishments under other Votes. All these are calculated and then exactly that amount per pupil is given to the private agricultural schools. The total paid here to the private schools, as given on page 200, amounts only to something like £89,000. If that were increased five-fold so that private schools were paid exactly the same as State schools that would involve a mere £500,000, and I am sure it would create the greatest revolution in agricultural education we have seen to date.

An Cathaoirleach

That would involve new legislation, which is not in order on this Bill.

Professor Quinlan

What I am advocating is simply a redistribution of the £148,373,960 provided in these Estimates, and there is no need for any fresh legislation or increased taxation. There is something in many sectors here that would be far better spent on these agricultural schools— if I were to mention one, the money paid as subsidy to CIE, £1,175,000.

So much for the agricultural schools. I think it is only fitting that as one representative of the graduates of the National University of Ireland I should pay tribute to the wonderful work they are doing, and condemn the scandalous way they have been treated by the State. I can remember the quotation from somebody who said it is like when you starve a man and then jeer at him because he is weak. Fortunately, our private agricultural schools are not weak, however they manage it. How they do it is certainly a mystery.

We come now to another facet of agriculture, namely agricultural research. Here I speak for the Dairy Science Institute in University College Cork, and the total provided here under the Vote is £41,000. That is an extraordinarily low figure to provide for both research and the training of our young men in dairy science. The training of creamery managers, the managers of our food processing factories, the research in new products, and so on, is all supposed to be done on that small budget. Of course, it is utterly impossible, and the amount provided there is an insignificant fraction of what is provided in the other countries of Western Europe. They have the reward for that in the increasing expansion of their major industry, dairying, and in the ability to capture markets with new products. I commend the provision made here for the Agricultural Institute, which has expanded in the past couple of years, and I hope that when all the great schemes unfold they will very quickly make an impact on our economy.

The figure of £40,000 for dairy science is very insignificant. In a recent debate, the Minister said the dance hall tax was not worth collecting because it amounted to only £40,000 per annum. Another £40,000 given to the dairy science faculty would achieve wonders.

An Cathaoirleach

These moneys have already been provided for. Increased taxation cannot be advocated on this Bill.

Professor Quinlan

I am not advocating any increase; I am merely advocating a redistribution of the £148,000,000 provided in the Budget.

We come now to the next phase. Perhaps I might make one general comment here. Where many of our facilities for agricultural education or general education, both secondary and University, are so completely out of line with what is required in a modern and progressive State in Western Europe, and where they could be doubled or trebled, it is physically impossible to achieve that doubling or trebling overnight or in a matter of a year. If extra money is provided, it calls for additional staff, extra facilities and so on. That is a development which requires a number of years.

What we require is not that next year's Budget should jump up to European levels, but that we should have a policy aimed at providing in a certain number of years, in those various fields, facilities as good as those available to our competitors. I would suggest ten years. Of course we have to take account of the fact that it is no use providing in ten years' time the facilities which are available today to our competitors. We have to calculate where our competitors will be in ten years and we have to aim at having our facilities at that level in ten years.

The IAOS subsidy or subvention from the State has remained static at £11,000 for the past dozen years or more Money has depreciated very considerably since then. The problems of the co-operative movement have been increasing in complexity and it is unrealistic that no change has been made in that figure. I suggest that far more emphasis should be placed on the co-operative movement. After all, it was an Irishman, Sir Horace Plunkett, who developed the idea aided by Father Feely and Father Coyne. The co-operative movement was the means by which Denmark has reached its preeminence today. We would do well to learn from that, and to learn that the co-operative movement is worthy of our fullest support, that it is our greatest hope for the future development of our industry.

The same policy is evident on the question of grants to universities, not to talk of other education. We find that there has been a general increase of just 18 per cent. in grants to the National University of Ireland. That 18 per cent. is calculated on the basis of the general all-round increase of 12½ per cent., and on the fact that the State subsidy accounts for two-thirds of the revenue of the University. Other income is mainly from fees. There was an understanding that the fees would not be increased and they have not been increased. That increase provides solely for the eighth round of wage increases and makes no provision whatsoever for the increase that is necessary to try to bring our universities into line with modern standards.

If we want to see modern standards, we do not have to go to Europe, or Japan, or anywhere else. All we have to do is go across the Border and right there we see an example of how a university should be treated. Details about Queen's University, Belfast, are given in the Statistical Abstract. Briefly, the general conclusion to be drawn is that there are there 6,700 students as against our 9,600 and they get the same amount of State subsidy. They have other income as well.

We have also the very frightening figures which are given in the secondary school teachers' pamphlet. Their comments on university education should be read by all. Tables 7 and 8 on page 9 of the document are based on reliable international statistics. They say:

Tables 7 and 8 make it evident that an attempt is being made in our universities to adequately train the minds of Irish men and women of the present generation at less than one-sixth of the cost per student that is assumed to be necessary in England and Wales, and we may take it in Scotland.

The comment is quite good. They continue:

The attempt if it were not such a serious threat to our economy might be considered a great if completely unjustified tribute to superior intellectual ability of the Irish mind.

Those are the figures as given by them. They show the problem which will have to be faced to develop a ten-year programme which will bring all our Irish universities into line with those elsewhere. Where is our policy on the Border or on anything else, if we have not formulated a policy on education? Are Queen's University to sink down to our level when they join us, or are we to get up to theirs? We have the answer to those questions. The same problem arises in this report by the Federation of Irish Secondary Schools. They dealt with secondary education and said that the provision made in the Estimates is totally inadequate.

An Cathaoirleach

Once again, I must draw the attention of the Senator to the fact that departmental revenue cannot be increased under this Bill. We are concerned with the administration of the Departments.

Professor Quinlan

Surely, with all due deference, we can show where revenue is inadequate, if we can in any way discuss the Estimates?

An Cathaoirleach

This is an occasion when administration relative to the Estimates is proper for discussion. If Senators continue to disobey the rules of order, we will never get through the business of the House. There are two ways of learning the rules of the House—one, by studying them and the other, by breaking them. The former is preferable.

Professor Quinlan

I do commend this report very wholeheartedly to the members. In view of the ruling of the Chair, I do not see how this report can be discussed unless we are advocating increases this year, but we cannot do that; that is quite obvious. Surely, what I am trying to discuss is the general impact of the Common Market on the various sectors of our economy; how that challenge calls for various adjustments in the different factors and how these can be achieved. If, in that, we have to point out the deficiencies in our educational system we must at least be able to say that these deficiencies are not due to the people who man these systems.

From the primary teacher to the secondary teacher, to the vocational teacher, to the university teacher and the research teacher, they are, one and all, giving a return to the nation that is, I would say, on the average, quite a bit higher than returns expected in other countries and they are doing that against great odds. I think the nation owes them a great deal for it. But you can only carry that so far. In the future, we are conscious of the problems we face and we ask the means of coping with those problems.

And now to move on to the question of the Local Government Estimate, as given here. In this, we must make the general observation that local government needs to be drastically reorganised to cope with the present growth in unit size. Units that were workable, and so on, 50 years ago are not workable to-day, quite obviously. Therefore, there is a great deal of rethinking necessary on this level. The facet of which we are most conscious at the moment is the position in which the employees of local authorities find themselves, especially professional employes such as engineers, and so on. Their salaries are supposed, in some way, to be coming from the local authority for which, of course, there is a very large measure of taxation contribution. However, they are supposed to come from there and therefore the salary increases to mark the various categories have to be sanctioned by the various county councils or corporations concerned.

