Central Fund Bill, 1963 (Certified Money Bill) — Second Stage (Resumed). – Seanad Éireann (10th Seanad) – Thursday, 28 Mar 1963

Central Fund Bill, 1963 (Certified Money Bill) — Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Professor Quinlan

I am turning now to the question of the future of the negotiations on the Common Market and our failure in that respect. We may feel that we have gone through what was rather a trying period and the lesson we learned in this House was the unwillingness of the Government to take the House into their confidence, or make any positive use of the House in facing the problems in that period. Senator Moloney, in his excellent contribution, mentioned the very fine work done by the Defence Council during the emergency when there was a combined effort to study the vital defence problems of the time. It was a pity that we did not have such a combined effort to study the problems created by the Common Market. Those problems have been shelved only temporarily because we all expect the negotiations to get under way again some time in the future. It may take two years or it may take three years, but the drive towards unity cannot be blocked by a single individual or nation within the group.

We hope that when the movement gets under way again, the Government will make more use of this House, and I am speaking only about this House, although of course the same applies to the other House. Perhaps they would start in the coming year to study some of the problems involved because those problems seem to arise on this all-out effort to prepare for competition. Whatever group we are in, we will have to prepare for competition on all fronts because we are living in a competitive world. In this regard, we have the very commendable efforts being made to get our industrial arm into a competitive position and the excellent work done by the CIO and their various study groups.

In the past year, we have had positive action by the Government in reducing tariffs and we are promised more moves in this direction in the coming six or eight months. We hope the Government will keep their resolution in that respect and force our industries to measure up to competitive standards by a gradual lowering of the protective tariffs which they have enjoyed for so long. Admittedly, that lowering probably will not need to be as rapid as it would have been if we had to make immediate plans for entry into the Common Market. It goes without saying that the efficiency and training of management and workers alike need to be carefully planned and guided in the future.

Next we come to our second arm, our agricultural arm, which I mentioned last evening. What we can learn here is that we must bring our agricultural position into line with the position in Europe. In doing so, I think we could learn a great deal from the Danes because in the past, in anticipation of getting into the Common Market, the Danes made very radical changes in their agricultural structure. Those changes were made by raising prices of agricultural produce on the home market, to bring them into line with the average prices in Europe at that time. We are well below them, and apparently we are having great difficulty in raising them, due to the repercussions on the export of our agricultural produce. The Danes are also exporting agricultural produce and I suggest that we might study their methods with profit.

The Danes were the people who charged us less than three years ago with dumping on the British market. Apparently they have perfected a legal way, and we should try in future to find a legal way of dumping that will get us, like the Danes, around whatever difficulties are in the way. We do not want to be excluded from the British market because of any policy we follow here, but we could follow a policy that is substantially the same as the policy the Danes are following: a two-price system.

The other arm we have to strengthen is the research arm. I know that great strides have been made, but as I pointed out last evening, education is now big business, and will be bigger business in the future. We must look to the expansion of facilities which is needed for training students from abroad. I dealt with this question mainly at university level last night, and the same goes for the secondary school level. In fact, there is a crying need in England today for places in secondary residential schools. If we have any surplus places we could easily fill them, at a proper stipend, from England or elsewhere.

Turning to the research angle, we can learn from what is happening in Europe today where research is really big business. It is an industry on its own. In America, I would say that at least 60 per cent of the university effort is labelled as research and paid for on a research basis. When we get links with other countries, we may expect an accelerated flow of funds to research here. In the past, we have had support from the Rockefeller Foundation, which is perhaps the oldest one, from the Ford Foundation, and from other scientific and industrial research institutes in England. Recently Dr. Andrews has persuaded some private firms to contribute. All those are only tokens of what we can really do in this field if we get down to it. Research requires capital investment like any other industry. I would ask the Government to consider seriously the position of this industry—and I use the word "industry" deliberately—in the future planning of our country.

There is also the question of joining groups. Having failed temporarily to get into the Common Market, there is a tendency to swing to the other extreme and say that we should join EFTA. Of course we should not join any group until we have some idea of what the advantages of joining it are. It looks as if EFTA is inclined to exclude agricultural produce and, so long as it does, it has no positive advantage for us, but it has the negative advantage that our industrial goods will not be subject to restriction going into England. That is something we will have to study carefully.

There is also the question of having some type of association with the Common Market. I do not think that idea has been fully explored. Association would be a different relationship from full membership, and while it does not seem that it would be of any real advantage, we can never really know until we explore it fully. Many of us were highly disturbed by the fact that in the negotiations for entry into the Common Market, we had apparently less contact than other countries like Denmark and Norway, who were right up with the negotiations, and I understand that Danish membership could have been agreed on within a very short time of the British admission, whereas we had not made that positive progress they had made at that stage. I wonder why we had not made the progress?

Then we look to the fact that we are anxious to join groups. In the past year a great wave of emotionalism has been created here about our being Europeans. Apparently we were more than Europeans: we were almost determined to lead in that regard. That is all very good but you ask yourself: really, what have we in common with the French or the Germans? We have far more in common with the English-speaking world and, above all, with that group that is the United States, whom we seem to have considered least up to this in the matter of ties. I do think it is high time that some trade mission was despatched to the United States to seek out the links we can create there. I do think it would be possible for this country to create some type of economic link such as Spain has created.

We were prepared to face our responsibility in joining the Common Market, in both defence and other respects. I do think it would be worth exploring what similar arrangements we could make with the United States, even if it went to the extent of having some Polaris bases, or a Polaris base, established in consideration for very great economic advantage. I do not see that we could object to that in this modern world where our whole future hangs on the power of the deterrent. I do think we should explore that much further.

Then I come to another item which I hope it is possible to touch on without engendering too much of the emotionalism which this subject has aroused, that is our foreign policy. In the past year we have been conspicuous by the absence of our pronouncements in this respect and to those of us who disagreed strongly with much of the previous line, that was a very positive step forward. But I do hope that we will do more, that we will begin to take the initiative and, this time, I hope, with sounder guidance and sounder advice. It does seem to me that our policy will be based as it always has been, and rightly so, on stronger support for the United Nations, but that support must be based on a rational foundation, on the basis that we want the United Nations to do the work it was set up to do and that whenever we find it going wrong we should be the first to insist, on principle, on proper investigation, where necessary.

There is a very great contradiction at the moment between what our Taoiseach has said officially on behalf of the Government and what others have said. Speaking on 23rd September, 1961, the Taoiseach said that our troops had been sent to the Congo on the understanding that the function of the force would be to preserve peace, while the Congolese people were working out a solution of their political problems, and that they were not to be used to impose any particular solution on the Congo. That is a statement by the Head of our Government of the basis of which our troops were sent out. We have a flat contradiction of that by Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien in his book To Katanga and Back, where he says, in effect, that what the Taoiseach said is nonsense, that the troops were there to impose a political solution. They were being used to impose a political solution and that solution was in contravention of the fundamental Charter of the United Nations.

All I am asking here is that our Government should take the initiative in getting an investigation into that, to ascertain whether the charges made by Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien, and many others, are right or wrong, and in insisting on scruplous observance of the Charter of the United Nations in the activities of the United Nations. Otherwise, it will become, in effect, a lawless body, a body that would directly threaten to become a dictatorship in the future. I hope we do take our part in that and also that we will continue to lend our support to this drive to feed the hungry, so that our agricultural potential may be developed and used to feed some of the hungry millions in the world today, both to our advantage and to theirs.

Again, one other thing I think our UN delegation should rightly insist on is that United Nations activities should be carried through with a proper regard to cost. It is simply fantastic that salaries paid to civilians in the Congo force should be at American level while the ordinary Congolese exist on a small percentage of that. In other words, you will not be able to establish the type of United Nations we all want and the activities we want from it, if the people serving it are there largely for the lure of the money they can pile up for the year or two they serve. I think that the UN being close to bankruptcy, being about £73 million in the red, we should insist that the rates payable to United Nations personnel in any country should bear a direct relation to the rates prevailing in that country, and if those serving have not got the courage or the patriotism to serve under those conditions, then I think the United Nations would be better off without such people, who, in effect, deserve the name of mercenaries, if their sole motive in being there is the bank account they can accumulate from their year or two serving in a foreign country.

There are one or two other minor points I wish to make in concluding. I want to draw attention to the failure of the Government to grapple with the question of the sale of land to foreigners. It is much more acute in the south and west than it is around Dublin, but there is a growing wave of resentment against the encroachment of foreigners and the way they can beat all local competition solely by the size of their bank balance. Any large place that comes up is immediately taken over by foreigners, and, to make matters worse, in Cork especially, we have had growing insolence by such people and they are actually denying our citizens the right to beaches which they enjoyed over the past centuries. That has to be stopped, and those people will have to be taught that there is a limit to the patience of the Irish people. They may try court injunctions and all the rest but they should realise that the Irish people have many weapons to counter it and that the Irish people are not impressed but displeased by resources of money which very often have their origin back in the service of Hitler's Germany. I need not say more on that but I speak for many people in Cork in that regard who view with alarm the sealing off of beaches from the Bantry region and lately in the Ringabella region quite close to Cork. No native henceforth shall set foot on those. That is all wrong and I appeal to the Government to take drastic action to see that that stops, otherwise the local population will be forced into action. The weapon of boycott they used before will have to be called for again and those may have to learn that Prussian militarism is going to be resisted here as it was resisted elsewhere.

Finally, I come to the Government's policy of entertainment as shown by the development of the Television Authority in the past year. The best news, I think, I have read of this service was in yesterday's paper when the headline said: "Hours of Viewing to be Reduced ". That is a step in the right direction undoubtedly. I think the fundamental mistake has been made in harnessing this medium to advertising because so much of our national income is spent on it. Taking, as the case of a television set, at capital depreciation of £10 or £12 a year or more perhaps, with the licence fee added, it means we are spending £8 million to £10 million a year of our national income on this medium. Therefore, we should not allow the tail to wag the dog. The additional £1 million which comes from television advertising is scarcely worth it.

We would be for better off if we had a service divorced from dependence upon advertising and if we adopt a rational approach such as they do in Holland, a much wealthier country than ours, where they have just three hours viewing every night. If we had three hours viewing we could cut out many of the fillers which are used in the present programmes—fillers which are neither educational nor entertaining. I do hope we may be able to make some advance in that regard in future. Also, I understand that the high cost of advertising on TV is draining away advertising funds from our newspapers and that some of them are in quite poor financial circumstances as a result of it. I think that is to be deplored. We have only four newspapers and I think for the good name of the country and public opinion they should remain healthy. It is essential that all these survive and that we have freedom of the Press and the diversity of opinion expressed in our papers today. Consequently, I appeal to the Government to ensure that no paper is pushed into bankruptcy by the loss of advertising due to the inroads of TV.

We face some rather unpleasant prospects in the coming Budget and perhaps the Minister might devise some ways and means of harnessing the national enthusiasm to the successful tackling of the tasks that lie ahead. Let there be no mistake about it. The only way this country can be developed is by additional work. No Government and no Party can do it without work and to my way of thinking at the moment the greatest contribution that can be made in the year ahead would be if every citizen were prepared to work an additional three, four or five hours extra a week. If the amount of money represented by that extra work were put into the national effort we would be in a healthy position. We cannot expand the economy of the country without putting work into the effort.

