Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Mar 1965

Vol. 58 No. 14

Central Fund Bill, 1965 (Certified Money Bill): Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

The main purpose of this Bill is to give statutory force to the Vote on Account for 1965-66 which was passed recently by Dáil Éireann. The amount of that Vote was £74,387,000 and section 2 of the Bill contains authority for the issue from the Central Fund of that amount together with £905,000 for the Votes for External Affairs and International Co-operation as already passed by Dáil Éireann. Section 1 of the Bill provides for the issue of £23,188,684 in respect of Additional and Supplementary Estimates voted in the current financial year which were not provided for in the Appropriation Act, 1964. Section 3 empowers the Minister for Finance to borrow up to the amount provided for in the first two sections of the Bill.

In an effort to attract as large a volume of savings as possible to support the Government's programme of capital investment and bearing particularly in mind those investors who are attracted by the prospects of capital appreciation, I have been considering the issue of a new kind of Government asset. This security, for which provision is made in section 4 of this Bill, would not attract interest but would be redeemed after a period of years with the addition of a fixed premium which would be free of tax. Moreover, I have in mind that a draw would be held each year during the currency of the security on the results of which a fixed proportion of the loan outstanding would be redeemed at its full maturity value. I trust that this new type of asset will prove attractive to the investing public.

Senators will have received this morning the Book of Estimates for 1965-66 together with a summary of the principal increases and decreases compared with 1964-65. The total provision for next year's Supply Services—£220.8 million—is £20.9 million more than the amount of £199.9 million for which I made provision in my Budget last April. £16.3 million of this increase is attributable to current services and the rest, £4.6 million, to voted capital services.

£18 million of the increase of £20.9 million which I have mentioned is attributable to expenditure on agricultural and social services, public works, post office services and pay. The increases in the case of agriculture and the social services include the full year cost of the improvements granted in the 1964 Budget. The Government's policy for improvement of educational facilities is reflected in the expansion of public works expenditure on national schools. Pre-ninth round wage adjustments are largely responsible for the rise in public services remuneration as compared with the 1964 Budget provision.

The cost of the ninth round had been provided for in the Budget and it is, of course, reflected also in the estimates for 1965-66. The ninth round has also contributed to the high cost of the Supply Services for 1965-66 through its effect on prices. The rise in prices was an inevitable result of the ninth round in which pay increased faster than productivity. Further price rises this year could seriously impair our prospects for economic growth by reducing the ability of our goods to compete in export markets. Our difficulties in export markets have been increased by the operation of the British surcharge on exports of manufactured goods and we have also to face up to the possibility that the growth of demand in other exports markets may not be as marked as in recent years. These factors underline the urgent need to ensure that further increases in costs and prices are avoided.

Expenditure on agricultural services constitutes the largest single object of expenditure provided for in the Book of Estimates. £45 million or over one-fifth of the total expenditure next year on the Supply Services, relates to the various services intended to increase the efficiency of our farmers, to reduce their costs and to expand agricultural output and exports. Expenditure on agriculture in 1965-66 will be £6½ million over the Budget provision in 1964. It should be borne in mind in considering these figures that last year was a good one for farmers, farming income having risen by about 16 per cent; there are good prospects of a further considerable rise in farmers' incomes in 1965.

The social services, with which are included health and education as well as social welfare, are estimated to cost £49 million in 1965-66, approximately £3 million more than the current year's Budget provision. With pay added, the total provision for social welfare, health and education contained in the Book of Estimates comes to £82 million. The full year cost of the increases for social welfare recipients granted in the 1964 Budget is, of course, included.

I should like to mention, as regards the Estimate for Industry and Commerce, that only a token amount has been provided for the temporary assistance to industry arising as a result of the imports surcharge imposed by the British Government in October last. An estimate of cost will be available at Budget time.

Provision is made in the Estimate for Transport and Power for the annual grant of 2 million to CIE. The 1964-65 expenditure on this item is not shown in the Book of Estimates because the necessary Supplementary Estimate had not been passed by Dáil Éireann when the Book of Estimates was being sent for press. Increased expenditure on tourist development is the largest element in the rise of £0.7 million in the non-capital provision for Transport and Power in 1965-66.

I can assure Senators that the Estimates have been examined very carefully by my Department and have been subjected to further rigorous pruning by the Government. The size of the bill which emerges presents a difficult task in framing the Budget but that is a matter which has to be left over until a later occasion.

I ask the Seanad to approve the Bill.

This debate affords the Seanad an opportunity of discussing financial business. It is customary to take this opportunity to review Government policy in general. However, there is a sense of unreality about the debate this year due to a number of causes. For one thing, the Book of Estimates on which the Minister's Vote on Account is based came to our hands only this morning and so there was not an opportunity to examine the book in detail to find in what directions the shifts in Government expenditure were moving. In a sense also, we may well be talking to ourselves today when speaking about the general policy of the Government since that policy is being commented on some 160 miles from here. To talk to this somewhat depleted House, to talk to those Members who are here with perhaps some of their thoughts elsewhere on what may be happening today in the polling in the by-election, tends to take some of the stuffing out of what is usually a full length debate.

I do not intend to speak at any great length on this measure but there are some comments I think should be made and some questions that arise. The first comment I should like to make is that I welcome and express gratitude for the provision made in the Book of Estimates for my own college, University College, Cork. It is, indeed, gratifying to see that there has been in this instance, and in the case of the other colleges, a substantial increase in the amount for current expenditure. But more than this I welcome the substantial provision for new building accommodation and equipment at UCC which will enable that college to take the first real substantial move in the direction of meeting the crisis of accommodation which exists, as it does in all the colleges at the present moment.

Another detail arising on this Bill is the provision under section 4 for the issue of non-interest bearing securities. I think it would be premature to debate this provision at any length as the discussion on it should, more properly, take place on the Finance Bill, when we hope to have more information from the Minister as to what he proposes to do in this regard. Meanwhile, I just make the comment that this seems to indicate, from the way in which the matter has been explained in the Dáil and here, that the Minister seems to be setting his face against the incorporation into the tax structure in this country of any form of capital gains tax. He is, I understand, recommending this particular provision on the ground, among others, that the capital gains under this provision would not be subject to taxation. I should like to ask the Minister whether I am correctly interpreting his approach and his mind on this particular matter.

The second comment I should like to make is that a provision such as this, to be attractive, must, of course, operate in a condition of stable prices. If a scheme such as this is to be successful, then the ability of the Minister and the Government to hold a stable price level will have to be far more successful than it has been during the past 12 to 18 months.

In regard to the matters of general policy, on the occasion of this debate last year I spoke at some length on the question of the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. On a number of questions I raised with the Minister at that time, he properly replied that many of those points would be dealt with when Part II of the Programme was issued. There are, however, one or two points which I raised then which were not dealt with under Part II of the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. I should like to repeat those questions now and I shall be glad if the Minister will be able to reply to them. The first one has regard to the estimation in connection with emigration during the period of the Programme and the question which I now ask is the same as that which I asked last year in volume 57 No. 9, column 707, and I quote:

I should like to ask the Minister specifically how he arrives at this figure of 10,000 by 1970. Is it bound up with the assumption that there is bound to be continued building up of total employment?

Later in the same paragraph I asked:

I should like to ask the Minister specifically what is the estimate of total emigration in the White Paper for the decade 1960 to 1970. I should like also to ask him if he would give the derivation in the same manner as it is given in Table No. I of Professor Louden Ryan's paper.

I should be glad if the Minister could indicate what this figure will be in the manner in which Professor Louden Ryan described it in his paper read to the Statistical Society last year.

The second question I should like to repeat is one I asked at columns 715 and 716 of this debate last year. It refers to the ratio which the commercial banks are expected to maintain between their external assets and their internal accounts in this country. I referred on that occasion to the fact that in the Grey Book, Economic Development, the opinion had been expressed that this ratio should be maintained at 30 per cent and should not wander by more than 3 per cent in either direction. I should like to ask the Minister, as I asked him last year, whether there has been any change of policy in this regard and whether he now proposes to deviate from this requirement. In addition, I should like to ask him whether this requirement of 30 per cent is affected in any way by the change which was made by the Central Bank Bill passed during the last 12 months which allows for the payment of interest on deposits made by the commercial banks to the Central Bank.

In regard to the progress of the Second Programme for Economic Expansion, we have seen, I think, during the past 12 months a mixture in regard to it. In certain aspects the Programme has kept well up to target but in others there have been some rather distressing signs. The objectives of the programme, as set out in Part I of the Second Programme for Economic Expansion, page 17, were:

It will have as its chief objective the raising of the real income of the community by 50 per cent in the 1960's, in line with the collective target of the OECD.

Its complementary aim will be to secure the progressive production of involuntary emigration so that by 1970 net yearly emigration will be reduced to 10,000 at most. The net increase in employment envisaged in the decade is 78,000.

I should like to express the opinion that I think there has, in the past 12 months, been a slackening in regard to the question of the reduction of emigration. It seems from the figures we have before us, for what they are worth, that the position appears to have deteriorated. In this debate last year the Minister, in replying, announced that emigration during the 12 preceding months was running at a figure of about 16,700. During the recent debate on the Vote on Account in the Dáil the Minister for Justice discussed this very point and he claimed the Government were making progress, in the reduction of emigration, towards this figure of 10,000 and that they had already reduced emigration to 25,000. This figure was quoted by the Minister for Justice in the Dáil debate. If the figure were of the order of 17,000 last year and 25,000 this year it looks as if progress has not been in the right direction.