My contention here is that these officials are as much public officials as the members of the civil service and consequently should be treated on a national level. It is very demeaning that they should have to interview members of local bodies and to try to make the case to them why they should get the increases that have already been given to civil servants and others. It is especially difficult at the present time when so many of the local bodies have got large farmer representation on them. The farmers are conscious that others have got the eighth round but that they have got little or none of it. If forecasts for the coming year are correct, the farmers will actually suffer a reduction. Consequently. It is wrong that professional people should be put in the position of having to go and, as it were, to ask for funds to increase their salaries in that way.

Again, I think we should take the position that has been occupied, almost by default, by the County Managers' Association. They are, in some way, becoming the central body for the regulation of the salary levels of those below them. I know these have to be sanctioned by the Department of Local Government but it does seem altogether wrong that such a position should be occupied by the County Managers' Association or that it should be thrust on them. Consequently I appeal to the Government to look into this anomaly. It is not a function of the county managers that was ever envisaged in any of the Acts in relation to county managers. It can be a cause of a great deal of friction at various levels between managers and professional people.

The rules prevent me from giving details but there are anomalies under which professions, especially the engineering profession, suffer. We have to recognise that the greatness of Western Europe has been caused by the Scientific Revolution, its development of skills, and so on. Consequently, in this, the technical man has played a supreme role. Here, unfortunately, in almost 40 years of self-government, the effort has been to depress the technical man at the expense of the administrator. I submit that in the future that faces us and the many problems that face us, most of which are quantitative, the technical man will have to play an increasingly important role. Administrators should be drawn in greater measure from those technical people.

It is taken at present as though the possession of technical training were almost a barrier to developing into an efficient administrator. Therefore, I would advocate that that is a policy that we have to change and change rapidly. Otherwise, we shall have the position that our technical men will continue to emigrate in even greater numbers in the future. They will not stay at home to fill inferior positions and to be debarred from one of the real top promotion positions when in other countries their talents will get full scope for development.

Finally, I would just mention the question of tourism, taking the report that has come to us this morning. We are rather disappointed at the turn-out in the present tourist season. I would suggest that tourism is a minus as well as a plus. What we get in here from outside is a plus but increasing more and more is the minus that goes out from here I feel that a great deal of our effort should be directed to convincing our people that they can enjoy at home holidays that are in every way as good if not better than those they can get abroad. It could be put to them also that they should see their own country first before they travel further afield and thereby make a very marked contribution to the Irish economy. I also feel that we must do a great deal of rethinking on this. Despite the increase shown in the Vote here, and the increased promise over the next 5 years, they have not in any way succeeded in lengthening the tourist season.

I would repeat a suggestion I made about two years ago, that one of the best ways of extending the tourist season would be to encourage our people to take holidays in June or September, especially those in industrial employment. I made the same plea in regard to children at school and that it would be better if we could finish our schools in early June so that the children and their parents could avail of the cheap rates in June and not over-crowd our tourist facilities in July and August. There are many other things we can do in this regard. Larger and bigger hotels are only a minor aspect of the problem. The fundamental thing is to lengthen the tourist season.

In regard to the Vote for the Department of External Affairs, we welcome the improvement we have seen in this Department for the past six or eight months where its record in the United Nations has been much more in keeping with what we might expect from a country of our resources and our traditions. One might comment especially on their stand on the Cashmere dispute which was greatly appreciated by Pakistan.

I should also like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that we are voting, and quite rightly so, sums for the United Nations but we should take cognisance of what these moneys may be used for. I shall quote from an article by the Political Correspondent in the Irish Times of July 14th in regard to the recent visit of U. Thant to Dublin. He says:

The effect he left on a journalist was most favourable. He gave well informed and direct replies to many pointed questions, even one on the possibility that the United Nations would approve of birth control as a solution for world over-population.

I take it that we here would not in any way subscribe either materially or otherwise to such a policy. In conclusion, I should like to appeal again that next year it might be possible to arrange for a splitting of this debate into at least three or four major sections with the Ministers responsible from each section present in the House so that we might discharge our duties here as Members of vocational groups based on vocational representations. Then we might be able to discuss such thorny topics as the necessity for increasing the amount of State aid given for education.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá ar an mBille Leithreasa agus tagairt a dhéanamh do chúrsaí eacnamaíochta na tíre, cúrsaí oideachais agus uilig ach nílimse chun é sin a dhéanamh ar an ócáid seo.

Do deineadh tagairt dona lán rudaí sa díospóireacht atá ar siúl againn agus ar na neithe sin bhí ceist na Gaeilge. Is maith liom go mór go bhfuil an oiread sin Seanadóirí toilteanach feidhm a bhaint aisti sna díospóireachtaí a bhíonn ar siúl sa Tigh seo. Is maith an sompla é sin do mhuintir na tíre agus má leanaimid de sin déanfaidh sé maitheas do chúis na Gaeilge.

Bhí an Seabhach ag cur síos ar staid na Gaeilge sa tír agus b'fhíor dó nuair adúirt sé go bhfuil an Ghaeilge ag dul ar aghaidh i slite áirithe ach nach bhfuil sí ag dul ar aghaidh i slite eile. Tá eolas ag a lán daoine anso ar theanga na Gaeilge, go mór mór na daoine a fhágann an scoil ach sí an trioblóid nach bhfuil siad sásta feidhm a bhaint as an eolas atá acu san gnó a bhíonn ar siúl acu i ngáth-chúrsaí an lae mar adéarfá. Ní fheadar conas is féidir é sin a leigheas. Ní dóigh liom gur féidir leis an Rialtas é leigheas. Ní féidir leis an Rialtas ach deontaisí, cabhair airgid, a thúirt chun cúis na Gaeilge a chur ar aghaidh agus stiúriú áirithe a dhéanamh a chuirfidh muintir na tíre ar a leas mar le leathnú na Gaeilge ach, tríd is tríd, is dóigh liom go bhfuil cúis na teangan ag dul ar aghaidh agus nach bás atá i ndán di fé mar adeireann a lán daoine anois, fé mar adeir daoine áirithe anois.

Maidir le ceist Telefís Éireann, deineadh tagairt don cheist sin aréir agus do deineadh gearán nach bhfuil spás go leor dhá thúirt don teanga ar Thelefís Éireann. Is dóigh liom go bhfuil bun leis an ngearán san agus má tá bun leis ba cheart é leigheas.

Do gheibhtí locht ar an radio, Radio Éireann, mar gheall ar a laghad ama, dar linn, a thugadar do chúis na Gaeilge ach le h-imeacht aimsire do cuireadh feabhas ar an scéal—feabhas mór. Tá súil againn, nuair a leathanófar Telefís Éireann ar fud na tíre, go dtioofaidh feabhas ar an scéal maidir leis an ngléas sin leis. Gléas is ea Telefís Éireann a d'fhéadfadh a lán maitheasa a dhéanamh nó a lán díobhála do chúis na Gaeilge agus sinne a chuireann suim sa cheist mhór náisiúnta seo tá súil againn gur maitheas a dhéanfaidh sé do chúis na Gaeilge.

Having passed those few remarks on the Irish language, I wish to return to the general trend of the debate and, like our friend, Senator Quinlan, I hope to be very brief. The Senator in his early remarks referred to the challenge of the Common Market. We have been listening to that phrase for a long time and now we are about tired of it. When people refer to the Common Market one would think that it was only now that we were beginning to set up our native industries. I venture to say that when we join the Common Market the industries we have set up will be able to hold their own in any part of the world. Our secondary industries as well as agriculture are able to compete in the markets of the world with those of other countries. Therefore, if and when we join the Common Market we will be able to hold our own just as well as now. I imagine joining the Common Market would make it easier for us to enter into competition with other countries of the world in selling the products of our industries here.