Professor Jessop

I have only a few brief remarks to make and shall not detain the House very long. My remarks are in relation to the Estimate for two Departments in which I am particularly interested, Education and Health. Senator O'Brien stressed that whereas Education is usually regarded as a spending Department it should really be regarded as a long term investment and any money put into it should bring in important long term dividends. That is a point of view I would support very strongly. Indeed, Senator Lindsay mentioned also that if we are to judge our real interest in education we should not really look at the increases granted in the Estimates under this Department in the round. We should analyse them and see how much of this is to meet increases in salaries and other unavoidable expenses and also what we are prepared to put into capital expenditure in the way of improving our facilities. If you look at the Book of Estimates in that way I think you will find that we plan to do extremely little in the coming year. The biggest single item I can see for capital expenditure is a substantial sum of £400,000 for the new accommodation at Belfield for University College, Dublin. I am very glad indeed——

An Cathaoirleach

Details about University College are not appropriate on this Bill.

Professor Jessop

I am very glad that some capital expenditure is being allowed to improve the accommodation. It is absolutely necessary in that particular regard but in other directions I do not think anything like adequate provision is being made for capital expenditure. I think we should start at the bottom and deal with the primary schools and secondary schools as well as universities and university problems in this matter. In the case of the university problems, there is another aspect to which I have drawn attention in the past and which I think still eludes the people who are in a position to make increased provision, to a certain extent. At any rate, in the universities there are three professional schools which are constantly under the supervisory eye of professional organisations that have to assess their efficiency and their up-to-dateness in relation to the registration of their degrees. These are medical, dental and veterinary schools. Each of these schools is viewed periodically by no fewer than two separate bodies which are charged with the responsibility of seeing that they are kept up to the mark in the way of accommodation facilities, teaching staff and so on. We have one body from this country, and, under the reciprocal arrangement we have with Great Britain, yet another body from Great Britain. Now we can face our own body here. They understand our problems and it is not difficult to make them see that with the amount of money available we cannot do any better. But, as Senator Quinlan has pointed out, the corresponding body from Great Britain is used to establishments and universities which have far greater sums of money to spend than we have. Even in Queen's University, Belfast, the sums are far greater than we can look for here. Therefore, when these people from Great Britain come to see our schools they are rather taken aback by the fact that we are a good bit behind the standards in British universities. Now I fully realise we cannot afford the same sort of service because the country is not in that spending category but we must make it plain that we are doing our very best to try and meet the requirements of modern education in these fields.

I was very pleased, indeed, that Senator Dooge drew attention to the importance of technicians. This is something which we meet, of course, in university departments. It is, as he rightly pointed out, a problem which spreads over into the field of industry increasingly. The question of providing adequate quality and quantity of technicians has really only begun to impinge on this country during the last few years and I do not think the importance of it is fully realised even at the present time.

I know many institutions where professional people are paid quite good salaries for doing work that could be better done by technicians at half the salary and I know that in my department, if I want something done the chances are that I would get it better done by employing another technician or two rather than by taking on an additional member of the staff.

What we have to do, as Senator Dooge has pointed out, is not only to make provision for the training of technicians and their employment but also to make provision for the education of managers, of heads of university departments, if you like, in how to utilise this very important service.

To revert for a moment to the question of the university medical schools in this kind of context, I should like to refer, as I have done on previous occasions here, to the unfortunate dichotomy that exists between the Department of Education's responsibilities and the responsibilities of the Minister for Health in the education of medical students in hospitals. These students have to go to hospitals; they have to be trained there, and while they are there, they do an enormous amount of very valuable work which it would cost a good deal of money to get done if the work were being paid for. The education of students in hospitals is a university responsibility, just as much as if the education were taking place inside the walls of the university buildings, but, of course, the university does not own any buildings in the hospital. It is not in a position to erect buildings there, except by the consent of the governing body, and its grant does not allow it to go outside and build such expensive accommodation.

On the other hand, the Minister for Health administering the Hospitals Trust Fund is prevented from spending any of that fund on education. I do not know where the proper go-between is between these two Departments— Education, on the one hand, and Health, on the other—but I suspect the Minister for Finance when he comes to apportion money should really have some function in that regard.

An Cathaoirleach

It is clear that it is a matter for Appropriation Bill discussion.

Professor Jessop

Yes. With regard to Health, coming to my last point, I think this is also regarded as a spending Department but I should like to make the point very strongly that it is an investment. It is not merely a question of expenditure on health; it is a question of investment in health. When the late Lord Beveridge was drawing up the present health scheme for Great Britain, he did not approach it from the point of view of Party politics. He was not interested as to whether it was a Labour Government or a Conservative Government that would put it into force. He was not interested in taking the responsibility for looking after his health off the individual citizen's shoulders but he laid it down that some security in the matter of health was a vital provision towards the normal improvement and maintenance of productivity and that, I think, is worth while remembering.

If we have an inefficient health service, then you cannot expect to have an efficient productive level of economy in the country. I am not saying that our health services are inefficient—I do not think they are— but I do not know that we go far enough with what we do. I do not say that we should have a comprehensive service as they have in Great Britain. That is a very expensive item indeed. But, if you look at the expenditure on health in this country, we have what is allocated through the central Department of Finance here and what is collected by the health authorities and if you add all together and express it as a proportion of our gross output, it comes to 2.7 per cent. and in any other country in Europe, it is in the neighbourhood of four per cent. I am not sure whether these are absolutely comparable figures but I think they are quite closely comparable and I do not think we can lag behind like that in our expenditure on what I believe to be an absolutely essential investment.

Mr. McGlinchey

Reading the contribution of Fine Gael to the debate in the Dáil, one wonders how this great Party, this Party who are capable of doing so much with so little money, have been rejected so often by the Irish people. In order to assess a Party's capabilities in the future, one must judge by their actions in the past. The record of Fine Gael has been very bad in the past and in their last three years of office, their only worthwhile act was that in February, 1957, they resigned before the country went bankrupt. Fianna Fáil returned to office and once again set in motion their social and economic policy and one has only to drive around Ireland to realise how that policy is succeeding. It is evident for all to see.

The Irish people today are refusing to accept the primitive conditions of the past and today we wish to stand on equal terms with the peoples of other nations. In rural Ireland, in particular, great progress is being made and in every town and village houses are being built as quickly as contractors can build them. Schools are being improved; roads are being reconstructed; and vital water and sewerage schemes are being brought to the most remote areas. The days of the pig in the Irish parlour are gone forever and our inferiority complex is disappearing. We look forward to the future, knowing that we have the will to succeed and the determination to overcome any difficulties that confront us. The Irish worker is as good as any worker and there is no reason why, with good management, our products cannot equal those of other nations.

In this Bill extra moneys are being provided to stimulate industry and agriculture and to provide better educational facilities. Several references have been made in the course of the debate to the "Buy Irish" campaign. We cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of our people buying Irish products. Senator Ó Maoláin gave us figures for the consumption of Irish whiskey and Scotch whisky. I have some figures which differ slightly from those given by Senator Ó Maoláin. I have been a publican for just four months but even in that short time I have been alarmed at the amount of Scotch whisky sold in Donegal. For every bottle of Irish whiskey that I sell, I sell at least nine bottles of Scotch.

Mr. L'Estrange

Expel him.

Mr. McGlinchey

Senator Lindsay suggested that this might be due to a form of inverted snobbery.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Senator will have Deputy Corry after him next week.

Mr. McGlinchey

I feel there is also another reason. If a publican is asked for Scotch whisky he must provide it, but if he is not asked for Scotch whisky, it is natural that he should provide Irish, but I fear that there are reasons which encourage Irish publicans to sell Scotch whisky at every possible opportunity. The profit margin on Scotch is higher than on Irish whiskey. A publican can buy a bottle of Scotch whisky at a cheaper price than he can buy Irish and can sell it at a higher price. If something could be done to prevent this state of affairs, consumption of Irish whisky might increase.

I have often thought, with regard to our exports, and particularly our whiskey exports, that if all those people who profess to be Irish, or boast of Irish ancestry on St. Patrick's Day, could be a little more Irish on the other 364 days of the year, our exports would jump considerably as a result. Great progress has been made in recent years in the tourist industry but we have a long way to go before our tourist potentialities have been fully exploited. It has even been said that the tourist industry is the second most important industry but I feel, certainly as far as the western seaboard counties are concerned, that the tourist industry is the most important. I hope that the day is not too far distant when it will become necessary to establish a special Department of tourism, with a special Minister, and statutory bodies in the tourist counties to provide the advisory services which are so necessary today.

I believe we depend too much on the work of local development committees. Most of the people connected with such committees are engaged in the tourist industry and cannot spare all the time necessary for the work of voluntary committees of this nature. The farmer can call on a team of advisers to help him in every aspect of farming but the hotelier and caterer must paddle his own canoe. It would be a great help if everyone engaged in the industry could avail of the services of experts. Within 24 hours travelling distance of this country, we have a potential tourist market of 50 million people, particularly in the industrial workers of England, Scotland and Wales. If we could encourage more and more of those people to come here, we would be helping our economy much more than perhaps would the wealthy Americans whom we like to see coming in.

If we are to receive a proper share of this tourist cake, we must provide the expert amenities that are demanded. Too many of our tourist counties and seaside resorts are lacking in many facilities, particularly facilities which can be availed of in wet weather. I should like to see even greater steps being taken to encourage English and Scottish people to come here.

At the moment the tourist industry is being catered for by Bord Fáilte and the Irish Tourist Association. I feel that at times they are working at cross-purposes and in fact the only thing they seem to agree on is that Kerry is the only tourist county in the country. I should like to protest about the neglect, by Bord Fáilte, of many other tourist counties along the western seaboard and particularly of the finest tourist county of all, Donegal, which for so long has been treated as the step-child of Bord Fáilte.

Mr. Ross

I should like to take up a point made by Senator Ó Maoláin yesterday when he pleaded that we should buy Irish goods. Of course we all support him on that point, and we admire his patriotism in making it, but I felt that his patriotism rather took away from his judgement. He said that Irish goods were as good as, if not better than, any other goods. I should like to agree with him on that but I cannot agree that that is so to every extent. We would be wrong to delude ourselves that Irish goods are unquestionably the best, without any yardstick. I particularly want to make this point because the Senator mentioned delph.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Even Homer nods.

Mr. Ross

The position has now been changed, and I should like to pay tribute, with your tolerance, Sir, to Dublin Corporation for having taken that step which is very greatly appreciated by my constituents. There are still four outstanding county councils which have not taken that step. I think the example of Dublin Corporation should be followed by every county council. I shall name the ones which have not taken that step so that they can come out in the open and say why they will not grant scholarships to Trinity College with moneys from the State which go through their coffers. They are Clare, Longford, Mayo and the two Ridings of Tipperary. I said there were four, but, in fact, there are five which do not grant scholarships under any circumstances to Trinity College, Dublin. There are other county councils which grant scholarships and for certain considerations, or for one reason or another, or for geographical reasons; they restrict them to certain areas. Those five do not grant scholarships to Trinity College and I would hope that in time they will follow the splendid attitude Dublin Corporation has taken. That is a step which I now acknowledge here.