Again, it is clear from a reading of the White Paper that an integral part of the whole Programme is the reduction of unemployment in this country to something like 3½ per cent by 1970. In this regard, I think there has not been as much progress as would be warranted if the Programme were moving completely to schedule. There is no doubt whatsoever that unemployment was lower in 1964 than in 1963 but then 1963 was a bad year in that unemployment was higher than in 1961 and 1962. I have not seen an official figure for unemployment for 1964 and if this figure is available I should be glad if the Minister would give the figure for the percentage of those on the live register, excluding the agricultural population, in 1964. The figure in 1960 was something like 6.7 per cent and it is hoped to reduce that to 3½ per cent by 1970. To date the progress has been: in 1961 it was down to 5.7 per cent which was excellent progress in achieving this target; unemployment in 1962 was again 5.7 per cent, which showed no further progress; in 1963 it was 6.1 per cent and the figure for 1964 is not available to me but from looking at the weekly figures it would appear to be around 5.7 per cent again. There seems to be a stickiness, a halt, a hiatus in this direction.

Then, if we look at the Programme we find it is expected that our adverse balance of payments will amount to something like £160 million between 1960 and 1970. Indeed, I discussed this at some length during last year's debate when I expressed the view that if we accept £16 million a year, if we tolerate ourselves being out of balance for this amount we shall find ourselves tolerating being further and further out of balance. Indeed, we have gone well beyond £16 million. This is a very disturbing sign. I should be very glad if the Minister could give us the figures in this respect for each of the years 1960 to 1964, showing the actual deficit and the deficit in 1960 prices. There is room for anxiety in this regard particularly when we remember the contribution that has been made by the very favourable cattle prices which existed during recent years.

If we look at the Programme we see that the figures are nice and neatly worked out at 1960 prices. As we go now into 1965 the idea of making calculations at 1960 prices, while absolutely necessary in order to carry out such calculations, becomes more and more divorced from reality. There is no doubt that in a Programme of this sort the only way we can programme is on a stable price level but it may well be true the only way we can make real lasting progress is also on a stable price level. Here, again, we have cause for some anxiety in looking back over the past 12 months.

There are a few points at which the Second Programme for Economic Expansion shows signs of not having been thought out rigorously, not having been carried, perhaps, as far as it might and I should just like in the remainder of the time to refer to a few of these points.

Firstly, it is a matter for great regret, and a matter which puts the whole Programme in jeopardy, that the Government have not yet come to some decision on the question of centres of development. Until there is a decision on the matter of how industrial development is to be fostered and where it is to be fostered outside the main cities, I do not think the Programme can really be carried as far as it might otherwise be. I do not think there can be a realistic plan for industrial development without it.

I do not believe there can be any regional planning, which is also highly necessary.

The second point I should like to make concerns the speeches from members of the Government about the Programme. In these speeches there seems to be far too much emphasis on quantity rather than on quality. Ministers boast of the amount of money spent on this and that and we do not hear half as much about the criterion that money is being spent to make this purchase or that. It may be that it is not possible in all cases or that it is not prudent in all cases to discuss the whys and wherefores of different developments. Nevertheless, as one reads Ministerial speeches one gets the impression there is a tendency to consider the mere expenditure of money as being enough. I do not like this tendency and I do not like the flavour which is in many Ministerial speeches.

The third point I should like to make about the Programme—this is tremendously important—is that the Government have not brought in from the very beginning a proper manpower policy. It puts the whole of the Second Programme into jeopardy. If we are to have economic growth, full employment and stable prices we cannot do without a manpower policy. I have said before in this House that these three objectives will not be reconciled here or in any other country unless steps are taken to make sure that the labour market is free from distortions and that it is moving as readily as possible.

As a matter of fact, I intended to deal with this point at some length during this debate last year. As Members may recall, I spoke at considerable length last year and I said the Government were not dealing in detail with the problem of manpower policy. At that time I thought it would not be necessary to return to the topic 12 months afterwards. I thought the Government, even though they had made the blunder of introducing the Second Programme without a manpower policy, would have mended their hand rather rapidly. What do we find? We still find this is a matter under discussion, that this is something which is being actively pursued, that it is something which has gone to an inter-Departmental committee. I consider the reference the Taoiseach made to the matter in his speech on the Vote on Account in the Dáil was most disappointing. There is to be further delay in this matter. The whole of the Programme and the whole prosperity of this country is being put into jeopardy.

There is very little excuse for the delay. This matter of manpower policy has been very much alive since the war. It was the subject of an ILO convention as long ago as 1948. It was adopted as a part of their policy by the OECD Ministers in 1962. We had the example of successful countries in this field, such as Sweden, France, Holland and Norway. In the autumn of 1963 there was published a report of the inter-Departmental committee on what the position in this country would be in regard to resettlement and retraining of workers if we were to become members of EEC. Hardly was the report published than it was apparently dropped and forgotten along with our proposed entry to EEC, completely ignoring the fact that, whether or not we were members of any international group, this is a matter which is vital to economic development.

Since then we had in November, 1963, a seminar held by the Irish National Productivity Committee, the proceedings of which were published. This particular seminar was attended by members of the trade union organisations and members of the Civil Service. I quote from the proceedings of the seminar on manpower policy:

(1) There is urgent need now, in this country, for a positive and integrated manpower policy.

(2) Such a policy is a necessary part of an orderly programme of economic expansion and social development in which the primary requirement is the creation of new jobs.

(3) Active manpower policies are most highly developed in countries which have already achieved full employment but we understand that these were in many cases initiated in conditions short of full employment and appear to have contributed materially towards the achievement of this goal.

Following this seminar, the Irish National Productivity Committee, who are in close touch with the progress of the Second Programme, and are making great contributions towards the success of this Programme, made specific recommendations to the Government that there should be set up a special Department of Labour. In July, 1964, the National Industrial and Economic Committee produced a report on manpower policy urging much the same thing. Yet in February, 1965, all the Taoiseach could tell us was that it is still under examination.

This is an integral part of planning. It is something which is necessary if the various objectives are to be harmonised and maintained. I think already we are beginning to see the result of this neglect. Growth has been satisfactory, industrial employment is progressing satisfactorily, but we certainly have not had stable prices; I do not think we will be able to maintain stable prices, growth and proper employment unless we have as soon as possible a manpower policy that is as integrated and as thorough as possible. By this I mean not merely a policy which will list what the different organisations should do, but a policy which is unified and integral and able to stand on its own feet.

When the Fine Gael Party suggested there was need for a Minister for Economic Development all the Taoiseach could reply was that that sort of thing had been tried out during the war and found wanting. Whatever may have been the success of that particular Ministry and that particular Minister during the war, what has been suggested in regard to a Minister for Economic Development has also been suggested by these other independent and non-political authorities: the giving of responsibility to one individual to make sure that these and many other aspects of programming are carried fully into effect.

There is no doubt whatsoever that between now and 1970 we face a great deal of structural changes, and redundancy of many workers of different types due to structural changes. That is something which happens in all developing and dynamic economies. It will be, I think, somewhat more widespread and somewhat more harsh here than in many other countries, because in our economy a certain distortion has developed as a result of somewhat wrongheaded economic policies in the past. These structural changes in employment must be taken as coming, and they must be planned for. We must really settle down to the problem of planning for the redundancy which is inevitable.

In this country we very badly need an agreed policy on severance pay, on notices in regard to redundancy, and on such matters as retraining and settlement. A little bit of policy here and there just will not do the job. What we want is a completely integrated policy which will facilitate innovations and reconversions by providing specifically for those affected. Such a policy would command a very wide measure of support, I am convinced, from the trade unions and the employers. It is the duty of the Government to produce such a scheme which will be fully co-ordinated, a scheme capable of standing on its own right and doing the job. If the Government fail in that regard there will be a very grave danger that the whole Second Programme will fail, that it will falter long before the year 1970 is reached, and that when 1970 comes the target will not be reached.

I hope there will be a speedy end to talk on this matter. As I said, I consider it was a blunder on the part of the Government that a manpower policy was not part of the Second Programme from the very beginning, that there was not provision for it in the original document in regard to that Programme. I sincerely hope for the sake of the economy, and of the country as a whole, that it will not be necessary to return to this topic when this of the branches, you will find social debate takes place 12 months from now.

The subjects to be discussed in this debate are rather narrow. Although the Bill deals with finance, we are not allowed to deal with taxation, with the Budget, or with the borrowing or raising of money. I may say, in passing, that these various topics have been touched upon in the debate in the other House, and we were told there would be a deficit this year and that, therefore, new taxation would be necessary. I realise that if I were to raise these matters here I would be promptly ruled out of order. Therefore, I propose to confine my remarks to some aspects of the spending rather than the raising of public money. I do not wish to say a great deal, but there are some outstanding features in the Estimates which were published this morning, and of which we were given a preliminary view on the Vote on Account on which this debate is really based.

The outstanding feature of public expenditure in this country is that it has been rising, that it is rising, and that it will continue to rise. The Estimate for the Supply Services, without making any distinction between capital and current services, is substantially greater than last year. There is no question at all that, by the time the Budget is introduced, it will probably have increased more and that certainly, by the time the financial year has run its course, as a result of supplementary estimates, the total expenditure of 1965-66 will be substantially in excess of that estimated for the year or realised in the current financial year. That is unquestionable. It is admitted by the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance, and by everyone who has dealt with the subject.