Senator Quinlan referred to the Seanad and the duties of Senators. He gave us to understand that we were too well paid for the work we are doing. Apparently, he was referring to the number of Seanad meetings that we have. He should remember that Senators have other duties to perform besides attending meetings of the Seanad. As far as I know, the majority of Senators have almost to do the work of T.D.s. They have to attend to constituency work, make representations to Departments on behalf of the people amongst whom they live, and they have to attend various other meetings. The Senator should bear that in mind before he comes to a conclusion as to whether the members of this House are too well paid or not.

Judging from the tenor of Senator Quinlan's speech he does not appear to be satisfied with any phase of our national life. He found fault with almost every Department of State. I just said to myself if that is the case, perhaps the right thing to do would be to abolish the Government and appoint the Senator himself a High Commissioner to look after the interests of the State.

Reference was made to education. In fact, the greater part of the debate centred around education. Of course, education is a very important item in the life of a country, but I would point out to those who advocate increased expenditure on education, and indeed to those who advocate increased expenditure on other things, industry, agriculture, local government, or social services, that all expenditure on these things must keep pace with the increase in productivity. It is only when we have increased productivity that the Government would be justified in giving all these increases. I am glad to say that the increase in the country's productivity has made it possible to give very many increases in all these directions over the past couple of years. The growth in the country's economy, or should I say the fulfilment of the Government's Programme for Economic Expansion, has made it possible to effect increases and improvements in many activities of the State. There is now about three times as much aid being given to agriculture as there was in 1956-57 and there is nearly twice as much spent on education. Senator Hayes referred to education and Senator Quinlan made a passing reference to it also. Senator Hayes advocated increased expenditure on secondary education. Of course, we would all like to have increased expenditure on secondary and other branches of education but we have to have regard to the resources of the country.

If anyone takes the trouble of looking up the Book of Estimates for this year and the Book of Estimates for 1956-57, he will see that almost twice as much is being provided for secondary education this year, and the same applies to vocational education. I am glad to say that vocational education in this country has been making very great strides over the past few years and that the amount of money being expended on it is quite justified.

Reference was made here yesterday to the school leaving age. Senator Brosnahan referred to it and advocated extension of the age. I must say that I myself, too, was of the opinion that it would be a good thing to have the school leaving age extended, but on more mature consideration I would be doubtful about it. In all these things we have to measure the calculated benefit with the amount of expenditure, and it is not necessary to point out to Senators that extension of the school leaving age would involve a considerable amount of extra expenditure. Additional teachers would have to be provided, as well as additional accommodation, and so on. All that could not be done without more money, and the question is, can the country afford all that increased expenditure? Would the extension of the school leaving age be as beneficial to the country as some people try to persuade us it would be? We have, of course, got examples of different operations in other countries. Conditions in other countries, especially in Great Britain or Scotland, are quite different from conditions here.

We all know from our experience that certain children attending primary schools would not benefit very much from a continuation of education, as we will call it. There are certain types of children who have no literary bent, or turn, but who in after life turn out to be great business people. They have what is called a business instinct. It would be better for those children to get away from the schoolroom, and go into the world outside to get an opportunity of putting their business instinct into operation. If they were kept at school after the age of 14 years they would not have the same chance of doing that.

In any case, we have our vocational schools and they, in a sense, are continuation schools. They have been described as the poor man's university and, to a certain extent, they are. If the parents deem it necessary that their children should get additional education if they can afford it they can send their children to the secondary schools. If they cannot afford it, they have the vocational schools. Therefore, I do not see any crying need, or necessity, for extending the school-leaving age in those circumstances.

However, like many other problems in life there is a lot to be said for and a lot to be said against. I should imagine that before anything would be done in that regard certain vital interests should be consulted. The managers of the schools and the parents should be consulted, and should have a say before any Government would bring in legislation for the purpose of extending the school leaving age.

Reference has been made to tourism. I think I can infer from Senator Miss Davidson's remark yesterday that she regards the expenditure of £1,000,000 by Bord Fáilte as not being wise expenditure. I think those are the words she used. She also referred to the hotels and to the amount of money being spent on what she called first-class hotels. As regards the first point I would not be in agreement with her. I think the £1,000,000 which is earmarked in the Book of Estimates for Bord Fáilte is money well spent. I would go a certain distance with the Senator when she says that more attention should be paid to the second-class hotels to meet the requirements of the ordinary middle-class tourist who comes here from across the water, and who could not, perhaps, afford to stay in first-class hotels.

There are also, of course, a certain number of tourists who would not stay in anything but a first-class hotel. We must also take them into account. There is no reason why Bord Fáilte cannot operate a scheme by which the necessary assistance could be given to all those hotels. No matter what they do—and this is a very important point—about the first-class or second-class hotels, unless there is some control over the charges made in those hotels an amount of damage will be done to the tourist industry. There have been many complaints recently about overcharging in hotels, and I am afraid those complaints are not without foundation.

It would be advisable for the Minister responsible for the activities of Bord Fáilte to get them to take some steps towards controlling all hotel charges. That is a matter which I consider to be of vital importance to the success of the tourist industry. As was pointed out in one paper I read today, if this overcharging continues it will be a case of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

I do not want to go over all the Estimates as other speakers have been trying to do or, I should say, as Senator Quinlan has been doing. I do not think it appropriate on a debate like this to deal with all the individual Estimates.

Mr. L'Estrange

It is the only opportunity we get.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

We will have plenty of opportunities later on in the year.

Professor Hayes

Mair, a chapaill, agus gheobhair féar.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

Tá an féar ann cheana.

Mr. L'Estrange

Beidh Iá eile ag an bPaorach.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

There is no use in advocating increases here and there: increased salaries, increased social benefits and increases in other directions, unless the country can bear them. All the increases that have been given recently, to teachers, civil servants, members of the Garda Síochána, judges, and so on, could not have been given if the economy of the country were not strong enough to bear them.

As I pointed out in my earlier remarks, it is because the economy has expanded and because the Government's programme for economic expansion has been fulfilled that these things have been found possible. The Government expected when they earmarked this programme for economic expansion that an increase of two per cent. would be a good target. That target has been exceeded. It has increased to 5 per cent. Some people say the figure is 4½ per cent. but according to the Irish Banking Review, which I have here, it is 5 per cent. You see on the first page of the Irish Banking Review that a good picture of the long period trend in the Irish economy is to be found in the survey published by the OECD this year. The survey illustrates the impression made by the economy on independent expert foreign observers. The picture is far from discouraging. The economy has been expanding since 1959 at a steady rate of about 5 per cent per annum which is a much more rapid rate than in any earlier period. During these 3 years the output of industry increased by about 27 per cent. which is quite high compared with many other European countries. I should like if those who try to find fault with the policy of the Government would study this. I should like Senator Quinlan, who found fault with every Department of State in the course of his speech, to read that extract from the first page of the Irish Banking Review. It would bring him, I think, some healthy enlightenment.

Mr. McDonald

There are a few Votes in which I am particularly interested in Part II of this Appropriation Bill and I should be glad if the Minister would clarify the positions for me. First, I see in reference to Vote No. 9: "For expenditure in respect of Public Buildings; for the Maintenance of certain Parks and Public Works; for the Execution and Maintenance and Drainage and other Engineering Works and for a Grant-in-Aid of the River Shannon Navigation—£6,062,000." Am I to take it from this that at last moneys are being made available for the relief of the Shannon flooding?