Mr. L'Estrange

I want to preface my remarks by saying that this country need never expect a fair deal or fair play from Fianna Fáil. They are all the same. They could be married to truth, justice, charity, fair-play and judgment, because they are strangers to all of them and would need no dispensation.

I want to object to the treatment I received here today. I think that anyone who comes here at 3 o'clock— and I was the second person to rise— is entitled to be called before others who came in afterwards.

An Cathaoirleach

The function of the Chair is to see that all elements get a reasonable opportunity of expresing their views. Senator L'Estrange, to continue on the subject matter of the Bill.

Mr. L'Estrange

Now, after six years of Fianna Fáil Government— the strong one-Party Government who were talked about and dreamed about so often in the past—we have an opportunity of reviewing their work, and their policy or lack of policy. This Bill provides us with an opportunity of ascertaining the manner in which the Government have kept their promises, and of seeing if they are doing anything good for the country.

In this Book of Estimates, the Minister is seeking to extract from the people's pockets the largest sum ever asked for by a Minister for Finance in this State, £167,036,460. There is no denying the fact that the people suffered a shock when that staggering figure was announced. It is an increase of £19 million on last year's figure. After 42 years of native government, many people are inclined to ask: was it worth it all? Have the dreams of those who gave their lives and sacrificed their all for the freedom of this country and for a native Government come true? I am afraid the answer must be "No".

We hear much about what Fianna Fáil are supposed to have done. There is no denying that they can paint a beautiful picture, but there are two sides to the question. I think we are entitled to point out the truth to the people because I believe that it should not be kept from the people. Unfortunately for the Irish people Fianna Fáil have been in office for 27 years since we got our freedom. They claim to have set up many records and definitely they have set up many records of which in my opinion the people cannot feel proud.

Before us today this sum of £167,000,000 is a record. We believe that next year's Budget will be a record because it will be over £200,000,000. There is a record taxation of almost £80 per head in respect of every man, woman and child in this country at the present time. Record rates were collected from the people of Ireland last year — up to £23,000,000 — and it is reckoned that a record rate of £25,000,000 will be collected this year. We have a record National Debt at the present time of over £500,000,000. We have a record cost-of-living figure of 160 points. We have a record adverse trade balance of over £100,000,000.

On the other side, we have a record low population of 2.8 million. A record 300,000 of our people, our young boys and girls, have emigrated in the past six years. We have a further record. Ireland's total population today per square mile of agricultural land is the lowest in Europe and our rural population per square mile of agricultural land is also the lowest in Europe. Last year our Government created another record when they gave a record increase of £14 to High Court judges who had already £100 per week of an income.

Then we see the beautiful picture painted by Senator Ó Maoláin, by Senator McGlinchey and by other Senators. I am not alone in my view. People may not believe me because they will say that is Fine Gael propaganda, but it might be made clearer if I quote from an address of a curate on the 8th June, 1962, when he was addressing a meeting of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union at Killarney on emigration and other present day social problems. He said:

In 1962 we had increased productivity, more cars, more factories, more roads, more washing machines, more of most things, but we had 146,000 fewer people than 10 years ago, 281,000 fewer people than when the State was founded and 3,000,000 fewer people than 120 years ago. Some Kerry parishes had little more than one-tenth of their pre-famine population. A parish that had 343 baptisms in 1842 had less than 10 per year to-day.

If that is where Fianna Fáil policy has brought us today — and there is no denying it — I do not think there is anything in that that they or this country can be proud of. He continued:

Alone amongst the nations of the world we had a decrease in population. If there was a more depressing fact in Irish life to-day than emigration it was our acceptance of emigration as a normal natural necessary solution for some of our problems.

Is that not exactly the case with our Government today? Are they not looking on emigration as the safety valve? When they get up here they quote half-truths. They tell us that unemployment is down today by 20,000. Should they not tell us the full story that were it not for the fact that 300,000 of our young boys and girls had to leave this country in the past six years that we would have over 360,000 unemployed at home in Ireland today? But they seem to accept it and they seem to be quite satisfied to leave it as it is. The curate further stated:

Does one who sees tens of thousands of our youth leaving Ireland every year have to be an expert before he can see that there is something wrong somewhere? Does one who sees abandoned farmsteads all over the countryside have to be an expert before he can grieve for the families that are gone?

Definitely there is something wrong somewhere. Despite the fact that we spend a huge sum of money every year, does anything seem to be done to put an end to emigration which is affecting so many of our people every year?

Senator Ó Maoláin said yesterday that we are living in the 20th century and that all over the world costs of government were increasing and that it was a natural thing for them to do. Of course, Fianna Fáil say that when they are in power, but what did they say in the past? This bill, or sum of money, is 50 per cent higher than it was in 1957. Senator McGlinchey wondered why Fine Gael were thrown out of office. It is easy to tell him why. It was because of the promises made by Fianna Fáil to the people in which, unfortunately, many of the people believed. We remember that in earlier days they told the people of this country that Ireland was run on a grand imperial scale, that we were aping England and other countries and that all they had to do was to put Fianna Fáil into power and the cost of Government would be reduced immediately by £2,000,000. We remember they put Cumann na nGaedheal out of power that time. They got into power but from that until they went out again in 1948 the cost of Government increased yearly. There was not a word about the promises they had made once they got into power.

It might be no harm to come to the time when Fianna Fáil were again in Opposition. They were crying out about the burden of Government, that the people could not stand up to the cost of Government. If we look up the Official Report, column 49 of the 8th May, 1956, the Taoiseach, then Deputy Lemass, is reported as having said:

In 1953, the Fianna Fáil Government, of which I was a member, took a decision——

I am not going to speak on taxation but he mentions the word "taxation".

——that taxation in this country had reached the danger limit. We announced that we had made up our minds on that fact and that, so far as we were concerned, there would be no increase in tax rates above the 1953 level. We made it clear that, if any Budget difficulty arose, that difficulty would be met by a reduction of expenditure and not by increasing the burdens on the taxpayer.

He did not begin at the beginning.

Mr. L'Estrange

I certainly gave the whole quotation. This is a continuation of that trend in any case. The Government were prepared to take money from the people and spend it for them. But, if we take too much of the people's money it is bound to retard economic growth and I think what is needed in this country especially at the present time more than at any other is a period of stability in order to give our producers, whether it be our farmers or our industrialists, an opportunity to plough back their profits if they have any, but in any case an opportunity to prepare them for the more competitive conditions that undoubtedly lie ahead. We all know we are moving towards freer trade and our people, through a period of stability, should get an opportunity to prepare for it.

Now, the bill before us today is only part of the burden the people must bear. In 1962, £23,163,000 was collected in rates. This means, apart from Government grants and other receipts of local authorities, £8 for every man, woman and child in the country. No matter where one goes today, at least in the country, the farmers, the shopkeepers, the business people and the labourers are complaining of high rates and of Government expenditure. In the current year, rates to the extent of £25 million at least will be extracted from the people. This is another Fianna Fáil blister of £2 million on their backs. I remember in the Laois-Offaly by-election a few years ago there were Fianna Fáil posters all over the county at that time protesting against the crippling rates imposed on the farmers. Now the rates are something like 15/- higher and there is not a word of protest from the same side of the House. We remember when we were told by the Minister for Finance that the Health Act would mean only another 2/-extra on the rates. We know that in many counties today it has meant and means an increase of anything from 8/- to 12/- in the £, a long way from the 2/- we were told it would involve.

We hear much here about employment and about emigration and I give a quotation from the Taoiseach expressing his view of what the function of the Government should be. He was speaking in Dáil Éireann, as recorded at Column 1144, Volume 161 of the Official Report of 14th May, 1957. The then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Lemass, said:

I and my colleagues have no doubt in our minds that we became the Government because the people expected us to work determinedly and intelligently to bring about a situation in which employment would expand, in which the twin problems of unemployment and emigration would be vigorously tackled.

That is the end of the quotation. We know that since he uttered those words, we have exported to Britain over 300,000 boys and girls. That is how he kept his promise as regards emigration. When we hear so much about employment and unemployment, I think it only right that the proper figures should be given, figures taken from the official statistics issued prior to the Budget of 1962. I suppose shortly we will have the figures prior to the Budget of 1963. According to the figures issued then, in 1955, there were employed in this State 1,181,000 people. The year 1955 was one of the disastrous years about which we are told so much by Fianna Fáil.

Now let us see the 1961 figure. Remember, it is all right for Fianna Fáil to get up and give half the story. They will tell you there are 5,000 more employed in industry, 3,000 more employed in some other sector of the economy. They will never give the overall figure because the overall figure is damning so far as they are concerned. In any case, according to the overall figure in 1961, there were 1,119,000 employed in this country, a reduction of 62,000 people compared with 1955 — 62,000 fewer people in employment in Ireland in April, 1961 in comparison with 1955.

We will be told about the disastrous year, 1956. The situation in 1956 was that 1,163,000 people were employed as between agricultural and non-agricultural pursuits. I have given the 1961 figure already — 1,119,000. Therefore, there were 44,000 fewer people gainfully occupied in this country in April, 1961 than there were in April, 1956. We do not know how this has changed in the past year. There may have been a slight change. In any case, according to the figures given a year ago, after Fianna Fáil had been five years in office, there were 44,000 fewer people employed in Ireland than there were in 1956.

We remember 1956, when there were to be 100,000 new jobs. When Senator McGlinchey innocently asks us how were Fine Gael put out of office so often in the past and how was it that the people put Fianna Fáil back into power, I say is it any wonder that the people would vote for a Party that promised them that if they were elected to office, they would provide 100,000 new jobs? Instead of providing 100,000 new jobs, according to the official statistics, there are 62,000 fewer people employed as compared with 1955.

Why try to fool the people? Why not tell them the full truth? Anybody who goes through the country will see that the farms are being denuded. In 1926, 650,000 people found occupation on the farms of the country and ten years later, in 1936, that figure had gone down to 613,000. In 1956, the tot was 445,000 and today it is in the region of 400,000. Therefore, in less than 30 years, for the greater part of which period Fianna Fáil have been in power, over 300,000 people have left the farms of this country.

If Senator McGlinchey wants an answer to the question why people voted for Fianna Fáil, let me recall the 1956 exhortations to wives to put their husbands back to work. They were asked to put them back to work when there were 60,000 more people employed than there are today. Unfortunately, the wives did not think that Fianna Fáil were going to put their husbands to work in Birmingham, Coventry and other British cities. That is what happened. I recall the posters displayed throughout the length and breadth of this country about "getting cracking". We know who is cracking today. We know it is the Fianna Fáil Cabinet because they cannot make up their mind. They have the country in such a mess today that some of them want to get out and others want to stay on and take a gambler's chance that something may turn up in future to save them.

A Senator

The same as you did in 1957.

Mr. L'Estrange

We went to the people in 1957. Fianna Fáil made promises then about the 100,000 new jobs, about maintaining subsidies and about keeping down the cost of living. I shall explain later what has happened in respect of those promises. Like every Fianna Fáil promise, they were quickly forgotten once they had the people fooled and once their Party got back into power.

There are two ways of reducing the number on the register of unemployed. One is to do what any Government would do who had the interest of the people at heart, that is, to provide work at home in Ireland for our own people. The other is to export the people out of the country, and that is what Fianna Fáil have done. The register of unemployed shows a decline of about 20,000 but that is in a period when 300,000 of our boys and girls have had to leave this country and go abroad.