I do not want to give the impression of being a person who is always nagging at the Government because of increased expenditure. I accept that increased expenditure in modern times is a necessary part of progress. I think the general progress of the country has been very satisfactory on the whole. In the course of the past year production has risen, the prices of most things have risen, expert opinions we get in various types of publications dealing with these matters—and they are becoming more and more numerous—the prospect for the present year is a bright one unless something should happen in the international world to interfere with our prospects. Therefore, I have no intention of nagging at the Government for increased public expenditure.

Increased public expenditure is not peculiar to Ireland. It is a common feature in many other countries in the world. It is present in all the international statistics and, therefore, a certain amount of increased public expenditure is to be expected here. I think, however, that one can legitimately draw attention to the fact that public expenditure is rising more rapidly than national income. That share of the national income which is taken in one form or another by the public authorities is tending to rise. There has been so much debate about these figures that I do not wish to commit myself to any particular figure, but it seems to be generally agreed that growth in the national income last year was about four per cent. If the picture which I presented of public expenditure prospects for this year is to be realised, public expenditure will increase at a more rapid rate than that.

Therefore, the amount and the percentage of the national income taken by the public authorities will tend to grow. That, I think, is the first thing that stands out from the Estimates and from the discussions that have taken place on this matter in the Dáil and elsewhere. I want to make a point here which I have made time and time again. I am afraid that I am repeating things that I have said before but, perhaps, they need to be repeated. The point is that one must draw a distinction between the individual items on which public money is spent and the total expenditure of the Government. Each individual item can be justified, taken in isolation. If it is taken in isolation it is very difficult to argue that it should be decreased. If you run through the various branches, or some exports have risen, and the population has ceased to fall. Judging by the services, pensions for the old and disabled, allowances for the unemployed, relief of unemployment in one form or another, education at all levels from primary up to university, expenditure to increase agricultural productivity, expenditure to relieve agricultural rates, expenditure to strenghten farmers' incomes to bring them in line with those of other people. Each one of those expenditures can be justified, and, if it were to be debated as these are debated in the Dáil individually, it would be very difficult to argue against any of them.

Then there are other types of public expenditure which are increasing through no desire of the Government. The Government are under pressure like any other employer who has to pay higher costs and higher wages and salaries to an ever growing number of public servants. One could not possibly argue that public servants should not get the same rate of increase as employees in other types of employment.

Taking each individual item, it would be very difficult to argue against the increases that have taken place, but when we take them as a whole the total is rather alarming.

All these various matters which I have mentioned are matters that have been mentioned by the Minister in the Dáil. On reading the Dáil debates, one finds that although the Opposition were objecting to the general total of the Estimates, there were very few concrete suggestions made for reductions in any particular direction; in fact, the general impression one gets on reading the debates is that Members were objecting to increased expenditure and at the same time were all pressing for increased services. I do not wish to do that here and I do not think the Seanad ought to do it. It is contradictory.

The fact of the matter is that a certain amount of increased expenditure is inevitable. It is a sign of the times. Some of it is forced on the Government without any choice of their own.

Having said that, I should like to pass to a more general aspect of the situation, and that is that, if public expenditure increases at a time when private expenditure is also increasing in the country, as it is, the result of those two increases together is shown in a deficit in the balance of payments. A deficit in the balance of payments is an index or a signal that shows that the country as a whole is consuming more than it is producing. We have had, as Senator Dooge has said, deficits in the balance of payments for some years. They have been increasing. They are allowed for in the Second Programme, but they are not allowed for to the extent to which they have been increasing.

I do not wish to go into the question of the balance of payments on this debate because I do not think it is strictly relevant. I may, however, say that public opinion in this country and opinion in Parliament has been fulled, perhaps, to some extent into a certain amount of false security regarding the balance of payments owing to the fact that drastic measures to correct the deficit have not been taken, owing to the fact that external reserves have been increasing and, therefore, our position of international liquidity has not been affected so far by the increases in the balance of payments deficit.

What I wish to do is to relate this subject to the subject of this debate and come back to the point I made a moment ago, that where one finds in a country a persistent and increasing deficit that means that that country, one way or another, is spending more than it is producing, that its consumption is greater than its production, and that it is only a matter of time until that condition has to be corrected in the long run.

We are now dealing with a matter which is very much discussed at the moment in the neighbouring island. It is impossible to pick up any informed newspaper now without reading a discussion of how the British balance of payments is to be taken out of deficit. There is this general agreement, I think, that the only satisfactory method in the long run is to increase exports. That, of course, is equally true here, but it takes time. It may be necessary in the short run, pending the desirable increase in exports, to cut down in some way or another expenditure at home, in other words to operate a slightly or, perhaps, in some cases a severely deflationary policy.

The point I want to make about that is that, if there is to be a reduction in expenditure, it may be partly a reduction in public expenditure and partly a reduction in private expenditure, but that a reduction in public expenditure is very much more under the Government's control. If there is to be a reduction of expenditure in the country the Government have the first responsibility to see that public expenditure is not running to an excessive height, because a reduction in private expenditure can be a very painful process. In this country it would involve setting back the progress of the Second Programme; it would possibly reduce the standard of living of the people; it could easily cause unemployment and possibly emigration. Therefore, anything in the nature of a reduction in private expenditure has got the painful consequences that always flow from deflationary measures.

That is my main ground for criticising in, I hope, a reasonable manner the increasing growth of public expenditure. As I said, the fraction of the national income taken by public expenditure is growing year by year, and, at a time when the country is by the accepted criteria living beyond its means, a time may come when it may be necessary to do something deflationary to prevent the inflation which undoubtedly is being produced by this combination of high public and private expenditure. Since public expenditure is so much more under Government control than private expenditure the Government have a duty to scrutinise all additional expenditure very carefully, and certainly to avoid anything which can be postponed and is not necessary at the moment.

I am trying to be reasonable in this debate, and I admit that a good deal of the growth in public expenditure is imposed on the Government through no fault of their own. The Government, like every other large purchaser in the country of goods and services and like every other large employer, find prices, wages and salaries rising, and, therefore, to some extent the Government are the victims of circumstances and really do not deserve to be criticised.

I think it is only fair to point out that the Government can help in this upward movement of prices. They may be to some extent responsible for rising costs and prices by imposing the sort of taxation that may lead to rises in salaries and wages and in that way putting up prices on the other employers which sooner or later result in putting up prices on the Government and bringing about an increase in public expenditure. I simply want to repeat in this matter what Senator Dooge has said, namely, that a successful policy of progress which avoids inflation does necessitate a stable level of costs and prices. It is one of the great unsolved problems in the world today, really, whether any free democratic country can have progress without inflation. It is a problem which is arising in different forms in every country in the world. Some countries are going ahead, having progressed and increased employment, but sooner or later find themselves getting into inflation. Other countries, in order to avoid the evils of inflation, are pursuing cautious deflationary policies, with the result that their progress is not as fast as they would like it to be. We have a Second Programme for Economic Expansion which cannot successfully be pursued except against a background of reasonably stable prices and costs.

The principal object of Government policy should be to prevent prices and costs from rising insofar as they can do so and certainly to refrain from doing anything that could have the effect of raising the costs or prices themselves. It is only fair to refer to the assistance which the Government are getting from certain voluntary organisations in this matter, some of which themselves do receive a certain amount of State assistance: The Irish National Productivity Committee and the Irish Management Institute are two bodies mentioned by the Minister in the debate in the Dáil on the Vote on Account. They are only two of the many bodies in this country which are working for greater efficiency in industry. In the last few years, there has been quite a remarkable development in this field. A number of new institutes are now working and the joint result of all their activities is greatly to increase the efficiency of Irish industry and agriculture at different points and therefore to keep down costs of production and help to stabilise prices.

This maintenance of comparative stability in costs and prices—I say "comparative" because I think absolute stability perhaps is too much to hope for—is particularly important in this country at the present time. For one thing, we are pursuing a planned Programme extending to 1970. As Senator Dooge has already said, the success of that programme depends on having stable prices and an incomes policy and a manpower policy. That is quite unquestionable. The reason I say it is so important in this country is that our programme depends to a greater extent than that of most countries on increasing the volume of exports. In the last few years, the volume of exports has been greatly increased. The whole export picture in Ireland is quite different from what it used to be, but it is very necessary that nothing should be allowed to happen to impede its progress in the future especially at a time when the outside world is in such a disturbed condition. We have the British surcharge—a sudden difficulty which nobody could possibly have foreseen and which, even at its reduced level, makes the export of manufactures more difficult. Great Britain itself is generally thought to be pursuing a deflationary policy. It is generally thought that the Budget will be deflationary rather than inflationary. That means a reduction in the British demand for imports of all kinds from all over the world and that intensifies competition in the Bri- tish Market and makes it more than ever necessary that countries like ourselves should be able to keep our costs down and compete on equal terms without our competitors.

Since the British surcharge, there has been a very keen search for alternative markets. Irish exports are now being advised by the Government and, it is only fair to say, assisted by the Government to find alternative markets. But penetration into alternative markets depends on being able to sell at competitive prices and competitive prices depend on keeping down rising costs, rising wages, which have undoubtedly been appearing in the last couple of years.