There are many farmers in the area of the Shannon valley who suffer great hardships and loss nearly every year as a result of almost annual flooding of the River Shannon, particularly in the area immediately above the Weir at Meelick. Many residents of the Shannon valley believe that the Weir at Meelick contributes in no uncertain way to the flooding of the valley and also the small islands in the stretches immediately below the weir. I should be glad if the Minister would indicate whether any of this money will be allocated for this purpose.

I come now to Vote No. 15 for the Secret Service—£7,500. Heretofore, I did not know we had a Secret Service in the country or a force of that kind. I should like if somebody would explain what this Vote actually covers. When we consider the sum of £7,500, it is difficult to visualise in what particular sphere or field they operate— that is, if we are to consider them in the same light as we understand other forces are. For instance, we often see films and read novels about the F.B.I. and other such forces. I could not imagine a sum of £7,500 going far to maintain them for a year. Perhaps the Minister would tell me a little more about this particular Vote.

I am at a loss to know what proportion of the £6,500, under Vote No. 24, is allowed for payments of compensation and other expenses arising out of service in the Local Security Force. I should like to know what form this compensation takes or for what is it intended. I understood that the Local Security Force was completely voluntary. I see a similar provision under Vote No. 48.

In reference to Vote No. 47, for the Defence Forces, I should just like to say that the improvement in the conditions of the Privates and N.C.O.s during the past few years has been remarkable. However, I should like if an even greater improvement could be made to better the lot of the man who embarks on a long service and who takes on the Army as a career. I think there should be stricter discipline, especially among the men serving on the first three- or five-year terms.

I am also surprised to see in the Estimates that there is this year a reduction in the amount allocated for uniforms and clothing for N.C.O.s and Privates. In Army circles for the past few years I think it is true to say that they have been promised a new type of uniform with better quality material and also, I believe, a new walking out uniform. It is a pity that such promises are made if it is too long before they are fulfilled. I believe it is most important that the morale of the soldier should be maintained at a very high standard. If he is not given a uniform which looks sufficiently attractive and which can easily be kept in a tidy condition it is very difficult to keep him in high spirits the whole time.

In Vote No. 46, the Minister allocates approximately £13,000,000 for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. In view of the extremely large number of applicants for connection with the telephone service—I believe somewhere in the region of 10,000—I should like to know if the Minister is completely satisfied that the amount of £13,000,000 is sufficient for this purpose. I know of persons in the Midlands who are waiting for over 2 and 3 years for connection. The telephone, as we all know, is really only coming into its own and, especially in rural Ireland, is only coming into widespread use. I trust that sufficient resources will be made available to ensure that the programme of the Telephone Section of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs can be got through as speedily as possible.

Finally, I should like to join with Senator Quinlan in asking that this Appropriation Bill be divided into a few sections with the appropriate Ministers present. I believe that a greater contribution could be made if it were tackled in more detail.

Professor Jessop

I find myself in sympathy with the remarks of the last speaker and with the corresponding remarks of Senator Quinlan. It is a little bit unrealistic complaining here about the amounts of money spent in the various Departments in various directions when, if you go to them to argue about it, they all blame the Minister for Finance. I suppose on that account he cannot object if we in this House pass these complaints on to him. In my case I am interested in certain anomalies in the educational sphere relating to the training of medical students, dental students and veterinary students, which arise out of the distribution of funds available for these activities in the universities. Each of the two universities has got faculties and schools in these three subjects and train students for these three professions.

In each of these schools the position is different from any other faculty or school of the university because in each case the school is under the continuous scrutiny of a supervisory body, such as the Medical Registration Council of Ireland, which has the authority to come to the school and look at the facilities, the equipment and the personnel available for teaching and to make criticisms if these are inadequate and to tell the university concerned, perhaps, that the students are not well enough trained to be registered in these professions. With that sword always over us we have a very considerable problem to try and keep standards up to the required level. We are, I suppose, more than any other sphere of the university continually pressing the responsible Ministers to provide funds because not only do we have to meet these standards but the actual mechanics of the educational processes are more expensive than those of most other parts of the universities. Large amounts are required for laboratory equipment and for teachers, who probably have to be in a higher concentration in relation to the number of students than in other spheres. In the hospital and clinical departments very considerable expenses are involved, so we are always at the doors of the various Ministries asking for help in these directions.

That is not the only difficulty in training for these three professions because trainees go through two phases. The first one is spent in the science department of the university. That does not present any problem other than making these departments sufficiently good to deal with the training of students. The second is spent on the clinical side, either in a hospital or in an animal hospital, a veterinary school or a dental hospital, and in each case an entirely different problem arises, because these institutions are not under the control of the university. There is not a university in this country that possesses a hospital, a dental hospital or a veterinary hospital of its own.

I am not sure that it is a good thing for a university to have such institutions, as they have in America quite frequently, because I am not entirely convinced that a university is the best kind of body to run a hospital; but if it is not, and if these hospitals are under separate ownership as they are here, then another problem arises because you have to work out a system whereby the university can co-operate with the authorities running the hospital for the further education of the students in the later parts of their curriculum.

This is difficult. The hospital property is, as I have said, not at all the concern of the university, but with the co-operation of the authorities which own the hospital it is frequently possible to work out a scheme whereby the university can contribute to buildings, to the purchase of equipment and so on to be placed at the hospital. This is the only thing they can do. The university, of course, must get these funds from the Minister for Education, and it is an educational expense. But the university staff and students working in the hospital contribute to the treatment of the sick people, and this is something which helps the Department of Health. One feels sometimes that the Minister for Health should contribute because of that to the expenses involved in the educational side of the hospitals for which he is responsible, but he is very reluctant to do this. The Minister for Finance will remember the situation when, as Minister for Health, he was frequently approached about this problem.

There is something, I understand, in the Act governing the Hospitals Trust Fund that prevents the use of the moneys in this fund for educational purposes. At this point, I should like to make what I regard as a very important representation. The standard of practice in any of these three professions in this or any other country is intimately bound up with the standard of training, not only in relation to the professional competence of the people practising them but also in relation to the work done in the institutions where these people are being trained. It is well recognised in every country that the teaching hospital is likely to be of a somewhat higher standard than the hospital which has no such teaching responsibilities. The reasons for this are numerous—the presence of students who ask awkward questions from their teachers tends to keep the teachers up to the mark, the necessity for demonstrating everything clearly so that the student can see it means that investigations are carefully and fully carried out. Therefore, we need better facilities in those hospitals than may be required in certain hospitals that have not got teaching responsibilities.

Who is to provide these facilities? The Minister for Health has a responsibility for keeping the standard of hospitals up to the highest possible level from the point of view of the management of sick people, and their treatment and investigation, but he does not have the responsibility for this in relation to the teaching of students, yet the very same processes and accommodation and equipment are used for the teaching as well as for the treatment. This should be recognised, and either the Minister for Health should obtain the authority to spend more of the Hospitals Trust Fund for educational purposes or he should get from the Minister for Finance such a proportion of the moneys available as are required for the educational side of this hospital activity.