The alarming fact is that the great majority of those who have gone are boys and girls between the ages of 18 and 25 years. If we are to build up our country, these are the people who should be at home here. A Government who had the interests of the people at heart would try to provide work at home in their own country for these people.

Unfortunately, there has now been introduced into that flood of emigration a new element. The fathers of families, their wives and their children from agricultural holdings are locking the doors, putting the farms up for sale and going abroad. I am quite convinced that if we had a Government who properly understood agricultural policy and the agricultural industry, we could, as we should, be in a position to provide employment for the majority of our people who have to emigrate to find work abroad.

The Government's policy or lack of policy as far as rural Ireland is concerned has had the result that the people, especially the small farmers, have not alternative but to emigrate. Not since the days of the Economic War has there been such evidence of hunger and poverty as there is in rural Ireland at the present time, notwith standing all the statements made from the other side of the House. In the past, the smallholder used to be independent, self-sufficient. The small farmers are a courageous people who are always prepared to work hard from morning till night to earn their living in their own country. Now, under a native Government, with a Taoiseach who understands only the city and city people and industry, and a Minister who has neglected agriculture, they find they cannot earn their living in their own land and must emigrate. The farmers, and especially the small farmers, who were the backbone of this country, deserve better of this Government or of any native Government. The farmers have been in the front line trenches in every war in this country, social and economic. All they want is a fair price and a fair return for their labour so that they and their families can live in ordinary frugal comfort. They ask no more and they seek no less.

No matter what the Taoiseach or the Minister for Agriculture may say about farmers' organisations, the farmers are entitled to organise, and more luck to them. At the present time, from the chaos of conflicting ideas and theories of which the farmers of Ireland have long been victims, at last arises a unified voice demanding attention. There is a limit to the endurance of any section of the community and that limit has been reached as far as the farmers are concerned. If other sections organise, the farmers are entitled to organise and to demand their rights, which they have not been getting under the Government for the past six years.

I should like to say a word or two about the employment on the land. It is the duty of this Government to do something for the farmer, especially the small farmer, and for the agricultural labourer. The small farmer and the agricultural labourer are the hardest worked and the worst paid people in the community. It is the duty of the Government to put the farmers into a position in which they can live in ordinary frugal comfort and pay a fair and just wage to the agricultural labourer. I remember when Deputy James Dillon was Minister for Agriculture. He said that as far as he was concerned he would see that the farmers were put in the position that they could live on their farms and get a decent living. He said they would never be millionaires or really well off, but that he would try to make them wealthy enough to live in ordinary comfort and that when he would do this it would be their duty to pay their agricultural labourers a decent wage also.

Unfortunately, the majority of farmers today have not got it for themselves and, therefore, they cannot pay their labourers. For far too long have the small farmers and the agricultural labourers been hewers of wood and drawers of water. They deserve better from the nation especially if we are to live up to the 1916 Proclamation to which some Fianna Fáil speakers said they had always lived up. It states: "We shall cherish all its children equally." Surely nobody can say that the Government are cherishing all the nation's children equally when they expect the agricultural labourer to live on £5 or £6 a week and at the same time they give a £14 a week increase to a High Court judge who already had £100 a week? At column 669 of the Dáil Official Report for March 6th of this year, details of the changes in agricultural employment between 1961 and 1962 are given. The details — and they are staggering — should frighten any Government out of their slumbers. Eighteen thousand people left agricultural employment between 1961 and 1962. Remember that those people left because of the low standard of living associated with employment on the land. If Fianna Fáil have a cure they should not keep it a secret. They should apply it and try to do something to keep those people on the land.

I remember when in 1957 the Taoiseach said that the Government should be judged on what they did for employment and emigration. I have pointed out that the figures a available to us show there are 44,000 fewer people employed today. We find that the population in the Republic of Ireland on April 9th, 1961, the census day, was 2,818,341, a drop of 79,923 compared with the 1956 census figure. Net emigration increased from 196,763 in 1956 to 212,003 in 1961. The population has shown a drop in all census periods since 1901, when the figure for the 26 Counties was 3,221,823, except in 1961 when there was a rise of 5,485 over the 1946 census. It is no harm to point out that before the census was taken in 1951 there had been a change in Government in February, 1948, and the inter-Party Government had been in for three years out of the five years.

The number of marriages registered dropped from 230,525 in the 1926 census period to 76,669 in 1961 — roughly one-third of the number of marriages in 1961 compared with 1926. Is that anything we should be proud of? The number of births declined from 968,742 in 1926 to 328,016 in 1961, again, one-third of the number of people born in this Republic in which, according to Senator McGlinchey, everything is rosy. Certainly there are thorns appearing now in the Fianna Fáil garden. Those figures cannot be denied by Fianna Fáil. I should like to know if the Senator has any cure for them. If we take the 1926 figures and compare them with 1961, we find that the marriage rate has dropped by two-thirds and the birth rate by two-thirds.

Mr. McGlinchey

I have done my part any way. I can do no more.

Mr. L'Estrange

The census figure reveals——

Tomás Ó Maoláin

This is a brains trust speech.

Mr. L'Estrange

——that the population has fallen more in the five years between 1956 to 1961 than in the whole of the 30 years previous to that, from 1926 to 1956. It also shows that 215,000 people emigrated in these five years and that the average annual rate of net emigration was higher than in any other inter-censal period and double what it was in the 1946-51 period.

The total population for the counties Longford, Westmeath, Kildare and Wicklow is 218,000 and from that one gets an idea of the enormous loss through emigration between 1956 and 1961. These people were mainly between the ages of 18 and 25. Is that anything of which a Government can be proud? Is that what the people who fought for freedom envisaged would happen in 1962 or 1963? In the past, we blamed the British for all our woes but now after 40 years of native government, during which Fianna Fáil have been in office for 27 years, that is the picture.

Senator McGlinchey spoke about the disastrous years of the inter-Party Government. He said that Fine Gael's record was bad and that the only worthwhile thing they did was to resign before the country went bankrupt. We have heard much talk before about the country going bankrupt but before I deal with that, I shall give some figures about employment and expenditure. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government is here, the figures may be of interest.

Mr. O'Malley

He is not here.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am sorry. On page 280, Table 275, we find the list of local authority expenditure in each year ending 31st March under the heading "Housing". In the disastrous year of 1955, £12,559,000 was paid out by the then Government, which according to Senator McGlinchey was bankrupt. In 1956, the figure was £12,260,000; in 1957, it was £10,814,000. The bankrupt Government had then gone out of office——

Mr. Yeats

Why?

Mr. L'Estrange

Listen to the figures. In 1958, it was £7,068,000, £5 million less than it was in 1955; in 1959, it was £5,961,000, £7 million less than the bankrupt Government paid out in 1955; in 1960, it was £6,061,000, £6 million less than the bankrupt Government paid out in 1955. In 1961, the figure was £6,389,000. Let us add the total for the three years the co-called bankrupt Government were in power. The total sum paid out was £35,651,000 in the three years of the inter-Party Government.

Give us the figures for private housing.

Mr. L'Estrange

The amount paid to Dublin Corporation from 1955 onwards — and this should be enlightening to the Fianna Fáil party who do not seem to realise what happened during those years — was 1955 £4,622,195. In 1956, £4,041,587 was paid by the alleged bankrupt Government to Dublin Corporation. In 1957, Fianna Fáil came into office but their dead hand had not yet taken effect: the plans were there and the houses had to be built because they were in course of construction; they had to allow the work to go ahead; and £3,625,694 was paid to Dublin Corporation. In 1958, Fianna Fáil had been in office for a year and, of course, their dead hand had fallen, and although they said there was plenty of money, when plans were submitted sanction could not be obtained for them. The "i's" had to be dotted and the " t's" had to be crossed. You were told that the contract price was too high and they expected you to get cottages built for the same price as seven or eight years ago. We know that from the Westmeath County Council. Plans were being returned time after time.

In any event, the dead hand of Fianna Fáil has fallen on house building in the city of Dublin. In 1958, they spent £2,165,045, paid to Dublin Corporation. In 1959, £1,847,596 was paid to the Dublin Corporation. In 1960 — they had been a few years in office and the withering hand had plenty of time to take effect — this Government who had done so much for the country, and were supposed to have so much money for houses, et cetera, paid out a grand total of £1,611,587. If my figures are correct, the figure for 1955, when a bankrupt Government were in power, was £4,622,000 and in 1960 they paid to the Dublin Corporation £1,611,000, that is, £3,011,000 less paid by the Fianna Fáil Party to the Dublin Corporation for house building in 1960 in comparison with 1955.

Senator McGlinchey asked me about private building. As I have figures I might as well give them. The number of houses built by private individuals with the aid of grants — and I daresay that is what Senator McGlinchey wants — in 1955 was 5,006. In the disastrous year 1956 there were 5,436 houses built by private individuals. In the disastrous year 1957 5,647 were built. Now let me come to the glorious years of Fianna Fáil when the withering hand is taking effect. We find in the first year the process is down slightly all the time. They cannot reverse immediately the upward trend that was there for the three years before that, but the withering hand starts to take effect. In 1958 it was down to 3,629; in 1959, 2,684 and there is a slight increase in 1960. It goes back up to 3,740. In 1961, it is 3,952. Let us compare that with the figures of 5,006 in 1955, 5,436 in 1956 and 5,647 in the disastrous year of 1957. If Senator McGlinchey or any other Senator would like the totals added we find that during the three disastrous years 16,089 houses were built by private individuals and during the four years of Fianna Fáil 14,009 houses were built. Those figures should enlighten the Senator perhaps. I know he does not want to hear that but it is the truth and cannot be denied by anybody.

We know that vital talks affecting the future of our country and our people were held in London on the 18th and 19th March when the Taoiseach, Deputy Lemass, and the Minister for External Affairs, Deputy Aiken, met British Ministers. Despite the fact that Ireland is an agricultural country — agriculture is directly or indirectly responsible for over 75 per cent of our exports — the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Smith, was again left at home. Many people wonder why and are speculating on the reason. With the present Government led by the Taoiseach, a city man who has no interest in agriculture, do they not believe that Deputy Smith is competent to represent us abroad? If he is not competent to represent us abroad, he certainly is not competent to occupy one of the principal Ministries in this country. We on this side of the House remember with pride when Deputy Dillon, who was Minister for Agriculture in 1948, went over to England to negotiate the cattle trade agreement of that year. We know the fruits that flowed, and are still flowing, to this country from that agreement. I heard people on the Fianna Fáil benches state in the past that had Fianna Fáil any power they would have negotiated as good a trade agreement. Fianna Fáil were in power from 1932 to 1947. From 1939 to 1945 Britain was in the midst of a world war. Her ships were being sent to the bottom of the sea and the British people were rationed to a single ounce of meat per week. If England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity and if Fianna Fáil thought anything about the farmers of Ireland at that time, they would have gone over to England and have demanded a fair and just price for our livestock, but they did not do it. They supplied our cattle, sheep and pigs to Britain at give away prices and it was only when there was a change of Government in 1948 that Deputy Dillon, the then Minister for Agriculture, went to England and negotiated the cattle trade agreement of that year.