I entirely endorse what Senator Dooge has said about the necessity for an incomes policy and a manpower policy. I think the two are intimately related. An incomes policy is impossible in the absence of a manpower policy because an incomes policy depends to a large extent on the most intelligent employment of labour, placing labour at the point of maximum productivity and the avoidance of redundancy and of unemployment. All that is intimately allied with manpower policy. Therefore, I suggest that the first condition of progress in this country is reasonably stable costs and prices and that that should always be in the mind of the Government when they are considering further expenditures. As I said earlier the general level of costs and prices is to some extent affected—not entirely, of course—by the level of Government expenditure. A rise in Government expenditure which is not compensated by an equivalent reduction in private expenditure can have inflationary effects and this will tend to raise prices in the country. Therefore, I shall end what I have to say on this subject. I hope I have not repeated myself too much, but it is so important that it must be emphasised and that is that the first condition of successful public expenditure is that it should be non-inflationary in the sense that it does not push up the level of costs and prices.

The second condition of successful public expenditure by which a Book of Estimates can be judged, is, to what extent expenditure is productive, using "productive" in a very wide sense. I do not mean that every piece of public expenditure should directly be productive in itself because a great deal of it is in its very essence of a social and re-distributive character. Some of the matters I mentioned already—the relief of poverty, the relief of old age, the relief of unemployment, the education of young children—these are things which re-distribute the national income rather than tend to increase it.

It is very important to remember that the possibilities of social expenditure of this kind, which is universally welcomed by everybody, depend on the volume of production in the country: if the volume of production in the country does not rise, desirable increases in social expenditure are out of the question. The amount of the national cake that can be cut and distributed equally to the different elements of society depends on the size of the cake itself, and the size of the cake in this case depends to a large extent on Government policy.

A great deal of Government expenditure is directly productive. Obviously, it does not require to be shown that expenditure which improves efficiency in agriculture, expenditure that increases the quality of the country's livestock, that improves the efficiency of industry, that improves the efficiency of workers in industry through vocational education are all productive. Expenditure aimed at increasing the tourist industry, one of our most important export trades, is also productive.

Government expenditure which is directly productive is an investment: just as a businessman's investment of his savings in his own business is productive, so is Government expenditure on the development of the nation's resources. Therefore, a great deal of Government expenditure is productive. However, a great deal of Government expenditure, though productive in the long term, imposes a burden on the community from the short term viewpoint. There is a great deal of Government expenditure which takes a long time to fructify, to mature.

The best example of this is expenditure on education, apart from vocational education. Education increases the efficiency of production of the next generation of workers and it may be many years before the fruits are reaped. Meanwhile, expenditure of that kind imposes a burden on the existing generation, a burden which must take the form either of additional taxation or additional debt which, in turn, imposes a burden of taxation in respect of the interest to meet the debt.

What I am saying is all very obvious. Perhaps it is unnecessary to have to say it but I am trying to clarify thought on the subject. A great deal of Government expenditure is productive and requires no justification. Some of the other expenditure is indirectly productive because, possibly in a generation, the national income will increase as a result. Meanwhile, that expenditure has to be paid for in the only way Government expenditure can be paid for—through taxation or borrowing.

I think it is clear beyond argument that the progress of the nation in the long run depends on a great deal of public expenditure of the sort I have described. Especially in respect of education, it is a very good investment even if the present generation may not reap the fruits of it. It is, therefore, illogical for Senators to press for further services of this kind, for further education and other such facilities and to object to the expenditure at the time it is made. These are essential matters and it is inconsistent and shows a wrong point of view to seek the services and quarrel at paying the cost of them.

I should like to return to a point I made already. It is very much easier to suggest reducing expenditure as a whole than to point to any direction in which expenditure should be reduced. It is very easy for Senators to say that too much money is being spent by the Government, but, if they are asked on what particular service they would reduce expenditure, it is really rather difficult for them to mention one. I agree that in other countries it might be easier: in Great Britain at the moment there could be a considerable reduction on defence. In a country like this, however, where expenditure on defence is moderate, I do not think there is very much room for reduction there. Any other reduction immediately meets opposition of all fronts.

What I have been trying to say to the Minister is that, though public expenditure is rising, that though when it is rising more rapidly than national income it can have inflationary consequences, it is easier to complain that it is rising than to suggest particular reductions. The greater part of public expenditure in this country is either directly or indirectly productive and will do the country good in the long run. The real test of any piece of public expenditure is, first of all, whether it is within the means of the nation—can we afford it. It is just like the case of an ordinary individual who has to consider when buying a new car whether it is something he can afford.

Assuming that that is satisfactorily answered, the next question is whether the expenditure is properly directed. By that I mean whether it is productive in the very broadest sense in which I have been using that word. Is it likely to increase the national income, in the short run if possible, but at least in the long run? Is it productive in that sense? Thirdly, is it economically administered, or does it involve a lot of administrative costs that may more than outweigh the benefits of the expenditure? It seems to me that public expenditure aimed at developing the resources of the nation, which is productively directed and economically administered, can be justified.

In other words, what I am trying to say is that public expenditure of the right kind can succeed in producing the wealth which will enable it to be paid for. That is why merely to carp at increases in the Estimate in any year seems to be a rather negative procedure. It is preferable to analyse the consequences of the increased expenditure, to consider its effects on productivity and to ask whether it is economically administered.

As I said before, it is very important to avoid inflation, and public expenditure when it is aimed merely at raising the demand without cutting down demand in any other direction can mean inflation. It is also important that expenditure as far as possible should be directed towards the increase in the national income rather than towards its redistribution. We should increase the size of the cake rather than increase the number of people who are going to get a slice of an old cake of the same size.

It seems to me these are the questions that arise on this debate and as I have delayed the House long enough I propose to finish with one further remark. I wish to agree with Senator Dooge that the new tax-free loan is an admirable idea. Certain people in certain circumstances are more concerned with capital appreciation than current income and a loan of this kind should be cheap to the Government. They avoid paying interest on it and it will be very much appreciated by certain types of investors.

As Senator Dooge pointed out, it seems to indicate that the Minister is not thinking along the lines of capital gains tax. Instead of threatening to take away capital gains from people he is making suggestions for giving capital gains to them. To that extent, the new proposed loan is, from my point of view, wholly admirable.

The debate on the Central Fund Bill in recent years has tended to be concerned with our economic development. Perhaps, that is a very welcome thing. It seems to me, however, that we are inclined to get the matter out of perspective. The impression is being created that the economic development of the country can only be achieved by one political Party, that it is the sole responsibility and to the credit of that political Party, and the other people or voluntary associations, and so on, have no function or real responsibility in the matter.

However, we should attempt to put the matter into perspective. It is true that for a decade or so now there has been an increasing awareness in western European countries of the desirability of a conscious planning for the development of the economy of the various countries. It has become more feasible to engage in a plan to do that. There has been the acceptance that it is itself a very desirable thing. The Ministerial Council of the OECD at their meeting in December, 1961 adopted a target of a growth rate for the OECD countries as a whole of 50 per cent in the decade 1960 to 1970. What we have been doing in this country and rightly so, is attempting to comply with that target and trying to live up to the progress made by other western European countries.

The Programme on which we have been working has been the product of the best brains in the country, largely in the Civil Service. It is not a political document. It is not something which one political Party devised or thought about and produced and in which no other Political Party had any hand, act, or part, or could implement. That, of course, is not true and it is not to the credit of any political Party to attempt to give the impression, that, for example, a change of Government would mean a change or fall-back in the economic development of this country.

That is not so and I think the point was well made in an article in the Sunday Press last Sunday by Mr. Lynch. At least that is the impression I got from reading his article. The Government certainly have a function in regard to the economic development of the country. Their function is largely one of taking the necessary legislative action. I heard something this afternoon of their failure in relation to certain aspects of it, namely, bringing forth a manpower policy. Their function, therefore, is to popularise the idea of planning, programming and developing our economy and making the development growth in our economy a good thing as such.

I acknowledge the Government have been very successful in this. They certainly have been very good at popularising the growth in the economy by getting various sections of the community to work together. When things go wrong Governments are always blamed. Now that things in this respect are going reasonably well, the Government are right in claiming credit but the credit should be in perspective. They have done their job of popularising the aims for development of the economy by getting the various sections of the community to work towards that end. They have been successful in that.

I think we should also put into perspective the progress made. Again, the impression has been given that what has been happening here is unique and that we have been more successful than other countries in the progress we are undoubtedly making.

Senators will, I am sure, have seen the bulletin of the OECD—Observer. In the February issue of this bulletin we have figures which, I think, put the situation into some perspective for us. We have set out for the various countries in the OECD the growth of real GNP over previous years. Let us look and see what the position is.

The growth of the GNP in Ireland for the year 1963-64 was, in fact, the third lowest of all the countries at 4.5 per cent. It is a good figure in itself. Other figures are: Austria, 6 per cent; Belgium, 5 per cent; Canada, 6 per cent; Denmark is not shown; France, 5.1 per cent; Federal Republic of Germany, 6.2 per cent—Greece is not available nor is Iceland—Japan, 9.5 per cent; Netherlands, 5.5 per cent; Norway, 6 per cent; Sweden, 6.2 per cent; Switzerland, 5.9 per cent; United States, 4.8 per cent. There are two countries which did even worse than Ireland in this matter and they are, Italy, which as we all know is going through a severe economic crisis, and the United Kingdom with 4.3 per cent compared with Ireland's 4.5 per cent.

I think none of us will attempt to argue that Great Britain was doing very well in that period and it does not seem as if it is doing very well yet. We have a situation where we are making progress. That progress is good. It is welcome, but, in relation to the progress made by the other OECD countries, it is relatively poor and it is not good enough. I think the idea is that we, in this matter, are probably starting relatively late. In other words, other countries were improving and developing their economy at a reasonable rate when we were not even thinking about it or before we drew up any plan, programme, put our hands to the plough or consciously developed the economy of the country. If my impression is right it seems to me that is all the more reason why we should be making even more rapid progress than these other countries if we want to make up the leeway. That, of course, must also be related to the still high unemployment figure in this country which, I believe, at 6 per cent, is the highest in western Europe.