The same applies in agriculture. The Estimates include a sum of £160,000 for veterinary education under the heading of the Department of Agriculture. That is not a large sum considering that there are two faculties involved—one in each university— and I am sure a greater sum will be needed in the future. But the same problem arises in relating the clinical treatment side to the teaching, because the veterinary hospital—the college at Ballsbridge—is the property of the Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture or the Minister and his officials appoint the technicians there and the universities appoint the professional staff. The Minister pays the technician directly and he gives the universities the money to pay the professional staff. One way or another, all the moneys spent on veterinary education come from the Department of Agriculture and, therefore, I suppose, indirectly from the Minister for Finance. The university, of course, then has to do the best it can with what is available from the Minister for Agriculture in relation to the expenditure on personnel, but it has not authority to increase or improve the buildings or accommodation at the veterinary college. Therefore, the same difficulty arises in educating students at an animal hospital as in a hospital for sick people. If the Minister for Agriculture approaches tht Minister for Finance for increased funds to provide better accommodation at Ballsbridge, I hope he will have a sympathetic hearing.

Like other Senators, I would commend very warmly the brochure entitled "Investment in Education" which has been circulated, prepared by the secondary school-masters. We should be very pleased and proud that there is a group of masters in charge of schools in this country so interested in the job they are doing and so competent as to be able to produce a document like that. I feel that one of the most outstanding defects in secondary education is the defect in science in the secondary schools. In charge as I am of the admission of students to the medical school, the dental school and the veterinary school in Trinity College, we are continually faced with applications from students coming from Irish schools who took high grades in the Leaving Certificate examination in various subjects but have done little or no science—chemistry, physics or biology. Their all-round training for entry into those schools is therefore defective, and we are constantly being forced in the examinations at the end of the first year to turn back a considerable proportion of those students, not because they have not worked hard or because our teaching is inadequate but because they have started off at the great disadvantage of knowing no science. In Trinity College we have recently taken the step of appointing a separate lecturer in chemistry and another in physics purely to deal with this group of students who are preparing for these professions, because otherwise they cannot cope with this first year's work.

Every possible support should be given to the development of science in the schools. I know that Messrs. Guinness recently promoted the collection of a considerable fund for the improvement of science facilities in schools, but I do not think that it turned out to be nearly enough to go around. I know many schools which lack adequate science facilities and have not been able to get sufficient help from that fund. The fund, also, only deals with a capital problem. It does not deal with the recurrent problem of teachers.

In relation to the matter of health, I have only one point I want to raise. I notice that the Minister for Health in dealing with the Estimate for his Department in the Dáil talked about the Hospitals Trust Fund. That fund does not, in fact, come into the Estimates and I do not propose to refer to it further in any detail here, but it is the fund from which the building of new hospitals must be financed. So far as I understand it that is the only fund which makes any substantial contribution to the building of new hospitals. The Minister was very cautions in relation to the future of the building of new hospitals. Certain commitments have been made, he said, and they hoped to get on with them, but as to others there was not any very clear indication of how much he was prepared to do.

There is one venture which I would like to commend to the Minister for Finance if it should be necessary for the Minister for Health to approach him on the matter, and that is the federation of hospitals that has taken place in the past year in Dublin. Seven hospitals have agreed to come together, to put themselves under a common governing authority for the purpose of running this group as a single unit. This is going to increase the efficiency of this group, but it cannot greatly improve the cost of running them. What would greatly improve this would be the provision of one or two new hospitals to replace the old, out of date, inefficient buildings in which those institutions are at present housed. If the capital could be found to build even one or two new hospitals instead of four or five of those existing institutions the saving would more than compensate for the capital expenses involved.

Mr. Cole

I want only to deal with one small aspect of the Vote on education. This debate in the House has more or less taken on the aspect of a discussion on education this year, and the greater proportion of the speeches has touched in some way on education, rightly so, because I feel that education is the growing need and there is a growing demand for it in this country. In the very near future it will be the most important Estimate, probably, that we will have to deal with. Since my entry into public life the interest taken by parents and public bodies in education seems to grow every year. I am quite prepared to admit that the Department's Vote has also substantially increased, but there is one aspect of it I would like to mention.

We see a great many very nice small primary schools being built all over the country, probably one or two in each parish, and sometimes I wonder will those schools not be regarded as out of date in a very short time. Are they going to be adequate for the type of education we are going to need? I do not think that a teacher nowadays can cope in a one-teacher school with children ranging from four years to 14 years or, as many Senators here have advocated, to 15 or 16 years. I do not think it is possible in this way to give adequate education to the pupils, usually in the country schools. Either the teacher must concentrate on the older ones who are taking examinations or else they are neglected and that neglect will possibly follow them all their lives. I believe that these schools will be regarded as out of date except for very young pupils in 10 or 15 years' time, or less. What should be aimed at is not very large schools but at least central schools that would have adequate accommodation when the school leaving age is raised, as I have no doubt it will be sooner or later, to keep pupils there for a further year.

If there were that type of accommodation in three, four or five teacher schools, the type of education would be far better. It would also leave the way open for what I have advocated before, the teaching of agriculture in some way to those pupils who will remain on the land.

I should also like to see the teaching of a European language in those schools. We cannot expect that an ordinary teacher would have the time for that now but it could be done in three or four teacher schools, or if there were an itinerant teacher who went around to two or three schools. These small schools will keep the pupils very much behind in the amount of education we would like to see them getting. Most teachers will tell you that they cannot teach as they would like to at the moment. Some of them give extra teaching in their own time, but most of them will admit that they cannot teach as they would like to because they have not got adequate time.

I was also rather surprised to hear Senator Ó Ciosáin saying, on the point about the school leaving age, that there were a great many pupils he thought would not benefit at all from another year's schooling. No pupil that I can think of would not benefit from another year at school, or possibly two years. Probably any headmaster would tell you that. A little knowledge, no matter how little, is always useful to the pupil.

Mr. McAuliffe

I do not intend to delay too long because this is the type of Bill you could get very much involved in like Senator Quinlan, and you could go on for hours. I think he was not half finished when he sat down. Senator Brosnahan dealt very largely with the primary schools and I agree with him in nearly everything he said. One thing which he did not stress sufficiently was in regard to the grants for heating and cleaning, and also proper sanitary accommodation. It is remarkable the number of schools there still are without proper sanitary accommodation.

Senator Ó Ciosáin made some very extraordinary statements about children being better off by leaving school than staying on for an extra year. The fact of the matter is that one thing that has done a tremendous amount of harm was the introduction of the primary certificate in its present form. In spite of the fact that the INTO do not agree with the primary certificate in its present form, the teachers do a lot of work on it, because they do not like to see children failing in the three subjects of the examination. We find there is great concentration on those three subjects at a vital stage in the children's school career.

There is only one thing that can be done to give children a broader type of education, and that is to keep them at school for another year. I find in my own school that when children stay on for an extra year they make tremendous progress. The child has a completely different outlook. He is not harassed by the fact that he has to do so many home exercises in preparation for an examination. He gets a broader knowledge, and he wants to find out more. If he goes on to secondary school he has a certain amount of algebra and geometry because of the fact that he stayed at school for an extra year.

In my opinion, the compulsory School Attendance Act was the worst Act ever passed in this country. It was passed at a time when the Irish people were of the opinion that they would not have any compulsion, and they always looked on this Act as a bad Act. The parents found every possible way to avoid sending their children to school under that Act. There was no trouble about it. The parents sent a note to the teacher saying the child was ill, and that was the end. If the day was wet that was another way out. If they lived three miles from the school they need not come. The parents found every possible way to beat that compulsory Act and it was only when the children were leaving school that they began to wake up and see how foolish they had been in not going to school every day. The attendance at vocational schools is much higher than in the national schools, where there is compulsory attendance. In the vocational schools fees have to be paid and yet there is a higher attendance.