Fine Gael realise that Ireland is an agricultural country, with 12 to 13 million acres of arable land, five acres of land for every 1,000 in this State, and a population of 2.8 million. If we had good government, the people should be well off and we should be in a position to provide work and a reasonable standard of living for many more people than we have in this country at the present time. We realise we have no underground wealth, coal, steel, ore, or anything like that, but, as Deputy Dillon has so often stated in the past, the prosperity of every man, woman and child in this country depends upon what the farmer and his labourer are able to get from the land of Ireland and to export profitably abroad. The prosperity of everybody, city person, shopkeeper, civil servant, road worker — no matter where employed — depends ultimately on our exports and the money we get in from abroad. I believe that as far as the Government are concerned the country is being very badly let down.

As regards industry, I think the inter-Party Government were the first Government to give incentives to bring in foreign industrialists. They were bitterly opposed by Deputy Lemass in 1956-57. He now realises how wrong he was at that time because he recently introduced a similar measure, or the Minister for Industry and Commerce did, which went through this House. But we are far from satisfied with Fianna Fáil policy as far as agriculture is concerned.

It is perhaps interesting to see what the Taoiseach had to say when he and the Minister for External Affairs came back on 19th or 20th March. I think it might be no harm if the Government showed a little more tact in some of the Ministers they send abroad. We are now sending abroad a man, Deputy Aiken, who said that if every ship on the sea were sent to the bottom we would do without England and without the rest of the world. He is one of the men we bring over now to England to try to beg crumbs from her table. But we are glad to know——

Tomás Ó Maoláin

As a matter of interest — I have heard it so often from Senator L'Estrange before—would he give us the actual date and the actual words and tell us where he got them?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

He is not quoting; he is paraphrasing something.

Mr. L'Estrange

Unfortunately, I have not got them with me.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I was reprimanded by the Cathaoirleach yesterday for paraphrasing. Senator Hayes and Senator L'Estrange were responsible for it. I was paraphrasing Deputy Corish. May I get the exact date and the exact quotation?

The Fianna Fáil Government have no plan or at least seem to have no plan for the future, although, according to themselves, they have been planning all their lives. They took a gambler's chance that we would be admitted to the Common Market and now that they have failed in that they seem to have no alternative policy. The dairying industry is of vital concern to the economy of our country. That cannot be denied by anybody in this House. The future of agriculture and our economy depends to a large extent on the dairying industry. In this State we have 100,000 dairy farmers and the family labour force is 150,000. The paid labour force is 38,000 and our gross income on the home and export market runs to about £30 million. Our beef and cattle exports, to which the dairying industry contributes a substantial proportion, runs to an average of £70 million. Despite the fact that overhead expenses, rates, et cetera, have been pushed up — they have pushed up the cost of production of dairy farmers by at least 30 per cent — they have got no increase since 1956.

Let us compare that, for example, with the High Court judges who got an increase in 1962 of £14 per week on top of £100 per week and an increase of £12 per week a few years previously. Where is the justice in that? In the case of the High Court judges, it was made retrospective, in one case to give the person concerned an increase of £300 per annum in his pension and he already had a pension of £2,500. The increase brought his pension to £2,800. Many dairy farmers have not £300 a year on which to live.

The Government's refusal to increase the price of milk has resulted in the exposure of one of the most shameful rackets ever put across in this country. For many years, Fianna Fáil Deputies and Party henchmen campaigned throughout the country for big increases in the price of wheat and of milk. Deputy Dr. Ryan, when he was not Minister for Finance, spoke about the cruel and unjust cut in the price of wheat.

Professor Hayes

When he was not Minister for Finance.

Mr. L'Estrange

When he was not Minister for Finance. He is now Minister for Finance, but when he was not Minister for Finance and was trying to return to power, he spoke about the cruel and unjust cut in the price of wheat. At that time, wheat was 75/- or 76/- a barrel. Since then, the cost of production has increased by at least 30 per cent and last year the majority of the wheat was sold at prices from 45/-to 55/- a barrel.

There is no increase in the Book of Estimates for the wheat farmer or the dairy farmer. In 1956, Fianna Fáil moved in on the farmers' organisation and used them for a venomous campaign against Deputy Dillon, then Minister for Agriculture. Marches were organised in Dublin and honest farmers were deceived into thinking the object of the campaign was to secure higher prices for them and that such higher prices were economically possible. Fianna Fáil helped by working up that campaign to put out the then Government. What has happened since? Those people have not got a penny increase and are told now that they will not get one.

Fianna Fáil have been seven years in office. They have done nothing to honour either the wheat prices or the milk prices. They have increased production costs by 30 to 33? per cent but have given the farmers no increase for the commodities they have to sell. Their promises are speedily forgotten. Never in the history of this country were so many promises made as were made by Fianna Fáil in order to get into power. Never was so much expected as was expected by the people and never has so little been done by any Government to honour the promises they made. The farmers who have been the victims of this campaign now know the truth.

Recent charges by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture against the farmers' organisations are to be regretted. They are untrue and unworthy of responsible men in responsible places. On 6th March, 1963, at Volume 20, columns 730 and 731 of the Official Report, the Taoiseach stated:

Increases in the price of milk which would involve an increase in the retail price of butter of 1/- per lb. and upward have been suggested. This agitation, I confess, seems to be the product of rivalry between certain farmers' organisations, partly the product of a struggle for status and power going on between these organisations.

I want to say that that is untrue. Labour is entitled to organise and any Government should realise that all sections of the community are entitled to organise and to fight for their just rights and their just demands, provided they keep within the laws of the country and, so far, any agitation or anything the farmers have done to get their due has been within the laws of this country. It is completely wrong for the Taoiseach or any other person to try to divide the farmers.

At column 731, the Taoiseach went on to say:

It is true to say that creamery milk production is still the most profitable farming operation carried on in this country, an operation from which by reason of measures taken by the Government all elements of risk have so far as is humanly possible been eliminated.

Whom does the Taoiseach think he is codding? What about all the questions he and his Party had about the Milk Costings Report in 1956? There has not been a penny increase given since 1956 to those people, despite the fact that Fianna Fáil speakers went the length and breadth of the country in 1956/57 advocating an increased price for milk and stating that the farmers were not getting enough for milk. After seven years in power, with costs of production increased by 30 per cent, the Taoiseach tells us that creamery milk production is still the most profitable farming operation carried on in this country. It is just the city mentality. It is the mentality of a man who knows nothing about rural Ireland and who cares less.

It may be no harm to say a word or two about food subsidies because the withdrawal of the food subsidies has led to the high price economy we have in this country today and the fact that taxation has had to be increased so much year after year. As reported in the Irish Press for 14th March, 1956, the Taoiseach, then Deputy Lemass, stated:

Food subsidies must be accepted as likely to remain a permanent feature in the Estimate unless a very steep fall in the cost of living should take place and that is not very likely, to put it mildly.

He made a specific promise that food subsidies would be maintained, unless there was a steep fall in the cost cost of living. Instead of a steep fall, we have had an all-time record increase. Yet, subsidies to the tune of £9 million were taken away since that time by the Taoiseach. The Irish Press report continues:

I would like to express a personal view which I hold strongly, that the maximum advantage can be obtained by concentrating all the money which can be voted for food subsidies on flour and bread prices alone.

There was the Taoiseach holding a view strongly. If a man holds a view strongly, surely the people expect that he will keep that promise? This was a personal view of the man who is now Taoiseach with full power to put his views into practice. This year, he could see his way to abolish taxes on dances and on cinemas and, despite what he then said, he could not see his way to concentrate "all the money which can be voted for food subsidies on flour and bread prices alone," as he stated.

Senator McGlinchey wondered why they voted for Fianna Fáil. Is it any wonder they voted for Fianna Fáil after hearing these promises? The man who is now President of Ireland made a similar promise and went as far as to say that Fine Gael "state that we will remove the subsidies" and he appealed to the people not to believe us, that we were always telling untruths.

Mr. Yeats

Is it in order to quote the President?

Professor Hayes

The President is not being quoted.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The President is not being quoted.

Professor Hayes

It would be absurd if once a politician became President, his past should not be quoted or discussed.

Mr. L'Estrange

Instead of maintaining subsidies, despite what the President, Mr. de Valera, and the Taoiseach stated when they were looking for votes, they cut them to the tune of £9 million and the cost of living now stands at an all time record of 160 points. The price of the loaf has increased by 7d; flour has increased by 4/- a stone, which is £2 for a 10-stone bag, and butter has increased by 10d. from 3/9d. to 4/7d. The price of margarine is increasing. That has to be imported and that affects our adverse balance of trade. It would be much better if our people could buy Irish butter.

In the past on this debate I have had arguments about the cost of living figures. The Minister for Finance and Senator Yeats stated last year that I was giving wrong figures. They can get the official statistics and check them with mine. My figures are taken from those published by the Central Statistics Office. In 1948, when the inter-Party Government took office, the cost of living index was 98. When they went out of office in May, 1951, it was 109, an increase of 11 points. Fianna Fáil came into office and the cost of living stood at 109 points. They promised to maintain subsidies but they were no length in office before they cut the subsidies and when they left office in May, 1954, the cost of living index was 124, an increase of 15 points.

When the inter-Party Government returned to office in 1954, the index was 124 and when they left office in 1957, it stood at 135, an increase of 11 points. When Fianna Fáil came back into office in March, 1957 — after promising again to maintain subsidies and keep down the cost of living — the index was 135 and today it stands at 160, an increase of 25 points. If you add the figures for the increase in the six and half years of inter-Party Government, you get an increase of 21 points. If you add the 15 and 25 points for the past eight and half years of Fianna Fáil Government, you get an increase of 40 points. The cost of living increased by 40 points in eight and half years under Fianna Fáil and by 21 points in six and half years under the inter-Party Government and the Fianna Fáil Party will tell us that the increase was much the same under both Governments but they will never explain the expression "much the same".

Yesterday Government speakers asked us: "What would you do to make a reducation in the Book of Estimates?" I say that they are the Government and it is their job. One way would be to throw out the Government and another way would be for the Government to do in office what they promised to do when they were out of office. Let them cut taxation and rates as they promised to do when they were out of office. Let them put their own plans and promises into operation and then they can reduce the Book of Estimates. It might be no harm if they stopped selling millable wheat to England. We are selling it to John Bull, whom we wanted to starve out, at £16 10s. a ton while we are buying Russian pollard and bran at £22 a ton. Is that not a draft policy? Pollard and bran are the offal of wheat.

This is not a subsidy to agriculture but a subsidy to the British farmer, to the detriment of the Irish farmer. The question is: Why not sell it to the Irish farmer at £16 10s. a ton? If the Irish farmer wants to buy it, he will have to pay £22 a ton. The reason is well known. It is because an agreement has been made with certain millers in this country and certain vested interests and the Government are prepared to let our farmers down in order to keep that agreement. They have agreed they will not sell cheap feeding stuffs on the Irish market against the compounders of feeding stuff in this country.