I referred to the function and the responsibility of other bodies, apart from the Government, in regard to achieving this aim of development of our national economy. Being a representative of the trade unions, I consider that I should make reference to the part played by the trade union movement. It can be fairly asserted that trade union policy over the years has operated greatly for the benefit of the economy. It has exerted pressure to have increased wages granted to workers. It has increased the spending power of the community. We cannot depart from this matter without referring—as I am sure other Senators will do—to the recent national agreement on wages and salaries, the ninth round, the famous 12 per cent. The impression has been given, and I rather gathered from what the Minister said he is of the same view, that the increase in prices has been caused by the 12 per cent increase in respect of wage and salary earners.

That simply is not the whole truth and if we insist on this we are only bringing more trouble down on our heads. In actual fact, the increase in the cost of living has been far more than can be in any way explained by the 12 per cent increase in wages and salaries. There is one point which should be made clear right away. The trade unions, in securing agreement to this national recommendation, were conscious that there was bound to be some effect on prices. None of us was so blase as to suppose that CIE could pay a 12 per cent increase in wages without having to adjust their rates and fares. There are certain services which cannot absorb such an increase without there being an effect on prices.

That is agreed by everybody. If the full effect of the 12 per cent were passed on to increased prices, without any attempt being made to absorb them by way of improved efficiency, it is reckoned that the effect on the consumer price index would be about 4 per cent. That figure was brought out by Mr. Garret FitgGerald in an article in the Irish Times some months ago. He estimated that if the 12 per cent increase in wages were in most cases passed on by way of increased prices, the effect on the consumer price index would be in the region of 4 per cent. The cost of living has gone up. The consumer price index has gone up. The latest available figures are for November, 1964. The index then stood at 175, an increase of 10 points since February, 1964, the time when the 12 per cent increase was being implemented. That increase in the consumer price index of 10 points is roughly 6 per cent.

If we examine the figures we find that about 3 per cent, half of the 6 per cent, was due to the effect of the ninth round. There is another factor which must be taken into account. The national agreement envisaged a period of relative stability in wages and salaries of two and a half years. In other words, it was to operate, without any further increase, for two and a half years. When the 12 per cent was given it was bound to affect prices to a relatively limited extent. Productivity continues to increase and it was reasonable to suppose that the price level would even off and after the first impact on prices there would be a fair increase and we could reasonably expect—we would be surprised if it happened—that prices would begin to decrease a little. I do not expect in the next 12 months that prices will drop. I would be very surprised if they did.

I want to make this point very strongly not alone to the Minister but to others who have responsibility or influence in the matter that the increase in the cost of living has already taken place, even though the full period of the national recommendation on salaries and wages has not been covered. We have already experienced an increase in the cost of living appropriate to the whole period of the national agreement. Certainly, the trade unions, in agreeing to this recommendation, did not bind themselves hand and foot and did not say: "We bind ourselves for two and a half years and everybody else can do what they like about prices in the meantime. We will suffer on until the two and a half years period is finished."

There was a provision written into the agreement that in the event of very exceptional circumstances arising during the period covered by the recommendation such circumstances should be considered by the national employer-labour conference. We are all experienced enough to know that if you say you want such a meeting to consider the exceptional circumstances the net result will be there must be another round of wage and salary increases. I say, quite consciously and seriously, to the Minister and to all concerned, that if they do not want that to happen, then prices in the coming 12 months should not be allowed to increase.

If prices increase more in the next 12 months the trade unions will be put in the position where they will have to take steps under this national recommendation. We would all be in a fool's paradise if we assumed that things will go along like this for the full period of the national agreement and that the trade unions will tie themselves not to do anything to protect the interests of their members. It would be fair to say that trade unions would very much regret upsetting the national recommendation. I hope the Minister by his policies in other matters, will not compel the trade unions to take that action.

To come back to the other aspects of the national recommendation on salaries and wages. I think it would be fair to say again that there is no evidence that it has damaged the economy, that it has in any way interfered with the planned development of our economy. Productivity has continued to increase. I have not got the figures readily available, but I think last year productivity increased at a higher than usual rate. There is no evidence that the impact of the 12 per cent upset the economy. It had some effect on wages. We accepted and acknowledged at the time that that was bound to be so, but it does not explain, or in any way justify, the increase in the cost of living which has taken place in the past eight months. We have not yet got the figure for February, 1965, but I should imagine it would show an increase over the November figure of 175.

I think it is also fair to say that the impact of the national recommendation has not affected profits. Our calculations show that profits have increased, that they have increased, in fact, by more than 12 per cent. Recently I got some quotations from the weekly journal Business and Finance which I should like to give the House. “Excellent results have come from...”“Net profits have soared from £94,000 to a best-ever £119,000.”“Record profits are reported by... much to the surprise and delight of many...”“A cheerful report comes from...”“With the issue of a capital bonus by ...comes news of yet another record advance in profits.”“The profits of ...show a jump of around 50 per cent.”“Sparkling results and a big increase in dividend were announced by...”“Brilliant results are reported by...” Senator McGuire may think I am complaining. I am not. I am simply recording the fact that profits have continued to increase, and our estimate is that they have gone up by more than 12 per cent.

We are, however, may I repeat, very worried about prices, very worried indeed. Responsibility in this matter rests largely with the Government. Other parties are involved but the Government must take strong conscious action on the question of prices.

I made a passing reference to manpower. All I can do after what Senator Dooge has said is support him.

We are still awaiting this manpower policy. There is a report of the Irish National Productivity Committee, and of the National Industrial and Economic Council dealing with this matter, and a policy decision is still awaited from the Government. We have the unwelcome situation that unemployment is still relatively high. It is higher here than it is in other western European countries. We still have some emigration. I welcome the fact that it has decreased, but there are other parts of our economy where there is an actual labour shortage in some areas and some industries. This matter of a manpower policy is in the lap of the Government. I agree wholeheartedly with other Senators that this is a matter of urgency, and it is so regarded by the trade union movement.

In approaching this debate on Government policy we are at a slight disadvantage because it was only this morning that we got the Estimates for Public Services for 1965-66. Consequently, it is very hard at such short notice to find in the Book of Estimates the real indications of Government policy we are seeking, and also to try to correlate these items with the items in the previous year. Due to the intervention of subsidiary estimates, and so on, it is difficult to gauge exactly the amount of the increase.

I think we can agree with Senator O'Brien that the past year was a relatively prosperous one. We should not delude ourselves into being too complacent about that prosperity, because by and large half of the increased prosperity of the past year was due to a windfall—the increase of at least 20 per cent in the price of cattle. Agricultural incomes have gone up by 16 per cent, or to a gross of more than £30 million. Of course, that is very welcome, but we cannot expect that it will continue in the future. In fact, we should be very thankful if in the coming year agricultural prices on foreign markets remain at their present level. When that £30 million is run through our economy it boosts it to almost £50 million. In reckoning the increase that has taken place over the past year in the gross national product, we have to put £50 million to that windfall. We hope that continues, but we shall have to seek much deeper for the real indicators.

Another feature last year was the imposition of the British levy. While that hurt us to a slight extent, I think it was timely and had a salutary effect on the country, because it gave us a reason for the "Buy Irish Campaign" which was badly needed, and which will have an effect on the economy as a whole, and on the thinking of our people, that will more than compensate us for whatever had to be paid out under the levy during the year. Those are all positive things, and I think we can face the future with qualified optimism.

I shall not give the figures which were given by Senator Murphy. He gave them very well, and they teach us a lesson. The lesson is simple. The lesson is that we are going along at slightly below the average of the European pace of expansion. There is nothing to be complacent about in that picture. Of course, such figures must be interpreted properly. Because we have such a large agricultural sector, it is more difficult for us, in a period of booming industrial expansion in Europe, to keep pace with the European average figure than it is for other countries who are less dependent on agriculture. We achieved it this past year due to the windfall of price increases, but our agriculture cannot make that contribution in the coming period, and, consequently, we will find it more difficult in the coming year to maintain our position in the European expansion programme.

Senator Murphy has quite rightly pointed out the fact that this programme of development is the product of the best brains in the country harnessed together in effect, like the CIO and the product of our Civil Service, the best brains in the country completely on a non-political basis. Consequently, while the Government in power may take a certain amount of credit it would be wrong for them to claim that it is the political and not the scientific and economic approach that has produced the present reasonably satisfactory position. It is also very wrong to suggest that the country is not capable of putting up another team of men again if the necessity arises to take command of the same Civil Service and scientific machinery and thinking and continue that expansion and keep it going in the European framework. Of course it is Any group of politicians that suggest otherwise are doing a disservice to the country. The country should very quickly see through that, that one Minister at the head of a Department cannot make all the difference. It is the quality of the men in the Department that counts, and the quality of the scientific backing and liaison they develop throughout the community. That is all that counts. The only other prerequisite is one we should all readily agree on, that no politician should at any time voluntarily do anything to damage the prosperity of the country.

Every political party has a vested interest in seeing that the economic progress is maintained as well as possible during its period and, consequently, has a vested interest in paying attention to the best advice it can get from the experts and acting accordingly. It is only in that spirit that we can think of planning as an aid to development in the future, a planning that recognises that the one essential ingredient is that scientific thinking and scientific method should be fully exploited and the relevant figures should be got as quickly as possible so that we can gauge our indicators and take action before any damage is done by outside circumstances. If we do that, then we should be able to continue the momentum and to meet our targets as set out in the Second Programme.