Senator Ó Ciosáin also referred to the technical schools as the poor man's university. That is a hackneyed phrase and one that should never be used, in my opinion, because the technical schools are doing really wonderful work. If the idea that they are the poor man's university is kept before the general public, the pupils will leave the technical schools. They are the places where people get group certificates. Our aim should be to provide more technical schools and we should have a central technical institute to which the really intelligent children could be sent on scholarships and could get degrees equivalent to the university degrees. Everyone knows the universities are crowded out and that the great majority of people cannot send their children to the university.

Last year we had the introduction of the Apprenticeship Act. That has created a terrific problem. Every day in the week I get letters from parents saying: "My children live 13 or 14 miles from a technical school. What will I do about it?" In the allocation of money under "Vocational Schools" there should be a scheme whereby provision would be made for transport for the children until such time as more schools are built. In my own county it has been agreed that we will build two more schools. That will probably take three more years. The Apprenticeship Act comes in next year and some children will find themselves without the certificates which are necessary to qualify. The Minister should be asked to give that serious consideration.

I move now to the Departments of Local Government and Lands. It was mentioned to-day that the judges, teachers, doctors, and everyone else had got the eighth round of wage increases, and that it was possible to make that provision because of an increase in the national income. There are two groups of workers for which the Minister is responsible, in the Office of Public Works and forestry. The men working in the forestry branch have not got any consideration whatsoever in the eighth round of wage increases. I understand the Minister was waiting for some type of headline to keep the rate more or less at the same figure as is paid by county councils. I think the county councils have now settled that. The Minister should not have any more delay in doing that.

Another suggestion which I hope is not true is that on account of the introduction of the bonus system, whereby men got a bonus on quality and on quantity, the Minister was of the opinion that the fact that they earned this bonus was a good and sufficient reason not to increase the basic rate. That would be a pity. We have increases in social welfare. I welcome very much the new Social Welfare measure but there is one thing I am not so happy about and that is that, in relation to the lower paid workers, such as those to whom I refer, the gap is being closed too much between their pay and social welfare. A person with four children would get £5-4s.-6d. a week and a man working with the Office of Public Works in the winter months would get around £6 a week. There is very little incentive for a man to work there if he can get £5-4s.-6d. and, between dry and wet time, £6. The same applies to Bord na Móna, to the county councils and to the Forestry Division.

When there is an Act to improve the lot of the poorer sections of the community the Minister should always have his eye on the incentive to work. Therefore, the difference between the wage and the social welfare sum should be fairly substantial. It is not substantial in the case of the type of worker to whom I have referred. The rural worker finds himself in that position and the same can be said for the farm worker.

I should also like to criticise the Minister because at no time has he set up any machinery to deal with the wages of employees of the Office of Public Works, the Forestry Division and the Land Commission. There is no machinery to deal with their wages. The sooner you give them something in the line of arbitration the better. They are as much entitled to arbitration as teachers, doctors or any other group of people. If you set up some sort of arbitration board to deal with wages for these types of people it will be a good day's work. It is long overdue. I hope the Minister will give the matter serious consideration.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Appropriation Bill we are discussing this afternoon gives Members of the Seanad one of the few opportunities we get in this House of discussing Government policy or even the lack of Government policy. The Minister presented us with a Bill for roughly £152,000,000. It is the largest Bill that was ever presented to this House. We remember, away back in 1956, with another Government in power, the criticism of Fianna Fáil which was both severe and harsh on the then Government. If we take into consideration the fact that subsidies to the tune of £9,000,000 have been wiped out, the Government are now looking for £52,000,000 in excess of what the Government looked for in 1956.

The Taoiseach stated way back in 1955 and in 1956 that Government expenditure had reached its limit. This increase represents an increase on the taxpayers and on the people of the country by a Party who in 1955 and in 1956 preached economy and criticised extravagance and wasteful spending by the Government then in power. It is an increase of £52,000,000 by a Minister who, in 1957, in his Budget statement and in his speeches in this House on this and other Bills, held out all sorts of hopes of a drastic reduction in expenditure, a drastic reduction in the number of our civil servants and drastic economies in Government administration. Those were his own words.

After five years in office, the best the Minister can do is to increase the number of civil servants by 500. Instead of drastic economies in Government administration, we get this huge demand for £152,000,000. One of the worst features of the Budget is the fact that very little relief has been given to the old age pensioners, to the widows and the orphans. They must even wait for any relief which has been given until 1st August next whereas judges and others who got good increases received them retrospective to 1st November last. There are many people who stated that this Budget was designed to make the rich richer and perhaps the poor poorer.

Senator Hayes referred last night to Fianna Fáil Government policy at the present time. It has ground down the people of Ireland. There is no denying that both the farmers and the business people are being crushed at the present time between increased rates and the heavy load placed upon them by the Central Government through soaring costs on the one hand and reduced prices on the other hand.

The farmers are still getting only 1953 prices for the majority of their produce. They have got some small relief. In this Bill, they are getting some £2,250,000 towards the relief of rates. Senator Ó Ciosáin should remember this when he talks about increased grants for agriculture. If our farmers are getting this sum of £2,250,000 towards the relief of rates on agricultural land I would point out that a sum of £5,000,000 which was paid last year in beef subsidy is not being paid this year. Therefore, the relief they will receive means that they will be £2,750,000 worse off as regards Government grants.

The small shopkeeper and the small businessman has got no relief, good bad or indifferent. I suppose it can be said that the people have now become so used to crushing burdens, due to present Government policy, that they have become like punch-drunk boxers and can absorb punishment without seeming to be affected by it. The people of Ireland are seriously and dangerously affected. Like the punch-drunk boxer, they have lost initiative. Many people are losing ambition and the competitive instinct. Some of them have become like punch-drunk boxers under the two-fisted pummelling by both rates and taxes. It was never more necessary for the Government and for the people to have initiative and to be anxious to make the best use of the opportunities that lie ahead.

This burden of £152,000,000 represents a little over 30 per cent of our national income. I can remember some of the speeches made away back in 1930 and in 1931 by the people who were then in Opposition but who are now in Government. In those early days of the State, they told us they could run the country on £2,000,000 less than it was then costing to run it. In 1930-31 the percentage taken by the Government was only 18 per cent of the national income. The present figure represents an average of almost £50 per head on each man, woman and child in the country, or a sum of £200 or £250 for an average family. With such a burden in a country where there is emigration and unemployment it is no wonder that an incentive is lacking and that money for investment is becoming scarce.

Senator Ó Ciosáin referred to our policy on economic expansion. We are all glad on this side of the House that we have an increase of 5 per cent., that the good work—this cannot be denied—started by Deputy James Dillon to improve the land is bearing fruit. He started the good work in 1958 and it is still continuing. The foundation was solid and cannot be interfered with. I doubt if the people on the far side of the House can be as complacent as they seem to be. I remember in the past we were told by the present President and leading members of the Fianna Fáil Party that this country could and should support a population of eight million people. I wonder if those who died in 1916 and those who preached that policy in the past are satisfied now with a population of two and a quarter million and an emigration rate of 250,000 in the past five years? I doubt if that was their policy at that time. They should remember Goldsmith's saying: "Ill fares the land to hastening ills a prey, where wealth accumulates and men decay." Wealth may be accumulating at present but it is a well-known fact that the flower of our youth is emigrating to England and other countries throughout the world and they are helping to build up those countries while, perhaps, here fewer and fewer people are becoming wealthier and wealthier. I doubt if those who died for our freedom dreamt of that. It would be much better if we had a larger population if it would mean more work at home for our own people.