I remember in 1957 when with a great flourish of trumpets the Minister for Finance announced that £250,000 had been set aside to set up marketing boards and improve marketing systems. It is well known that our marketing system is haphazard and out-of-date. Denmark and other countries with whom we compete are improving their systems and if we are to hold our own in the future, we must have a proper marketing system. It is only this year that that money was spent. If it takes so long to set up marketing boards, I do not know how long it will take to set up the marketing system which we need. I also remember the Minister for Finance telling us a few years ago that he intended to reduce the number of civil servants drastically. That has not been done and there are 500 more civil servants employed now than there were when the Minister made that promise to us in this House.

Mr. Yeats

This debate, until the last one and a half hours, has been a serious debate on a serious topic. I certainly have no intention of following the example of the previous speaker who has given us his annual hour and a half of propaganda, abuse, insults and misquotations. Before I start to deal with the Bill now before the House, there are one or two points I should like to make in regard to Senator L'Estrange's speech. In particular, there is the matter I raised on a point of order during the course of his speech. I am not suggesting that it is a matter of great importance, but it does raise a rather important matter of principle.

Senator L'Estrange quoted from a speech made by the Taoiseach in the Dáil on 6th March, 1951. In giving that quotation, he left out the first few words of the sentence. He gave the quotation as beginning at column 1167 when, in fact, the sentence he was quoting begins at column 1166. I should like to quote it just to get it on the record:

If we want to increase expenditure on the public services, we have got to persuade people that, instead of giving 5/4 out of every £1, they should give 6/- or 6/6d. or 7/-, persuade them that it is better for themselves that they should spend less at their own discretion and let the Government do their spending for them. But, that issue should be put fairly to the public. They should be told, not merely what their choice is, but the consequences of any particular choice.

That is the quotation. It seems quite obvious. It is almost a cliché to say that if the public want more expenditure, then they must be expected to pay more taxes.

The point I am making is that Senator L'Estrange completely changed the meaning by deliberately leaving out the first ten words of the sentence. The real point is that he did the same last year. This has been supplied by the Fine Gael propaganda machine over the years. When Senator L'Estrange said that last year, I pulled him up and I gave the correct quotation. I am prepared to think that last year he did not know the correct quotation because he had never seen it, but it is perfectly obvious to me this year that since I corrected him last year, he knew the correct quotation, and he still deliberately omitted several words from the beginning of the sentence, thereby changing the meaning of the rest of the sentence.

That raises a certain matter of principle and order. It seems to me that quite obviously Senators are expected, as a matter of common courtesy, if they are giving a quotation to give at least a full sentence. I know that some Senators have a habit of quoting sentences out of context, and perhaps there is nothing that can be done about that, but the least we could expect in this House is that if a sentence is being quoted the whole sentence should be quoted.

I do not propose to say anything else about Senator L'Estrange's speech except that at one point he had a small argument with Senator McGlinchey about housing. He quoted a considerable number of figures at considerable length to prove, at least to his own satisfaction, that the housing position under Fianna Fáil was nothing like as good as it had been under the last Coalition Government. I do not want to go into those figures except to point out that Senator L'Estrange's figures are out of date because in the past 12 months the total number of houses built, reconstructed or repaired, was something like 16,450. That was, in fact, higher than the figure in any of the three years during which Senator L'Estrange's Government were in office. Having said that, I do not propose to deal any longer with any of the matters Senator L'Estrange discussed at such inordinate length.

With the exception of Senator L'Estrange, I think it is fair to say that Senators have discussed this Book of Estimates without, on the whole, making any complaint as to its size. There were comments about its size but, in fact, Senators have accepted that the money asked for by the Government is required and that the services on which it will be spent are necessary. Senators have not suggested any way in which this Bill either could or should be cut. There was one exception. Senator Quinlan suggested that some money could be saved on the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme by finishing that scheme over six or eight years instead of in two years as proposed. I do not think that many Senators would agree with that, but it was, at any rate, the only suggestion that I can recollect from the debate as to how any item in the Book of Estimates could or should be cut.

Many Senators discussed the White Paper on Incomes and Output. The curious thing there was that while there were a great many criticisms, and while the views from the other side of the House were uniformly hostile, at the same time not one single Senator found any fault with the wording of the White Paper, or suggested any way in which its policy was faulty, or any alternative policy of their own. I think it is not unfair to say that at least some of the Senators who discussed the White Paper had not read it, or at least had only read the two paragraphs which were most quoted, paragraphs 20 and 21.

It would be an understatement to say that I do not always agree with Senator Quinlan, but on this occasion when he said the White Paper consists in the main of self-evident economic truths I must concede that he was perfectly right. What are the self-evident economic truths that are set out in the White Paper? I think they are matters on which we would all be prepared to agree. Is it not quite clear that if wage increases were to run too far ahead of output, prices would rise, and if prices rise it takes away part of the benefit attained by the wage increase? We will all agree that is a self-evident truth.

Is it not also quite clear that such an increase in prices will reduce our exports? Is it not clear that if wage increases, or for that matter profit increases, run ahead of increases in output, there will be more money in circulation and that will result in increased imports? Is it not obvious also that increased imports and lower exports will bring about a deficit in our balance of payments? Those are things that are almost childishly obvious, and those are the matters that are set out in the White Paper on Incomes and Output. Is it suggested that the Government should ignore those matters? Is it suggested that the Government should not warn the public about the possible consequences of an excessive rise in wages and profits?

In my opinion the White Paper does three very simple things. In the first place it makes the case that another general round of wage increases would be very undesirable in the national interest. Secondly, the White Paper urges workers and employers to exercise restraint, for the moment, in asking for and giving wage increases and increased profits. Thirdly, in the White Paper the Government state that they will not start a ninth round of wage increases. Does any Senator seriously suggest that policy is wrong? Does any Senator think that at the moment a ninth round of wage increases would be anything but disastrous? I think there would be general agreement on all sides of the House that that is the position.

A number of speakers seem to misunderstand the last two paragraphs of the White Paper, even though, as a rule, they quoted them. To my mind those two paragraphs only restate the position which has always existed. The eighth rounds of wage increases which have just finished each started in the private sector of the economy, and then spread to the Government services and the workers employed by semi-State bodies. All that is done in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the White Paper is to make it plain that that position is to continue, and that the Government will not start off a ninth round of wage increases.

Senator Quinlan and Senator Dooge appear to be worried about the position of groups who have not yet had increases, who, for one reason or another, missed out on the eighth or some of the earlier rounds. I cannot understand why they should be worried. The position was made perfectly plain in the Dáil about a month ago by the Minister for Finance. It was made clear that these claims would be looked at on their merits, that they would not be considered as coming under the White Paper.

Senator Dooge seemed particularly worried that the White Paper might be the beginning of a policy of deflation which would put an end to economic progress, even to the progress which he conceded was now being made. We can understand his worries. No one, I think, on any side of the House would ever want to see recurring the dreadful period of 1956-57. Deputy J.A. Costello was certainly right when he described that period as "the worst that ever hit this country during the year 1956 and the beginning of 1957".

Mr. L'Estrange

Yes; the Suez crisis and the drop in cattle prices in Britain.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Yeats

Fine Gael always feel it necessary to call upon some external force to explain their difficulties. There was a bit of bandying to and fro in the Dáil a few days ago and Deputy Dillon, Leader of the Fine Gael Party, popped up and said: "Of course, there is not a Korean war now." What he had forgotten was that there was no Korean war in 1956-57 either. He got his wars mixed up. Now we have Senator L'Estrange coming up with Suez.

Mr. L'Estrange

I said Suez and a flop in cattle prices in Britain. An economic blizzard hit Britain. There were three things.

Mr. Yeats

I understand the position is that it is generally accepted by economists that Suez had little effect on the British economy.

Dr. Ryan

This is the first time I heard that cattle did badly under Fine Gael.

Mr. L'Estrange

They did badly under you, when you cut their throats. They did not get a chance to live long.

Mr. Yeats

Last year in this debate the Senator was quoting at enormous length about cattle when I interrupted him. I interrupted him several times and asked him to give the figures for 1956, but he never quoted the price for 1956. Now, of course, he quotes 1956 as being the rock bottom period in regard to low prices for cattle. We can understand Senator Dooge being very worried lest we would undergo such a period again. He was worried that the Government Party would embark on a deflationary policy similar to that which his Government adopted in 1957. I think Senator Dooge, and, for that matter, Senator L'Estrange, should appreciate that the very drastic deflationary policy upheld by the Coalition Government in March, 1956 was made necessary only because, in fact, no action at all was taken until about March, 1956, although it was clear that a crisis was coming up. It should have been perfectly clear for at least a full year before anything was done that there was going to be a very serious balance of payments crisis. All through the year 1955, people were trying to persuade the Government to do something. I think probably every economist in the country was warning the Government of the crisis coming up in the balance of payments and the loss of our sterling reserves. I was not in this House at the time but I am quite convinced that Senator O'Brien was here during these financial debates and gave serious warnings to the Government.

Dr. Ryan

It was before Suez.

Mr. Yeats

I forget when Suez came up but certainly there was a deficit of £35,500,000 in the balance of payments for 1955. All or most of that arose long before there was any Suez crisis. The Government went on dithering. Whether it was for political reasons or simply because the Coalition Parties were not able to agree on a policy only they can understand. In any event, as far as the unfortunate people of this country were concerned, no steps whatever were taken until it was far too late. We can all remember the result.

The position at the moment is entirely different. Last year, the balance of payments deficit, which is one of the matters that caused the Government to issue the warning in the White Paper, was somewhere from £12 million to £15 million. That compares with £35½ million in 1955. Our sterling assets actually went up by substantial amounts last year. In 1955, and particularly in the first quarter of 1956, there was a very considerable drain on our sterling reserves, something over £30 million in less than 12 months. There was a crisis, a very serious crisis, in 1956, but there is no crisis now and the whole point of the White Paper and its warning is to ensure that no crisis will arise. I do not think that Senator Dooge need have any worries. I think he can take it that while this Government are in office any steps that need to be taken will be taken well in advance, and for that reason there will be no need at any time for a severe deflationary policy.

It struck me, listening to Senator Lindsay, that he is really rather innocent in suggesting that if Government policy is good, everyone will be happy and visualising groups of happy citizens meeting in different parts of the country to pass resolutions congratulating the Government. That is the sort of thing that takes place in Soviet Russia. I am afraid that in an ordinary democracy like this, people will complain but certainly such resolutions of congratulation are never passed, and it is most unlikely that they ever will be passed here.

Senator Lindsay knows as well as I do that the real test of the success of Government policy is the comparison between conditions now and conditions at the time the Government came into office. Will anyone suggest any other? It is the only comparison one can make to show what progress may have been made under the Government. This comparison is easily made. Before I take up this matter, I should like to deal with the point raised by Senator Murphy. It rather surprised me when he said that his Party were interested in people rather than statistics. I thought it was perfectly obvious that statistics were matters very closely connected with the welfare and standard of living of the people. In 1957, when Fianna Fáil came to office, taking unemployment as the first standard of comparison, there were somewhere around 25,000 more people out of work than there are now. That, to my mind, is a big contribution to human welfare.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.