In getting on from this we have the fact that we have many lacks at present. Senator Dooge has rightly stressed the lack of a manpower policy. I wish to be a little more specific on a few aspects of that, because a manpower policy in this country has to begin with a manpower policy for agriculture, and that is conspicuous by its absence. We have only a policy of drift, drift, and still more drift. Agriculture complacently accepts the drift of 65,000 in this decade or a loss of 6,000 or 7,000 a year off the land. That is a manpower policy of despair, and I appeal to the Minister and to the Government to right that as a first priority for any manpower policy.

Again, we have the question of a manpower policy in education. We find in the Second Programme that the Government are committed to raising the school-leaving age and to providing greater educational facilities, but so far there is no evidence, as far as I can see, of a manpower policy to produce the teachers required for this very highly desirable and necessary expansion. The Government should tackle that as a first priority. You cannot produce teachers overnight. It requires at least a three to four years degree course followed by one year training in educational methods to produce a teacher. The Government estimate that over the next five years they are going to need some 60,000 additional places in our secondary schools, accepting a pupil-teacher ratio of 15 to one. Even at less than that, at 20 to one, it requires 3,000 teachers, without at all referring to the other problem of increasing the number of teachers in the present classes so as to reduce the number of pupils per teacher to a reasonable average.

I believe that all our schemes for increased vocational and secondary education are going to founder on that rock. I appeal to the Government to get into urgent consultation immediately with the universities and with the teacher training colleges to see how can this real emergency be faced, because it it a far greater emergency than even the emergency which the Government are now tackling, of trying to step up the number of new schools and replacements of old and outdated buildings.

The Estimates, as far as I can judge from very quick perusal, seem to indicate a step in the right direction in education. I was, however, very disappointed in regard to the Estimate for the universities. In turning to this Estimate, to which naturally I went first, I found an increase of 25 per cent, and I thought that this was a real step forward, but I was slightly disillusioned when I dropped in to the Library and emerged with the Estimates for the previous year, to find that the increase did not include the recent supplementary increase for the 12 per cent, so that, consequently, the effective increase was only in the order of half that. That is not good enough. That is a policy that is not calculated to meet the university problem and put the universities in a position to make the contribution they can and should make to our educational and industrial development. It makes us envious to look across the Border and see how our sister institution in Queen's University, Belfast, is treated. I have appealed to the Government again and again to recognise the fact that by any standard we can produce our universities have less than half the expenditure per student that is considered necessary in Northern Ireland and in the small countries in Europe to produce a university graduate.

I have asked for a policy aimed at closing this gap. We do not want to close it overnight, because we, too, have a manpower difficulty. We cannot produce university teachers overnight, but we want to close that gap in a measurable time and I ask the Government to at least give us a five or seven year policy aimed at closing that gap. If you close it in seven years, it means that, under that heading, you have to include a minimum of 15 per cent increase just to catch up on it and, of course, that will never be sufficient because our rivals will not stand still for the seven years while we are catching up. Therefore, we have to catch up and, at the same time, we have to progress along with them. We must face the fact that the Government, if they are to develop our universities to their proper place, will have to spend far more than they are spending at the moment. Perhaps the report of the Commission may bring that home in more concrete terms.

I welcome in this the indication that at last the green light has been given to the building programme for our University in Cork which is long overdue. It will act as a great tonic to our staff to see that there is a substantial item in order to get that programme under way. That is worthwhile. I can assure the Minister and the Government that University College, Cork, will not be found wanting in the return it will give for that.

I also wish to congratulate the Government on the very substantial step forward they have taken in respect of the grants to the Agricultural Institute and to the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. These two bodies have a very important role to play in our development. I welcome the implications that the Government are putting the funds at their disposal to enable them to do that.

Now we come to the neglected member of our community, that is, our sister College in Maynooth, a recognised College of the National University. There, we find that they have not even been given the 12 per cent. Their estimate stands at the very same figure of £27,500 as it stood this time 12 months ago so apparently the 12 per cent is not to apply to them. Neither is there any provision for their expansion. If the Government are concerned with maintaining and developing the reputation of our university institutions abroad and with doing that through the work of our university members, nowhere in the university system will it get the same return per £ spent as in the long-neglected College of Maynooth. There, some of the outstanding philosophers of our time are working away, as far as I know, without the amount of clerical assistance that would be regarded as absolutely necessary in modern times. They are just toiling and working away, like the monks of old, almost with quill pens. That is something no Irish Government should be proud of. I welcome the increase the Government have rightly given to Trinity College, Dublin, under this heading Secular Education, but why give to Trinity College, Dublin, and not give to Maynooth? I appeal very strongly on behalf of this long-neglected member of our community.

The Estimate as it stands calls for an additional £20 million increase. I agree with Senator O'Brien that we cannot have increases in the items we welcome without making provision for them. Of the £20 million, probably the buoyancy for the next year will amount to about £10 million but there will be a sizeable gap to be bridged. In bridging that gap of about £10 million, and so on, it is about time the Government made the unmarried section of our community make a proper and adequate contribution to taxation.

We find all over the country those mammoth dance halls completely tax free. I appeal to the Government to get some of their funds for education out of a proper and legitimate tax on these. We read of the colossal figures paid to dance bands, and all the rest, and, all the while, not one copper is deposited in the Exchequer from these buildings. It is about time that were righted. Also, on several of the other items that are used in large quantities by the junior or the unmarried members of our community, the Minister could well look at those items to make an important contribution towards closing the gap. I have in mind minerals, and so on. It is only right that the contribution should come from here.

I am afraid I find myself in disagreement with my other two university colleagues on the question of a capital gains tax. I am afraid I cannot see anything wrong with that. I read of these immense capital gains made in takeover bids, and so on. I cannot see why the Minister for Finance has not his representative standing there, too.

I made no comment on the merits of a capital gains tax.

I do not think the Senator was in favour of it, as far as I could see. As well as closing the gap, we have to cast eyes on what appear to be certain extravagances in the Book. The Government would be well advised to come back to reality in the question of the heifer scheme. The spending of £3½ million on that in the coming year is unnecessary. I do not think the Government should have faced the level of expenditure on it this year until they had made a spot check on what happened to the heifers on which the £3 million was spent last year. If they had made a spot check they would have found many of the heifers looking out at them from cans and that is not the purpose for which the money was spent. I know, also, that the scheme was exploited in a very wrong way by some very large landowners.

The relief of agricultural rates grant of about £3 million is a very sizeable item and is spent rather wastefully. I am not quarrelling with the amount but the Government should use this money as a real incentive to promote efficiency and increased production in agriculture. In other words, it should go to those who are increasing production rather than be given on a flat relief basis as it is given today. I have in mind, in particular, that a great deal of this should have been set aside by the Government for the purpose of increasing the employment allowances on agricultural land. Only by increasing the numbers working on the land and by making it possible to pay them a proper wage can we get real production and stable conditions in agriculture. The Government would be well advised to heed the very timely words of the Most Reverend Dr. Birch in this regard and to come to the aid of the agricultural workers in our community before they become as rare as Red Indians in Manhattan Island.

I cannot understand the logic by which the Government so easily incur those huge losses on the Cyprus affair simply because they disagree with the method by which the United Nations are raising the funds on a voluntary basis. Voluntary basis or non-voluntary basis, whichever it is, we are making our contribution and should accept whatever we can get out of the United Nations in that respect. I should much prefer to see the £1 million or whatever the amount is taken by the Government and allocated towards helping our exiles, especially in England, and there to develop centres in London and the other large cities. Many times in this House and elsewhere pleas have been made to come to the aid of these people and at all times the Government have washed their hands of the matter and said: "There are so many organisations involved that it is impossible to find whom to deal with. Nothing can be done." That attitude is wrong and the quicker we can recover these sums owed to us by the UN the sooner can we aid our exiles and the better for all of us.

I welcome the grants to such voluntary bodies as the ICA, Muintir na Tíre, Macra na Feirme and others. When it comes to the spending of money the Government must have a clear idea of what it costs a voluntary body to run its business. Grants being provided amount only to £4,000 or £5,000. I can assure the Government they would get real returns if they stepped up considerably the assistance given to voluntary organisations. Far too many of the efforts of such organisations and of their staffs have to be devoted to raising funds. It would be better if those efforts could be devoted to service to the members of the organisations concerned.

Looking through the Book of Estimates, I note there is not any real advance in the amount allocated to the Land Commission for the carrying out of their work. That seems rather strange, coming so soon after the Land Bill and especially in view of the fact that the price of land has increased considerably in the past year and is likely to continue to increase in the next 12 months. Of course, that merely highlights the fact that it is beyond the resources of the Government to spend the large sums necessary to put through the kind of schemes the Government were speaking of during the passage of the Land Bill. They have got to come back to the advice given by the Agricultural Institute and by every agricultural instructor: "Forget about buying land. It is too costly. Give the people the tools to build upwards on the land they have got." The Government will find that a cheaper and much more efficient way of improving agriculture than by any other approach.

I welcome, in reviewing the past 12 months, the improved relations with the Northern Ireland Government. It is a source of real joy to all that such a spirit of co-operation seems to be getting under way and that we can begin planning on that basis. I think the time has come to do something we have not done in the past—to harmonise the laws here with the corresponding laws in Northern Ireland in the hope that in the near future we may come closer or come into a federation. There are many discrepancies between the two. I mentioned university grants and there is also grave discrepancy between the licensing laws here and in Northern Ireland.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Details such as this should be left for another occasion. I do not think there is any money for this.