I sincerely hope the present trend continues but the signs at present are not very encouraging and the Minister will have to take cognisance of that fact. If we look at the figures produced recently regarding exports and imports the signs do not look too good for 1962. There has been an increase of £1,890,000 in imports and a decrease of £3,643,000 in domestic exports. They are the main features of the external trade figures for the six months of 1962, compared with the first six months of 1961. The adverse balance of £53,759,000 shows an increase of £5,153,000 according to the figures supplied through the Central Statistics Office.

Imports were valued at £135,145,000 in the first six months of 1962, against £133,255,000 in the first six months of 1961. That was an increase of almost £1,890,000. Exports totalled £78,562,000 compared with £82,206,000. Re-exports were also bad. The figures for June, which were published recently, are still more alarming and the trend seems to be completely in the wrong direction. For June, 1962, imports were £22,286,000 while imports for June, 1961, were £21,776,000, that is an increase of £510,000. Let us take exports for the two months and compare them. We find that in June, 1962, our total exports were £13,691,000 while in June, 1961, our total exports were £14,982,000. That was a drop of £1,291,000 so I think there is no denying that the trend at present is in the wrong direction. We hope that it will be rectified and the Minister will agree, I think, that he would need to introduce some measures to rectify it.

In regard to the Department of Justice, I think many people are alarmed at the work of the "Department of Injustice" because recently we had the Paul Singer comedy, the Guard Travers spectacle and the Senator Quinlan farce. I will say nothing more about that at the moment because I believe enough has been said about it throughout the length and breadth of the country. It is alarming and, perhaps, the head of the Government should take action to see that there is no further deterioration in that Department.

It is agreed by many that 1962 may be heavy with destiny for the Irish people. Political decisions taken this year may settle the fate and character of our nation for generations to come. The Government have applied for membership of the Common Market and in the past few months set up different committees which should have been set up over the past five or six years. In 1957 and 1958 Deputy Sweetman and Deputy Dillon appealed to the Government that the time to busy themselves with the problems that lay ahead had come and that they should set up committees to deal with the Common Market. During the past five years, when it seemed obvious and inevitable that we would have to apply for membership of the Common Market, the Government sat back. They failed to prepare the people for the advent of the Common Market. They just buried their heads in the sand and allowed costs and rates and government expenditure to increase. We have introduced here and allowed to develop a high price economy which may have very disastrous effects in the years ahead, especially if we are accepted as members of the Common Market.

Many people want to know what is the Government policy for the future on the Common Market. They seem to be very quiet, with very little say about it up to the present. What have the Government done to prepare the way for our advent to the Common Market if we are accepted? What does it mean? It means the end of our Sinn Féin protection policy. Tariffs will be eliminated and free trade will become the order of the day.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I must remind Senator L'Estrange that tariffs may not be discussed on this Bill.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am referring to the Common Market and to Government policy on it. If we enter it there is no denying that free trade will be the order of the day. Everybody knows that that will affect us very severely here, because industries have been built up over a long number of years with government protection and if we have free trade that will affect them. We would all like to know what the Government policy on that is. There is no denying that we shall cease to be as independent as we are to-day and we shall become members of a European federation in which our lives, our jobs and our security will depend to a large extent on the decisions taken by others. No doubt whatever government we may have in power will have a voice in the deliberations, but ours will be a small one. How it works out for us remains to be seen, but it is the duty of this Government to prepare the people for what lies ahead, because if we are accepted we are bound to be affected economically, agriculturally and politically. We will be facing a challenge to our ability to survive in the face of intense competition from other countries, and there will, no doubt, be casualties. There is no soft trade to be got on the Continent, and we will have to prepare ourselves for those new conditions. Many people doubt if the Government so far are doing their part through government policy to prepare the people for the new conditions.

I would like to speak briefly about agriculture and government policy in relation to it. If we enter the Common Market while warning the farmers against any premature optimism as though a golden age were soon to dawn for Irish agriculture—the Taoiseach warned the farmers last week at the Macra na Feirme dinner in Louth—if Irish farmers get a proper lead and proper encouragement from the government I see no reason why we cannot succeed. The Irish farmers have been in the front line of trenches in many wars—national, social and economic. When the call went out to them in the past, they always answered the rallying call and did their duty to the nation.

I see no reason why they cannot and will not do it in the future, but they must get a lead from the top. Definitely good work is being done by the farmers' organisations but I still doubt if enough is being done by the Government. If we are to make the best use of the opportunity facing us there can be no lack of enterprise, no slackness, no easy going methods, irregular supplies or anything like that. Dynamic leadership is needed in the Government and in the farmers' organisations, and the people should be kept fully informed of their responsibilities and of the needs and wants of the people of the different countries with which we hope to be trading inside the next few years, because if we are accepted we will have access to a market of 230,000,000 people. It will be the greatest trading bloc of all times. If we have proper government policy in that regard the Common Market could and should improve substantially the position of the Irish people, both those engaged in industry and those in agriculture. There will be casualties among those in industry, but to take advantage of what lies ahead we must produce the best, and produce it at competitive prices. We often thought in the past that due to the high protection some of our factories were not inclined to produce the best. There will have to be a change in that respect in the future.

The Government can lead the farmers very much in the right direction if they take advantage of the potential. The farmers must produce the highest quality stock. The efficiency of our livestock is a matter of great importance. We will need a better cow. The present quality of our pigs is not nearly as good as they have in Denmark. The Irish farmer must undoubtedly have better services technically, and agriculture must be willing to adapt itself to new methods and to change to new lines that offer the greatest scope. Costs must be kept low, and that is most important, because Government action over a long number of years has driven costs sky high on the farmer. Capital for agricultural expansion must be available at low interest rates. Credit is due to the Minister for the fact that capital was somewhat easier to get from the Agricultural Credit Corporation over the past few years than it had been for a long number of years. Last but not least we must have a vigorous marketing organisation—that is very necessary—with much more aggressive salesmanship than we have had up to the present.

Government policy will have to change. I believe a shake up is needed in the Cabinet, perhaps as big a shake up as Mr. Macmillan had in England. Many people are not satisfied with the present Minister for Agriculture or his work in his Department. All the throaty exhortations in the world will not prepare us to play our full part in the future if an inefficient Minister for Agriculture wrongly administers a wrongly conceived policy. Valuable years have been lost due to lack of leadership in that Department and to the fact that under the present Government agriculture has become the Cinderella of our industries.

With regard to education—I may be ruled out of order—I should like to know how much is voted for physical education. In my belief enough money is not provided for it in the national, vocational or secondary schools. It has been proved in the past that Irish sportsmen can hold their own with the sportsmen of much bigger nations but they need greater training and greater opportunities. We all saw in to-day's paper that Santry Stadium, the dream of Irish sportsmen, is in danger. This is a bad blow to sportsmen and to athletics generally. As one on the opposite side of the fence from the man in charge of the stadium, I feel it would be a terrible reflection on a country which prides itself on its sportmanship and on its interest in sport of all kinds if a stadium of world-renown were destroyed for the sake of £20,000. We cannot here advocate legislation.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I was about to tell the Senator that.

