Last night, when I was speaking on the concluding stages of the debate, Deputy Mulcahy and myself had some words. There were so many interruptions from the other side when I was attempting to speak that I took it Deputy Mulcahy, in his remarks to me, mentioned my family. I took it that his remarks were a bit below the belt. I find now that is not the position.
Committee on Finance. - Vote on Account, 1953-54. Motion by Minister for Finance (Resumed).
Thank you very much.
I hasten to assure Deputy Mulcahy that I am glad that that was not so. I would be surprised indeed to find that he would adopt such tactics.
Thank you very much.
I certainly would not say anything that would hurt anybody's feelings and neither, I am sure, would Deputy Mulcahy. There was, however, so much cross talk from the other side during the debate—I suppose that was due to the fact that many Deputies were anxious to get home—that I gotthe impression that Deputy Mulcahy was in very bad humour and that he did not like the name of Gallagher. Apparently, that is not the position, and I hope that he will now take my assurance on that.
Absolutely, and I am glad that the Deputy appreciates that.
When I was about to conclude my speech, the debate was adjourned at 10.30 p.m. I intended that my final words would be on what the Dublin Corporation have in mind in regard to the committee which it is supposed to set up. I said in the course of my remarks that things were looking brighter as far as the building of private houses in Dublin is concerned. I checked up on that to-day in the housing department of the corporation. I was told that applications under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act are pouring in every day at the rate of from six to ten. That would go to show that there is bound to be, even this year, a step up on the building of private houses in Dublin. The figures relating to small dwellings applications with the Dublin Corporation for 1951 were 400. In 1952, the number was 430, and from January to July of this year the number is close on 800. As I say, they are pouring in at the rate of from six to ten per day. That is a good sign, and I am sure that Deputies on all sides of the House will be glad to know that. These figures indicate that there is going to be a step up in private house building. A supplementarty grant of £137 10s. is being given by the Dublin Corporation. I am sure that, as a result of it, we will be inundated with applications. I sincerely hope that if we want money from the Government to meet these small dwellings loans, or assistance of any kind, that we will get it without any question. There should certainly be no damper on such activity because private house building gives a good deal of employment.
On the other side of the corporation's activities at the moment, I may say, we are paying £250,000 a month to contractors. It is hoped that this sum will reach £300,000 a month. Onthat score it cannot be said that the corporation are sitting down on the job of house building. We are doing our best. As I have said, we should get any assistance we want from the Government. It is the duty of every Government to provide houses for the people, and no political Party should try to score over another on the question of house building. It is the duty of a Government to provide houses and at the greatest possible speed. I may say that I do not agree with, or like the term, "all convenient speed." It should be done without delay.
A works committee was set up by the Dublin Corporation. Other Deputies are members of it like myself. We have certain plans for the Government. I appeal to the Government to consider those plans and to meet our demands. We suggest that the Minister for Local Government should release a very efficient officer that we have in the Dublin Corporation to act with this committee. We also ask the Minister for Local Government to appoint a senior official of his Department to attend our meetings and to bring back decisions to the Department of Local Government and to see that the plans are passed without all the unnecessary delay of sending letters and awaiting replies, and so on. If we get that liaison officer it will help to speed up the plans we have in mind to solve the unemployment situation in the city which certainly requires urgent attention.
Another suggestion that we make is the expedition of the clearance of derelict sites. In my constituency alone there are schemes for blocks of flats. I agree that the Dublin Corporation are not blameless in this matter either. If any of our plans are submitted for places like Hardwicke Street, Dorset Street, Temple Street and Grenville Street, there should be no hold up in sanction. There are empty houses ready to be rebuilt, the rebuilding of which would give a great deal of employment. This district is in the heart of my constituency. Traders there have had to dismiss many of their staffs because they had no work for them when large families were removed from the area.Thousands of people were removed from the district and the traders suffered severe loss. That is only one item which caused unemployment. If builders were put into the block of streets that I have mentioned the traders would be very grateful for the custom they would get from the workers rebuilding the houses. It would also give much needed employment and provide flats for the people.
It is not a question of developing sites. The work is there and the question should be tackled. If the corporation submit plans there should be no delay on the part of the Government. The Department of Local Government should tell us to go ahead and do the work and, if we want money, that they will give it to us. That is the only way to solve to a great extent unemployment in the building industry.
Another suggestion that works committees have in mind is the postponement of revaluation of premises that have been altered. If a person decides to put in a new shop front, the valuation officer immediately adds a considerable sum to the rateable valuation. The rates go up right away. If a private householder builds a garage, it costs him, I suppose, another 30/- on his rates.
Would that require legislation?
I suppose eventually it will. It is a suggestion that should be borne in mind. It could be done in a day with the goodwill of all Parties concerned. I take it that Deputy Sweetman has some plans for valuation and I would be glad to hear them and support them if they contain anything along the lines of that suggestion. People are afraid to improve their property because of revaluation.
The Deputy should not develop it because it requires legislation. He cannot continue in that strain indefinitely.
It is no harm to mention it when it is a question of putting people into employment.
Mentioning it and developing it are two different things.
As I said at the beginning, the main reason for this Vote was the tactics of the Fine Gael Party on the Health Bill. They kept us here day after day. I know it is our duty to be here. It was strange that they should delay the House and yet not vote. That is one of the main reasons why this Vote is necessary. We on this side of the House and the Government are not one bit afraid to debate the Estimates. We will not shirk our duty. As I said earlier, we had the unenviable task of imposing taxes to try to clear up the mess of three and a half years of Coalition Government.
That is too old a yarn now.
You are much older than I am and you heard much older yarns during those three and a half years.