I appeal to the Government to keep this uppermost in their minds in approaching future legislation. I appeal to them also to review some of the steps taken in the past 12 months. We cannot but be worried somewhat about the balance of payments deficit which, at the moment, stands at £16 million. Had not the windfall in the cattle trade occurred we would have been in real trouble. We would be back to the situation that prevailed after the Suez crisis in 1957 when external trade moved in the wrong way. Fortunately for us, we can be thankful that in the past year external trade came to the rescue of the country and kept the balance to the present level of £16 million.

We have been able to avoid taking any real anti-inflationary measures at present but that does not mean we can afford to take our eyes off the problem. If it goes further it will call for corrective measures. The Government would be well advised to take steps to meet the farmers' organisation demand for a meat marketing board because it is only by such a board that we can hold the markets we have managed to get at great cost in the past. We are worried that the very promising American market which we built up carefully in the past two years dwindled this year to no more than a quarter of last year's values.

Consequently, we can say we have lost that market. If we had a central marketing organisation charged by the Government with the duty of holding markets they would have been in a position to hold that American market until such time as we were sure alternative markets were opening to us. We wish the Minister well in his efforts to balance the Budget in the coming month but it seems very difficult at this stage to see how it can be done without increases in taxation. If that taxation is taken from the pleasure and luxury seeking sections of the community and if improvements ensue, we should not quarrel with the taxation required to produce such improvements.

I do not propose to speak very long on the Central Fund Bill or to follow the previous speakers along every avenue they explored in dealing with this measure. We had again this year, as we had in other years, reference to such things as emigration and unemployment. These are hardy annuals that crop up when we discuss measures such as the Central Fund Bill and other Bills. It appears to me that there is no apparent figure for emigration. Some people say it stands at about 20,000 now, but one thing is certain and that is the population of the country is going up. Last year it went up by 8,500 and surely that is a trend in the right direction. That is a trend which I am sure is welcomed by all of us and by all sections of the community.

As for unemployment, I think it must be admitted that that problem, too, is not as great as it was some years ago. I do not like making comparisons between what the position was some years ago and what it is now. But, since other people have been doing it, I suppose I am entitled to do it. The unemployment incidence is about 40 per cent less than it was in the last year of the Coalition Government and that is a great improvement. In any case, as I have said, we can now see a welcome trend in the right direction, both in unemployment and emigration.

Senator Dooge referred to the progress of the nation and he seemed to be at a loss to know what criteria we have to indicate that progress. One important criterion is the increase in the national income. Last year there was an increase in the national income of £84 million, or 12½ per cent. That certainly is a very obvious criterion of progress and advancement. Also, there was an increase of 4.3 per cent in national production. That is another criterion of national advancement in the economic position.

We are, of course, also entitled to look at the social position. There has been a good advancement in the social services since this Government took office. There have been increases almost every year, some of them substantial, and I daresay we have not seen the last of these increases yet. All these increases cannot, of course, be given without increased expenditure. That has been admitted here by other Senators and I am glad to see they are willing now to face up to the realities of the situation. Senator Quinlan admitted in the early part of his speech that the trends, as indicated in the Book of Estimates this year, are in the right direction but he afterwards proceeded to tell us that there was certain wasteful expenditure. He did not pinpoint the items on which this alleged wasteful expenditure is taking place.

The heifers and the calves.

He found fault with the heifer scheme because, he said, it was being abused by some of the farmers up and down the country. I do not think he is correct in that. I think the heifer scheme is a very good one for the farmers and has been welcomed by them up and down the country. Any farmer, whether he got a subsidy for a heifer or not, would be very foolish indeed to part with the animal for the purpose of slaughter.

All these increases this year can be justified on any account. We have a substantial increase in agricultural grants. We have an increase for the Board of Works for new schemes, alterations, and so on, and we have a very substantial increase for vocational education. I think that will be welcomed by all because we realise now that vocational education is the type of education beneficial to the poorer sections of the community. There is an increase of £1,078,000 for vocational education this year.

Senator Quinlan seemed to be dissatisfied with the amount made available for education, generally, including the universities. I would not agree with him in that. I think the amount provided for education of all sorts is a sizeable proportion of the revenue of the country. We had a discussion on post-primary education the other night and I indicated that we are now spending about twice as much on post-primary education as we did ten years ago. But, on every kind of education, primary, post-primary and university, we are now spending more than twice what we spent eight years ago. Anybody who comes along and says we are not paying out enough for education in this country is making an unreasonable accusation. There is no neglect of education in this country. The amount spent is as much as the country's resources can afford at the present time. No doubt, as the resources of the country are developed, and according as the economic position here improves, it will be possible one year after another to increase the amount for education of every kind, primary, post-primary and university education. There is a lot of money being spent at the present time on school building and that is, indeed, a step in the right direction. It is money well spent.

The school building campaign at the present time is going ahead much better than it has been for years. New schools are going up faster now than ever before and some old schools are being renovated much more quickly than ever before. It is only right, of course, that education would get this special place among us in our calculations, when we consider the amount of expenditure that should take place here and there. It can be said our system of education here is as good as any system anywhere in the world.

Senator Quinlan also tried to suggest that the agricultural workers were being neglected by the Government. I do not think that is the case. I do not agree with that. The agricultural workers are much better paid now than they were some years ago. It was, in fact, the Fianna Fáil Government who were responsible for the introduction of the Act in relation to agricultural labourers under which their wages and conditions of employment were regulated for the first time. Of course, if the Government found it possible to improve the position of the agricultural workers still more we would also subscribe to that. There is no doubt about that because we regard the agricultural workers as a very important section of the community. Everybody realises that.

They are very badly paid today.

They are better paid than they were.

They are still very badly paid.

Senator Dooge referred to the Fine Gael proposal to appoint a Minister for economic planning, or development, whatever the title. I do not believe the appointment of such a Minister would improve the economic position of this country. After all, the question of economic planning is one for the Government as a whole. Any advances that are to be made in economic planning and economic development have to be considered by the Government as a whole. I cannot see, for the life of me, how the appointment of an additional Minister and additional Ministerial staff, would improve the position one bit.

Reference was also made to the increase in the cost of living. Of course, we all agree that there has been an increase in the cost of living, not merely during recent years but over a great many years during the time that successive Governments were in office here. It appears to me that it is much easier to talk about controlling the cost of living than to arrest the trend. It must be remembered that there are a great many factors to be taken into account regarding the cost of living. Certain items have to be imported and no Government can control the cost of those items. There is also, of course, the question of agricultural produce. As was pointed out in the Dáil recently, of the 10¼ per cent increase that took place between August, 1963, and November, 1964, about 3.3 per cent was due to an increase in certain items of agricultural produce such as potatoes, milk and meat. Would any Senator, or any Deputy in the Dáil, suggest that the farmers should suffer a reduction in the prices they get for these commodities? I do not believe anyone would suggest that. As I said before, it is much easier to talk about controlling the cost of living than to solve the problem itself.

On the whole, I think the country is heading in the right direction. It is making progress economically, socially and culturally. If we continue to make similar progress in the years ahead, the position by 1970 will be what the planners of the Second Programme for Economic Expansion anticipated. The increase in our national production will likely be increased by 50 per cent and we will have made similar progress in all other directions.

Senator Dooge referred to the figures given by the economic planners. It is rather unfair to expect economists to be deadly accurate in their forecasts. The economists who planned our First Programme were reasonably near the mark. If we got, say, an increase of 4.3 per cent on average instead of 4 per cent we can say their forecast was very good on the whole. We should not expect them to get exact figures in a case like that.

With regard to the Programme not being fulfilled in the balance of payments direction, I think the Senator is right that about £16 million was envisaged in the programme. It is also true that in the last three years it has run from £13 million to £30 million. We had, of course, a capital inflow which was bigger than we anticipated. It is good at least to make use of that money and I do not think we are running any great risk by attempting to make use of that capital inflow, in other words, to import capital goods and so on. In that way we may have a bigger figure than we anticipated when drawing up the programme in the beginning. I think, on the whole, it is a desirable thing to promote economic growth on exports, to increase the resources we have. At any rate it is desirable that we should be satisfied that we are not running any terrible risk by using the money in that way. We do not want the deficit to get bigger than it should be, especially as we are now reaching the point where our internal resources of capital are not sufficient. As Senators are aware, we had to go to the foreign markets for loans for the ESB and the air companies.

The capital we are using is going up very rapidly. In the present financial year, it is expected to be about £100 million, which is a very big increase on what it was two or three years ago. Again, I should like to stress that I do not think it would be advisable to cut back on capital expenditure so long as we are reasonably satisfied we are not doing any harm to the economy.

I do not think it would be right to say that section 4 of the Central Fund Bill is an indication that the Minister for Finance and the Government have set their face against any kind of capital gains tax. It has nothing to do with it. I referred to this as a capital gains investment. I need not have referred to it in that way any more than I would call, let us say, Savings Certificates a capital gains investment. This is almost exactly the same as Savings Certificates. An investor pays in a certain amount, and after six of seven years, he draws out a larger amount, but he does not draw out anything in the meantime. This is the same, an inducement to a certain type of investor to invest his money in this particular way. We hope to get some money in this way. This investment will be quoted and dealt with on the Stock Exchange.