Mr. L'Estrange

I should like the Minister and his colleagues to do something about this. He has some fine sportsmen in his Cabinet like the Minister for Industry and Commerce and he knows Deputy Seán Flanagan who is another fine sportsman. It would be good work if they could heal this split and retain the stadium which might be needed in the future. I do not see why we should not have Olympic games here just as other countries have had.

On agriculture, the plain fact is that with the high cost of living farmers' costs are steadily going up. They have a burden of taxation and their incomes have not increased over the past few years. The Minister may tell us that it increased by £6 million or £8 million last year, but if he looks at the figures he will see that the number of cattle on the land of Ireland has decreased by almost a quarter of a million. That is serious because at the present time we should be trying to increase the number because there is one commodity and one alone for which we are certain of having a ready market for 15,20 or even 30 years in the Common Market and that is beef. I think it is deplorable that the number of cattle is decreasing at the present time. I have often pointed out and members of the Fine Gael Party have pointed out on numerous occasions that this is an agricultural country of 70 million acres. Many acres are infertile hills or hollows, but there are 12 million acres of fertile, arable land. With a population of some two and a half million that means there are only five acres for every person in the country. The standard of living of every man, woman and child in the country, whether they are working on the land, in a town or in a city, whether they are civil servants, doctors or professional men, depends on what the farmers of Ireland and their labourers are able to get from the land of Ireland.

The farmer's profit is the difference between his cost of production and his sale price and, unfortunately, over the past seven or eight years the cost of living, the cost of artificial manures, taxation, rates and all his costs are increasing while his sale price has not altered with the result that farmers have very little profit to-day and that is the reason why they are flying from the land. I think it will be agreed that on our success in making the best use of the land and of our national resources depends our ability to expand industrial employment and provide the educational facilities we have heard so much about in the last few days, to increase the social services, protect the health of our people, build houses, hospitals and the other institutions which are necessary.

The Minister for Finance reminds me of the month of March because he comes in here like a lamb and often goes out like a lion. In his reply he always quotes all the figures I give and says they are completely wrong. He says that time after time but all the figures I have given were taken from official statistics. When he was replying last year, for example, on July 12th, Volume 54, No. 11, column 1170, he told the House that

"Senator L'Estrange told us that for the ten years Fine Gael were there they started the E.S.B. and the beet factory"

and again:

"I know, I have been hearing for the past 30 years that claim of Cumann na nGaedheal that their Party started these two projects. Strange, they never claimed more than that over ten years."

I do not like going back too much into the past——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator will not be allowed.

Mr. L'Estrange

He demanded that we should reply and this is the only time I can get to reply to that charge which he made this time 12 months when he was going out. He called on us to reply. He called on Senator O'Donovan to reply to it. He said he could prove it.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am inclined to think that is statute-barred now.

Mr. L'Estrange

I do not believe it is.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is not in the Appropriation Bill anyhow.

Mr. L'Estrange

But there are certain things in the Appropriation Bill. We can speak about exports rising from £36 million to £131 million. There is less money in the appropriation for the land project which we started. Less is spent on the land scheme started by the Government of that day. The farm building scheme was started and local authorities' works were started which gave valuable employment in every county in Ireland and helped to relieve the rates. In our county we got as much as £52,000 but all that has been scrapped. Guaranteed prices were given for grade A pigs. Back in 1956 it was 245/- per cwt. The cost of production since has increased. What is Government policy at the present time? They have reduced the price to 240/- per cwt. They are the Party who tell us they always stood for the small farmers of this country.

The Government at that time started the T.B. eradication scheme and we are all delighted it is progressing favourably at present. They removed the Fianna Fáil tax on super-phosphates and during those ten years, 100,000 new houses were built. In County Westmeath now, there are only eight cottages being built. We have sent up plans to the Department over and over again during the past three or four years. While it is very easy for the Minister to say the money is there to build houses, they refused to sanction them and sent back the plans time and time to dot an "i" or cross a "t". They even went so far on one occasion as to tell us that a labourer's cottage should not have boarded floors, that concrete was good enough. We are told they will not sanction the building of any cottage costing more than £1,000, even though it is due to their own policy that the cost of building is sky-high. They should certainly sanction cottages costing £1,100 or £1,200.

We started with a target for afforestation of 25,000 acres per year. We provided 1,000 additional hospital beds, and sanatorium accommodation for the people who needed it. The Minister cannot deny that. It will be agreed that the bogey of the farmer is that when he increases his production, he is invariably met with falling prices. He has experienced such discouragement so often that he has been made chary of increased production. The moment he increases production, the market flops.

We are entitled in this discussion to go back to the promises broken by Fianna Fáil over the past few years. In 1956, Fianna Fáil published some "Facts for Voters." They stated that the present state of emigration was the most serious problem now facing the nation and that the census of 1956 showed that the situation must be righted quickly, if disaster were to be avoided. We all know what happened. After that statement, 250,000 people emigrated and sought work abroad. Over 100 years ago, the population of Ireland was 8,000,000——

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cathaoirleach

Senator L'Estrange, without interruptions.

Mr. L'Estrange

——and the population of England was 20,000,000. The ratio was two to five. To-day the population here is 2,250,000 and in England, it is 53,000,000 or 52,000,000. The ratio is one to 12½ or 13.

Fianna Fáil told us that they could, if elected, provide work for 8,000,000 people. Are they satisfied now with a dwindling population of 2,250,000? Government policy is increasing costs and driving people out of the country. No one can deny those facts. We all remember the famous plan the Government had a few years ago to spend £100,000,000 to provide 100,000 new jobs. Fianna Fáil have been in control of the destinies of the State for, I think, 21 or 22 years out of the past 27 or 28 years. They say they have plans for the good of the country. Maybe they have, but why do they not put them into operation? When they were in Opposition, they had plans for this, that and the other. Five years ago, they had a plan to provide 100,000 new jobs, but what are the facts to-day? There are something like 131,000 fewer people employed in Ireland to-day than there were in 1956. Fianna Fáil have broken their promises to the extent that there are 131,000 fewer people employed to-day than were employed five years ago. Can that be denied? Can the Minister for Finance or any other Minister deny that?

We were told also by Fianna Fáil speakers that the subsidies would be maintained, that there would be no increase in the cost of living. Fianna Fáil claim that they are consistent. I claim they have broken nearly every major promise they made to the Irish people. Instead of keeping the subsidies and reducing the cost of living as they promised, the cost of living to-day stands at an all time record of 154 points.

The price of bread has increased by something like 7d. The price of butter has increased from 3/9 to 4/7. If we look at the statistics, we see that our imports of margarine are increasing all the time. Our people are eating less butter. That is completely wrong in an agricultural country.

Mr. Mooney

That is for their health. There is a danger of coronary thrombosis. We have that on medical advice.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

Tell the people that at the next election.

Mr. L'Estrange

The price of flour has increased from 4/- to 8/- a stone. Is it any wonder that small farmers in different parts of the country—especially in the Senator's county—are closing the door, turning the key and emigrating to Britain? That is plain to be seen anywhere in the West of Ireland. Most Reverend Dr. Lucey has spoken on numerous occasions about the flight from the land. The attitude of the Government seems to be to crush the small farmer out of existence.

I want to deal with another matter which the Minister always denies when he is replying. He said recently in the Dáil that the cost of living increased by roughly the same figure under the inter-Party Governments and the Fianna Fáil Governments. I have the figures and the Minister has the figures. Mine are taken from the Irish Trade Journal and Statistical Bulletin, published quarterly. The Minister can find the figures on page 22, because he will afterwards tell me that the figures are completely wrong and misleading.