Mr. Yeats

Before the interval, I was dealing with the question of unemployment and I was making a comparison between the position which existed when this Government came into office and the position now. I pointed out that unemployment had fallen by in or around 25,000 since this time in 1957. It has often been claimed by Fine Gael spokesmen that naturally unemployment has gone down because emigration has gone up. I think, in fact, the figures for emigration in the past six years do not bear that out. The only figures we have for emigration are those obtained from the monthly figures of those who leave the country and those who come by sea and air. You can be sure, I think, they are reasonably accurate, taking one year with another. These figures show that when this Government came into office, emigration was in or around 62,000 per year. The most recent figures are very much lower. In fact, the figure for the 12 months ended January last shows that emigration has fallen to under 13,000.

I am not suggesting that that is a really reliable figure because for reasons which I personally do not quite know, it appears that between 5,000 and 10,000 people who came here for the Christmas holidays had not returned at the end of January. Whether that was due to building conditions in England, I do not know. The point I am making is that I am not using that figure to beat the Coalition record. I think a reliable figure for emigration would be perhaps around 17,000 or 18,000. That is well under one-third less than the figure for 1957. On that basis, the population is going up at present by in or around 9,000 or 10,000 a year.

Now, I am not complacent when I say that we still have that number of emigrants. Obviously all of us can appreciate the great tragedy of whole families or individuals having to leave the country to get work but I think we are entitled to say that under this Government there has been a very great improvement, in the light of this fall from around 62,000 emigrating every year to around 17,000 or 18,000, and perhaps even less.

Taking industry as a basis for a comparison between the position now and the position in earlier years, since 1959 — in the past four years — output has gone up by one-third—a more substantial result than in almost any other country. Exports of industrial products have doubled since 1956. Now, I know Senator Murphy might suggest that these are statistics and that they have no great relation to human welfare, to the people, but I suggest he is wrong in that view.

I think figures of this kind for industry are reflected in human terms in various ways. They are reflected in a great lessening of the number who, in 1956 and 1957, were working on short-time; they are reflected in an increase in the number of those who obtained work in industry, in a reduction of those who have lost their employment. Increased output in industry is reflected also in real earnings in industry. Figures recently published show that between March, 1961, and December last, that is, less than two years, the average earnings in Irish industry went up by 30/- per week. Some of that, of course, has to be set against an increase in the cost of living, due to higher costs, but there is no doubt that the greater part is a real increase in earnings as a result of this increased output in industry.

I was surprised to hear Senator Dooge suggest that rather too much stress was laid on exports. If I did not misunderstand him, he suggested that it might be possible to lay too much stress on exports by trying to reduce costs and so on and that by doing so, we might perhaps be retarding economic growth. I am afraid I do not understand that. I should have thought that in the circumstances of this country, the only way of achieving economic growth is by increasing exports.

Taking agriculture as an example, about one-third of all the produce of Irish farms is consumed in the country. We already have the highest standard of living and food intake of any country in the world. It is extremely unlikely that we could consume any more food than we do. Another one-third is consumed on the farms. Everything that is left has to be exported. I should think that it was obvious that if any increase of production was to be obtained in agriculture, it would have to be exported and that exports from that point of view were vital.

In the same way in industry, though we may claim that consumption of foreign lager or clothing could be reduced, I think we have nearly reached saturation point and in any case the Irish market is a very small market and the basis of the position is that any increase in industrial production also must go abroad, and the only way we can obtain such increase is by means of exports.

It is clear that the only way in which we can obtain an increase in our standard of living is by an increase in exports and, taking that as the basic aim, we find that under this Government total exports have gone from £108 million in 1957 to £173 million last year. That is a very considerable increase and reflects an increase in the standard of living of the community as a whole.

Another reflection of our standard of living is national income. National income is up by around 18 per cent since 1958. That, by previous Irish standards, is an unheard of increase. In the ten years before 1958, the average increase in national income was something under one per cent per year. It has now been in the past four years nearer four to four and a half per cent. That is a very great increase, a very great advance, and one the like of which we certainly in this country have never seen before. That has been reflected, undoubtedly, in an increase in the general standard of living.

Real wages have gone up in the past few years by 15 per cent. As regards employment, we certainly would accept the definition that the work of a Government can be judged to a very large extent on their success in increasing employment but we must distinguish in this regard between agricultural employment and non-agricultural employment. The number employed in agriculture is declining and has been declining, I suppose, for the past 20, 30, 40 years. Each year has seen a slight decline, not merely in this country but in every other country. It is a universal position. If we want to make political capital out of it, and I do not think it is a matter out of which we should make political capital, one could state that in the three years under the Coalition, from 1954 to 1957, the numbers engaged wholetime in farm work fell by a total of 22,000, that is, something over 7,000 per year, and in the five years 1957 to 1962, and this includes the most recent figures which Senator Murphy quoted yesterday, the number fell by a total of 26,600 or around 5,000 per year, as compared with 7,000 under the Coalition. But I am not making any point about that. We may take it that while the efforts of this Government or any other Government would be devoted to trying to keep as many on the land as possible, with the highest standard of living possible, as a purely practical assumption, we may assume that at least for some time to come in this country, as in all other countries, there is likely to be a continued fall in the number employed on the land.

The real test, then, of any Government is the number of extra people that can be put into new employment outside agriculture and it is on that test that I personally am quite satisfied to compare the activities of this Government with those of the previous Government.

I have never been able to understand why we have this constant comparison made between the figures now and the figures in 1955. The figures in 1955 were at a peak for that particular period but there were two years of Coalition Government after 1955 which have to be taken into account. The Fianna Fáil Government went out of office in 1954, at which time the total in employment outside agriculture was 725,000. This was an increasing figure at that time. That increase slowed down and continued in 1955. There was a very small increase of 1,000 between 1954 and 1955, up to 726,000 but in the following three years, it fell by 34,000 to 692,000. That is the position that met this Government when they came to office. That is the fair comparison that can be made between the position then and the position now. There is no use in saying to us there were so many employed in 1955 when the Coalition Government succeeded by their defective policy in reducing that the following years by 34,000.

We, then, came into office with this position of declining employment and we have succeeded in increasing steadily, every year since 1959, the number in employment. It was 710,000 on 1st April, 1961. The most recent figure, which has not yet been published, for 1st April, 1962, was suggested by Senator Murphy as probably now around 720,000. I think that is a reasonable assumption but that is still 12 months ago. I would suggest, as a pure guess but a very reasonable one, that probably another 8,000 have been added since then, which means that the figure is 728,000 at this moment. That is a fair and not too extravagant assumption which means that in four years we have added 36,000 to those in employment.

It may be said that that is not enough, that it should be 46,000, 56,000, 76,000, but I do think that the record of this Government in finding new employment for 36,000 outside agriculture is a great deal better than the record of the previous Government in removing from employment 34,000. It is a different trend and one which is greatly to this Government's advantage.

I think, then, we may say that so far as relates to the welfare of the people of this country, every single reasonable test that can be applied shows that there has been greater, more all-embracing and more rapid progress in the past four or five years than there ever has been in the history of this country and it is for that reason that we on this side of the House are able with the greatest enthusiasm to recommend this Bill.

Mr. McAuliffe

I do not intend to detain the House too long. I should like to see the Minister getting in to reply tonight. I have been here for the past couple of days but I am glad that I did not get in to speak sooner in view of what we have heard in this debate. The fact is that most of the speeches have been about the past and very little has been said about the present or the future.

The Bill is a very simple one. We are looking for £9 million to carry us on to the end of this year and for £55 million to carry us into some part of next year and the total that will be required is £167 million. How that £167 million is to be collected is a matter for the Minister in his Budget and I shall not worry about that.

We heard quite an amount during the debate about various subjects, including housing. I can see that there will be a general slowing up in the building of houses during the next year. Kerry County Council decided a few days ago to discontinue supplementary grants for housing. That is what happened in 1956. Local authorities dropped the supplementary grants and the rot set in. A rot is starting now and we will have other local authorities taking their headline from Kerry.

There is the question of money being provided by the Government for houses for working-class people in rural areas. It is difficult to credit that in 1963 money is being provided for the erection in rural areas of houses without proper water and sewerage facilities. The sooner local authorities are prevented from building houses without these amenities, the better it will be, because money will be saved to the State in the long run.

There has been a good deal of talk about education. Recently we issued a document in which we put forward our proposals in relation to education. We believe in a radical reform of both primary and secondary education. It is somewhat disappointing to find that the Minister has not provided more money for education, more money to implement the proposals we put forward. Those proposals received a good reception, both in the public press and from the public generally.

With regard to school buildings, I am disappointed, too, with the increase given for primary education. According to the latest figures, we have grave need for 726 new schools. The maximum the Department hope to build each year is 100. At that rate, it will take over seven years to build the new schools we require. There are 249 defective schools. So long as that position obtains, we shall make no progress in education. Our present buildings are quite inadequate for present day needs.

There is a move now to reintroduce the cló Romhánach. I believe that will do more harm than good. There is a grave shortage of suitable Irish books and, if we insist on the cló Romhánach, we will have a still greater shortage. The provision made here will not meet the case as far as I can see.

There is a demand for more vocational schools all over the country. Not only do we require more vocational schools but we also require higher schools of technology so that children can continue their education in them. A group certificate is not sufficient for any child in present day circumstances and something will have to be done to remedy the present unsatisfactory situation. It is really disappointing to see so little extra provided to meet our educational needs at the present time.

Reference was made here last year to the refusal on the part of Dublin Corporation to give scholarships to a certain college in this city. We are glad that the comments made here last year have been heeded and that that discrimination no longer exists.

The Department of Lands are doing a very good job and any extra money given to that Department is given gladly because of that. One big step forward is the fact that farms are being increased in area. The Department of Lands were, of course, the first Department of State to take up the matter of providing proper houses. First-class houses are provided, with water laid on and proper sanitary facilities. The houses are really well up to modern standards.

A matter which worries me considerably in relation to agriculture is the position of the farm labourer and the number of farm labourers who are leaving the land. I am sure everyone was astounded to discover that 18,800 left the land between 1961 and 1962. That information was given in reply to a question tabled by Deputy Tully in the Dáil. I am not surprised at the figure because I live in a part of the country in which there are a number of small farmers and I can see the trend. If a small farmer does not succeed in getting work and supplementing his income in that way, he leaves the land and emigrates. I was at a lecture in Mullingar a few nights ago, given by Father Joy, the eminent Jesuit, on Communism. At the end of the lecture, he was asked if there was any danger that Communism might come here and, if so, where was it most likely to get a hold? His answer was that he was worried about the wages paid to farm labourers. I, too, am worried about the wages paid to farm labourers. I know farm labourers who had to stay at home during the recent bad weather and the extraordinary thing was they got more money by staying at home than they would earn, had they been out working. If we ever reach a stage here when there is no incentive to work, it will be a bad day for this country. If a man gets more for staying at home idle than he would get working, that is bound to be detrimental to the country. Some may think now that I do not agree with the scale of social welfare benefits we have here. No one agrees with it more. No one wishes to see these benefits increased more than I do. At the same time, no one wishes to see the basic wage of the farm labourer increased more than I do, increased to the point where the labourer will always prefer to work rather than to draw social welfare benefit. I should not like to see the day when any person would be better off on social welfare benefits than he would be working.