With regard to the question of the departure of the banks from the 30 per cent liquidity, I do not know if 30 per cent was stated in the Programme for Economic Expansion as a standard from which there should not be more than a three per cent deviation. I am not disputing what the Senator said. Perhaps it is mentioned, but I do not think the Government laid down any rule, and I do not think that, on consideration, the Government would think it necessary to adhere to such a rule. It has become fairly apparent lately that 30 per cent is too high as a standard for the commercial banks, and some of them, I am sure, operate quite safely on a margin of liquidity below 30 per cent. One of the changes is that the banks can keep certain reserves with the Central Bank and can earn interest on them. That will count as part of their liquidity. The Central Bank are also prepared at all times to discount Exchequer Bills held by the joint stock banks. That is also a reserve that is at their disposal.

Both Senator Dooge and Senator O'Brien referred to the question of stability of costs and prices. There is no doubt that to have a successful policy of development, there must be reasonable stability in both costs and prices. There is, unfortunately, a slight increase in prices in every country in the world, I think. I saw today that the English index for February over November was up by 1½ per cent, which is a fairly substantial figure for England, which is usually very stable. It shows that most countries, big or small, cannot avoid an increase in prices from time to time. Therefore, I think it would be too much to expect that we should maintain prices and costs at all times.

There is no merit in having stable costs and prices and selling our goods and services below their international value, if costs and prices are going up elsewhere. We have been stressing the point the two Senators stressed, that we should endeavour in every way to keep costs and prices down to a reasonable level, in fact, down to the same level, if at all possible. I think the dangers of increased prices and costs to manufacturers here are obvious to everyone. They have to compete with other countries, and if costs go up slightly in other countries, it means that we become uncompetitive and cannot carry on.

It is difficult also for a Minister for Finance to accept Senator O'Brien's very healthy advice not to put up prices himself. A Minister for Finance must, from time to time, put on extra taxes which have the effect of increasing prices. These taxes are necessary if we are to carry out our very desirable policies on education, social welfare and so on.

The balance of payments deficit may not always be a proof, as Senator O'Brien said, that the country is consuming more than it is producing, that is, if we accept the meaning of the word "consumer" as applying to consumer goods. There may be a deficit attributable to increased capital expenditure rather than increased consumption. That would apply, I should say, more to our conditions now than it would to a country which is carrying on a very well established industry, so, we may incur a deficit in our balance of payments by importing very big amounts of capital goods. We have since 1951 raised the proportion of the gross national product which is invested from 16 per cent to 20 per cent and the proportion consumed at the same time has shown a corresponding fall so that we have a fairly satisfactory position as far as that is concerned.

I think that Senator Murphy misunderstood me if he thought I said that the rise in prices was due entirely to the effects of the ninth round. We have to look at it this way. To refer to certain articles written in the papers which gave a fairly accurate account of what took place, first of all, as Senator Ó Ciosáin pointed out, there have been certain increases in prices which none of us would object to, where the farmer is getting better prices for his cattle, pigs and sheep, his vegetables and his milk. These have been responsible for about 3 per cent in the increased cost of living in the last 16 or 18 months. None of us would object to that, because these make the farmer's position a little better compared to the urban producer, and, in fact, he has some distance to go before his position is as good as the urban producer. We have to take that first of all as one item that has been responsible for the increased cost of living. We know also that imports have gone up by 2 per cent, so that when we take these items off we have around half the increase which is very probably due to the effects of the ninth round.

As Senator Murphy very fairly pointed out, there are certain industries which must give the increase such as CIE. The public service has to get an increase, and when the public servants get increases taxation must be put on to pay for it, and that taxation, whether it is on drink, tobacco or whatever it is put on, means an increase in the cost of living. That cannot be avoided.

Later where the amount of increases in incomes is more than the increase in output there is a certain amount of inflation. Senator Murphy said that the labour people might get restive if the cost of living went up more. I hope that it does not, and I must say that I do not see any necessity for any significant increase in the cost of living in the coming year and I hope there will not be anything worthwhile as far as that is concerned. I am afraid it would not be a remedy to have another increase in wages, because we probably have not yet caught up on the increased incomes in our production, and if there is no margin of production to take the increase in wages the increase then, of course, would be practically entirely made up by increased costs and increased prices and there would be no advantage to anybody in it. In fact, there would be very serious disadvantage, because those firms trying to build up an export business would find their costs going up, which might make it uncompetitive for them.

With regard to profits, I have not got exact figures but there are a lot of things that have to be taken into account. It is fairly clear, of course, that there is a ninth round of 12 per cent increase in wages and salaries, but it is not so clear when we come to deal with profits because here you have to deal with each individual person and see what profit he made in relation to his capital. The total profits would be no good in this case because capital is being built up all the time and you have more capital this year than last year and if there was an increase in profits it would not amount to an increase in percentage of that proportion. The only real guide is to see what the dividends are and by what amount they are being increased. As far as I can see, over the last year or two they have not been increased more than 12 per cent. That is only an opinion and I am only offering it as one.

Senator Quinlan spoke about May-nooth. I am afraid that he will have to ginger up the Bishops because they have not asked for more. If they asked we would consider it, but I do not like going to the Bishops and saying: "You are very slow in coming to ask for more money."

If you give the 12 per cent increase all round you should give it automatically to May-nooth.

Everybody asks for it. We will have to wait until they ask.

I cannot see why it should not be automatically given there. I do not see why they should have to ask for it.

I could say a lot on what Senator Quinlan talked about, but I have already dealt with several matters which he raised because they were touched on by Senator Dooge and Senator O'Brien. Senator Quinlan made a point about a meat marketing board. I was for a long time Minister for Agriculture and was being pressed with regard to a meat marketing board but I was asked by others: "What good is it going to do?" I do not think it could do very much. The instance that Senator Quinlan gave, that we had lost our market in America, could not possibly be remedied by a meat marketing board, because we were exporting a certain amount of meat to America because it was cheap to export compared to prices on the British and Continental markets. Then prices went up very much in Britain and the Continent. What could a meat marketing board do about that? I do not see what they could do. There may be other merits in a meat marketing board but I have never been convinced that one is absolutely necessary.

Going back to Senator Dooge for a minute, I have some notes on things that he raised, including a point about development areas. These are dealt with in a brief paragraph, 52 of chapter 4 of the Programme. The Minister for Industry and Commerce announced in UCD on the 15th of February that a committee set up to examine the question had recently reported to him, that he was having the report examined in his Department and was sending it to other Departments to examine it. It will, of course, in due course be published and the decision of the Minister and the Government will be published too.

The Senator is correct in gathering that the employment target in the Programme presupposes a reduction in the unemployment rate by 1970 down to 3½ per cent. This is considered to be fairly close to what is traditionally defined as full employment. Senator Murphy mentioned in this connection a point which we know to be a fact. Our present rate is 5.7 but even though this is a good bit higher than 3.5 there are, as he says, many instances where labour is scarce, and there are some industries where labour is scarce also. We can imagine that when we will have another two or three points off towards 3½ per cent that may become rather general. There will be certain places where these will be a surplus, and they have that from time to time, I believe, even in countries that have full employment.

In drawing up this Programme the economists and financiers who drew it up had to take account of emigration and to make some forecast of what it might be. Coming to conclusions on the amount of production we would build up in that time, it was then decided what employment would be there and, therefore, what unemployment would be there. The emigration which we expect to reach at that time will be about 10,000 in the year. This of course, is, perhaps, not so much a question for the economists as one for the ordinary person to decide for himself. I am sure that we will always have emigration even if we become wealthy and even if there is a job for everybody who cares to take it. We are a people who are inclined to travel a lot and to emigrate. I do not think it will ever be completely cut out. Whether or not the 10,000 is correct, I cannot say. The emigration for the decade would be about 16,000. There was heavy emigration in 1961: it was fairly good in 1962. The figure for 1964 works out at about 22,000. For the past four years, we have consistently been increasing our population and that is very encouraging. We are once again building up our population after well over a century of decline.

Senator Dooge asked where our figures were taken from. I think he has seen Dr. Louden Ryan's table. I think they were lying between Table I, No. 3 and 4 possibilities. It gives nine possibilities there and 3 and 4 possibilities were considered by those who draw up the programme the most likely-looking. The figures were taken as between 3 and 4 possibility.

With regard to the annual average of the unemployment percentage of the live register, for 1964 it was 5.7. That was equalled in 1961 and 1962. The figure was 5.7 for each of these three years. In 1963, it went up to 6.1. As far as I know, the figures this year appear to be at least as good as those for 1964 for the first eight or nine weeks, and in fact I think at times a little better. If the number is as good this year as last year, it means that the percentage is better because the number insured would be going up all the time.

Senator Murphy drew attention to the fact that our performance in 1964 was not very good. He said that Ireland was third lowest, the lowest being the United Kingdom and Italy. He selected rather an unfavourable year, from that point of view, in the OECD tables. A number of countries were not given in the 1964 table: maybe they had not made their returns. It did not contain figures for Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Turkey. Usually, some of those are below us but not always. For the previous year, 1963, we have a much better showing. That year, we had below us the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden. To do better than these countries I have quoted was a better achievement, taking one year with another—1963 and 1964—and our performance has not been too bad.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

What does the House now propose to do?

Let us finish the Bill.

What about closing the gap in the universities?

I am afraid that that would have to be considered. It is a big proposition, a big gap.

The gap does exist.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill put through Committee, reported without recommendation, received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.
Business suspended at 6.5 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.
Top
Share