Senator Moloney made a suggestion which rather amused me. He said we had reached a stage now when we should call a political truce on the subject of emigration. I assure the Senator that I speak on behalf of my Party on this matter: we will never call a truce where emigration is concerned. Emigration and unemployment are now synonymous. If we have today 60,000 unemployed and 40,000 leaving the country, we cannot call any truce. In fact, we call on the Government to declare war on both unemployment and emigration. We demand that there be no truce. I think that statement was an extraordinary one.

There is not much more I want to say except to express the general disappointment of many people that we did not get into the Common Market during the year. If I were asked to give my own personal view I would say I was not one bit sorry because I do not believe this country was ready to go into the Common Market. During his speech on the Budget last year, the Minister made this statement:

As this is the first budget to be introduced since we applied for membership of the European Economic Community it is appropriate that I should refer briefly to what the consequences for the revenue may be. Obviously, the receipts we derive at present from protective customs duties will dwindle as our tariffs on imports from Member States are reduced. Further loss of revenue will result from modifications which it will be necessary to make in our revenue duties. In the years ahead, therefore, we will inevitably have to look for fresh sources of revenue to make good these losses.

Apart from this domestic revenue problem we must also bear in mind the great importance the European Economic Community attaches to the question of harmonising the taxation systems of the Member States. All the present Member States of the Community have general sales taxes or turnover taxes of one sort or another. Almost all the other countries of Western Europe also employ some form of general sales tax or purchase tax.

The Minister made that statement in connection with the provision of revenue to run the country. He said that if we joined the Common Market we would have to impose a sales tax, a purchase tax and so forth. Now that we have not got into the Common Market I think we should remind the Minister of his having made that statement and that he should now consider, since we are not going in, changing his mind about a sales tax. I hope that when he comes to look for his £167,000,000 he will avoid the imposition of a sales or purchase tax.

Mr. Flanagan

The general trend of the debate, as far as I can see, has followed one main line: each person has tried to divert water to his own mill. Coming from the west where we have our own peculiar problems, I think it would be only right and proper for me to say something on this measure. In general, I should like to think that I shall retain the same high standard of debate and decency which have been a feature of this debate for at least 80 per cent of the time. I should also like to compliment the Minister on the fact that there has been no real criticism of the Bill. There have been bits and pieces of grumbling here and there, but human nature being what it is, nobody will ever achieve anything that is perfection and, considering the circumstances in which we are, we could not expect too much from the Minister at this moment.

The Minister, on his side, did not expect the Bill would be received with enthusiasm. The country is, to a certain extent, facing a crisis in so far as certain expectations we had will not be immediately fulfilled. On occasions in the past this country has had the wonderful experience of all groups joining forces to meet a crisis. There is no question of any sacrifice of principle, but there is a question of looking forward and facing facts, and I think every member of the House should be prepared at the present to sink political feelings since unity is strength and unity and strength are what we require at the present time.

For that reason we should all have one common purpose — to point out to our people in every section of the community, from top to bottom, that what is necessary is that every person would put his best effort into the particular work in which he is engaged. That principle must rule from top to bottom, for the executive, for the technician, for the engineer as well as for the person employed as a labourer. If anybody on either side of the House has got any idea that is worthwhile, any contribution he feels he can make at present in the interests of the people and of the country, there is no use putting that idea into cold storage or keeping it in a pickle until such time as he thinks he may come into power. It might be too late then. If anybody has any idea I am sure we would be all very glad to hear it and that the Minister would be glad to take it into account in preparing his Budget.

A lot has been said about the decline in population. Living as I do in a western county, I suppose I have as good a reason as any other person to understand the main cause for this decline. In my county during the past 40 years I have met every sort of labourer and working person and I have been able to decide that the reason we have a falling off in our population in my county — the same applies elsewhere — is that people are looking for and getting a higher standard of living. They are getting a higher standard of living at home and are looking for higher standards all the time. If they cannot achieve their full objective in this respect at home they emigrate and there is no power in this country, nothing on earth we can do, that will stop emigration as long as the people cannot get at home the standard of living they have now come to expect and to look for.

I was very sorry to hear Senator L'Estrange mention hunger and poverty in the country. It is not in my part of the country. There is more prosperity, more contentment in County Mayo at the present time than there has been at any time in the past 40 years. I am not saying that everybody is satisfied. Again, human nature being what it is, people are never satisfied, never will be: they will always set their sights higher and look for more than they can get. At the moment, however, they are really enjoying quite a lot of prosperity.

Unemployment has been mentioned. The types of people who are unemployed must be critically examined. I quite agree with Senator Lindsay that the figures we get in the weekly returns contain at least 30 per cent. chronically unemployed — they have been there all down the years, they will continue to be there. In addition, 30 per cent. of the people on that list are small farmers or their sons who are really not unemployed in the strict sense of the word: they do work at home and they drive into town in their cars to sign at the Labour Exchanges. As I say, they are not really unemployed in the strict sense of the word.

You have then a floating 30 per cent of the numbers on the list who are really unemployed from period to period on account of stress of circumstance or changes in conditions. This is a matter which should not be looked on in a political way. As Senator Moloney from Kerry suggested, the time has passed when we should deal with this question of the unemployed as pure politics. We should all be together in examining the question as to whether there is anything we can do to help that 30 per cent who do not belong to the chronic unemployed or unemployable or the 30 per cent who are either partly employed on their own farms or are not employed at all. For that 30 per cent I think something could be done.

I make a suggestion. Down through the years, quite a number of men were employed on roads alone. A condition attached to grants in various counties — I know it because I worked there — was that each work should have a certain labour content. We have got away from that. Perhaps it is necessary because in very big jobs you must mechanise but in the smaller jobs there should be less mechanisation and a greater tendency to employ the local man and local materials rather than have central quarries and convey material over 50 miles of bad road, doing immeasurable damage to the roads en route. We must insist on a higher labour content in all works. That should really be a condition of the grants.

Another thing that gave quite an amount of employment — I am referring more particularly to the western counties because I know those best— was turf production from which we have now got away. For many years, all the institutions in my county burned nothing but hand-won turf and at the beginning of each year, we publicly announced the amount of turf we required for each institution and the price we would pay for it. The people knew in advance the quantity to produce and that it would not be left on their hands. They produced that turf by using the family unit and it meant real money to them.

I once went into a house during the turf campaign and when the woman of the house found I was a county engineer, she praised and blessed me and spoke of the tremendous advantage it was to have turf production in that locality. I said I was glad to hear that and that it was so much appreciated. "Sure," she said, "it was England and America that found us." In other words, the people were getting the living at home that they had been getting in England and America. Why have we gone away from that?

We have also gone away from the cottage industries. We hear more about drama festivals and that sort of nonsense than about cottage industries now. We could, and we should further develop our fisheries and that would be very useful in connection with the campaign about which we hear so much, about buying Irish. If we are to develop our country we should not — and this is something that has not been mentioned — allow our railways to be closed down — some of them in any case. I have a particular railway in mind. It is part of the old GSR line from Collooney to Claremorris, which it is proposed to close. If that line is not paying, part of the responsibility is on the railway company for canvassing traffic off the railway and on to the road.

If you try to develop an industry in that section of the country, the first question you are asked is: "What transport have you? Have you a railway? Have you a port?" We shall do quite a lot of damage if we close down that railway, at a time when we expect and hope for a different attitude. We are suggesting that people should give a higher output of work for the wages and salaries they are getting. That should start at the top. If our population is falling, in certain circumstances, it is only reasonable to expect that those who have higher salaries and less work to do might find themselves with fewer jobs. In the law, for instance, if we have a smaller population, we should have less court work. The judges got a handsome increase and it would be quite reasonable to expect them to spend an extra hour or two in the courts to facilitate people coming up from the country and not disappoint them day after day by not taking cases unless they are listed, thus causing great inconvenience. If we make that clear, there might be a different attitude towards work.

There was criticism of the number in the Civil Service but so long as we are creating new services and changing techniques, you will have increases in the Civil Service. The same applies to county councils. Since I left the county council three years ago, the number employed under the county manager has gone up by at least one-third. In the light of dwindling population, there are other items that might be examined. I am not "putting it across" Senator McAuliffe who made a demand for schools and school buildings, but there is an epidemic of school building——

Mr. McAuliffe

Not down our side.

Mr. Flanagan

It may not apply generally but is seems extraordinary that every school requires to be renewed at this particular time. It is extraordinary that a number of them have not been adequately repaired and kept in better condition to enable them to hold out for some time which would mean we would not have the present demand. Recently, I spoke to a priest who had had five new schools built, all two-teacher schools. He now finds the population has dropped to such an extent that he is sorry he did not amalgamate some of these schools because in the course of a few years the number of pupils will have dropped to such an extent that they will be only one-teacher schools. It would be cheaper for the State and more effective for the children, if he had built three-teacher or four-teacher schools. On the other hand, I want to say a word against the very big schools which I think are destroying education in the country. This country will never repay the debt they owe to the old national schoolteachers. I am not a teacher but the old national teachers lived beside the schools. They were interested in the pupils, knew their interests and environment and were able to help them along. Now you have a class of 60 under one teacher who is not only not able to teach them but not able to control them. In future schools, the maximum number they should cater for is 20 to each class. You would then have more schools with a maximum class of 20.

In the few moments left to me, I want to say a word on behalf of universities, particularly my old university, Galway.

An Cathaoirleach

A ruling has been given that the details of that particular Estimate are not appropriate on this Bill.

Mr. Flanagan

Very well. We are encouraging education and building a number of vocational schools, but are we educating our people away from the land? In rural areas, we are teaching boys and girls shorthand and typewriting and commercial subjects. Of what value are they? If we qualify them for commercial life, do we expect them to go back and settle on farms? I do not think so. I think it is wrong and it is something that should be considered. So long as we educate people and give them employment here, we should pay them.

I want to endorse everything that has been said by my colleagues, Senator Dooge and Senator Quinlan, in connection with the inadequate salaries at present being paid to junior engineers. There is no question about it. I have made representations in this matter and it is one of very serious import. If you want to get value, if you want to have a satisfied official, proud and happy in his work, who will give you value right through, you must pay him for his services. That is what I say about the engineer.

I shall not say anything about agriculture because that has been dealt with so adequately but I am tremendously sorry to hear about the inadequate rate of wages being paid in agriculture. I come from one of the poorest counties and I shall astonish you all when I say that our rate in the £ this year is 63/-. That rate has been arrived at by the members of the county council — and the majority are not Fianna Fáil either — because they want services and they are prepared to pay for them.

I am very happy to say that the rate of wages to road workers in Mayo is the highest paid in the West or South of Ireland — £7 5s. a week. They have never had to have recourse to a union in order to get justice. They got their rate of wages and that is the tendency of our people in the West in any case. I am very sorry to hear that farmers are not up to that high standard.

We have 63/- in the £ in the rural area and probably 70/- to 75/- in the three urban areas. I believe it is because the country is looking for services and when they are available the country is prepared to pay. I am watching the clock carefully. There is a certain matter to which I wish to refer. It applies all over the country just exactly as it applies here. There should be no such a thing as running down people. There should be no such a thing as unjust and unfair criticism of any person. I have laboured under that for the past few years. I am very sorry that on this occasion the Leas-Chathaoirleach is not present. I wanted to make a personal explanation here in his presence in connection with a statement he made in Dáil Éireann on 23rd June, 1960.

Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 28 Mar 1963