There was more prosperity during those three and a half years than there has been in the last two.
There were still 60,000 unemployed, if you like to look at the figures, during your term. You, as a member of the Labour Party——
Would the Deputy use the third person, please?
Blame your own Government. You are in power now. What is the use of shouting about what happened two years ago?
Interruptions are disorderly. I told the Deputy that on many occasions.
I would refer the Labour Deputy to all the great things his Party got out of the Coalition Government.
We did not buy Tulyar.
You did not buy Royal Charger. Royal Charger hasmade considerable profit. I know nothing whatsoever about racing or racehorses. Maybe the Deputy does. He used to gamble. It is not my line and I shall not go into that.
That is not much good to the unemployed outside.
The Labour Party got very little out of that three and a half years. I do not think the Deputy has much to crow about. He has very little to crow about and he should hide his head in shame.
You should, when the Dublin unemployed are marching outside the gates.
Deputy O'Leary is constantly interrupting. I am just warning him that these interruptions will not be allowed.
He mentioned my name.
The Deputy will restrain himself and allow Deputy Gallagher to proceed in an orderly fashion.
I have the greatest respect for Deputy O'Leary and I think we get on reasonably well together. I never interrupt him. It is not in my line to interrupt anybody. I would ask him to examine his conscience and examine what they got out of three and a half years of Coalition Government.
There you are again.
Deputy Gallagher should remember that the administration of the inter-Party Government is not up for consideration. What is under discussion is the administration of the present Government.
Deputy O'Leary mentioned the unemployed marching up here. I met these unemployed people and they told me that they did not want any Party to make capital out of them. They also told me that the Labour Party took little or no interestuntil they marched up to Kildare Street.
For whom did they look? It was not for the Taoiseach they looked.
I know a lot of those who are marching better than the Deputy. Most of them are a decent type of fellow. We in Dublin are certainly doing our best for these men. He need have no worry on that score. It is a pity that they are marching, but we will not shirk our responsibility. He will not find us slow in facing up to our responsibility. This works committee set up by the Dublin Corporation will certainly do what they can and I ask the Government to see that anything put up by them will be dealt with in an expeditious manner.
I am very grateful, not only for the sake of Deputy Gallagher and myself from a personal point of view, but for the sake of the establishment here that any misunderstanding that arose last night has been cleared up. Deputy Gallagher started off last night to stockpile honesty. He gave figures and I was suggesting that his treatment of the figures hardly warranted his claims for the stockpile of honesty. At any rate, I appreciate that he has always been a reasonable and a courteous opponent here and that induces me to make a suggestion. The Deputy is used to ringside performances and perhaps even to getting inside the ring. The Deputy repudiates having anything to do with racing. I have had very little to do with boxing, although I did bring Tansey Lee over here to lay the foundations of boxing in the Army long ago. As Minister for Education I also went to the Stadium to see schoolboys from this city box with London school-boys.
On my invitation.
It was a joy and a delight to see the demeanour of these little boys towards one another before and after their performance. I wonder would he be able to bring the Minister for Finance to see a boxingtournament between some of these boys?
I did.
Take him again. It may prolong his life and be a great help to him. I am grateful for the Deputy's expression and I hope he will not mind if I suggest to him that he will want to perfect his technique inside this ring, because we have very important matters to deal with and they are being completely muddled at present. The attitude of the Government he supports puts Deputies who have a sense of their responsibilities and a sense of the function of this institution in relation to the interests of our people in a very grave dilemma.
Will the Deputy say when we are to laugh?
I suggest that Deputy Cowan could be remainded as to when he can talk. This Parliament has been put out of commission. It is being put into a position by the Government which orders the business here that none of the vital things which concern the financial and economic interests of the country can be discussed here, and no decisions affecting vital and urgent matters in connection with the economic interests of the country can be taken. The Government have decided that they will so order business that they can say with regard to the Parliament: "Let them come in and talk, but do not give them any matters to discuss that they can get their teeth into in a detailed way in relation to the things affecting our people; do not give them anything to discuss that will enable them to come to decisions in the Division Lobby that will show that the Parliament here disagrees with the actions of the Government and with the results of the Government's actions." The Minister for Finance yesterday moved a second Vote on Account and gave as an excuse that it was necessary to do this in order to get money to carry on until November next.
Was not that strictly correct?
Will Deputy Cowan please allow the Deputy to proceed?
I thought the Deputy did not object to a question.
I object to being interrupted in making remarks which I consider serious by a person who has adopted the attitude of acting the buffoon here in order to help the Government to obscure and to befuddle certain matters.
The expression "buffoon" is not parliamentary and must be withdrawn.
I withdraw it.
Some lessons in the boxing ring would want to be taken.
Deputy Cowan will allow Deputy Mulcahy to proceed without interruptions. Interruptions of all kinds are disorderly.
The Government have so ordered business as to prevent this House functioning not only as an institution to take decisions on things vitally affecting the people, but even to prevent it functioning in connection with the detailed discussion of various matters. The Minister for Finance said just a few words yesterday to the effect that we would not have time by the end of this month, when he implied that the Dáil recess will begin, to discuss the various Estimates and therefore it was necessary to take a second Vote on Account. We are being prevented by the way in which the Government have ordered their business from discussing Estimates dealing with the position of na gCeantar gCúng, from dealing with the Office of Public Works and its plans for implementing emergency schemes, from dealing with the Department of Industry and Commerce, from dealing with matters that come under the review of the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Finance himself, who is responsible for so much of the confusion and the disorder economically here; from dealing with the supplementary agricultural grant in respect of which the striking of rates and the issue of rate noticesby the local authorities have been thrown into the most utter confusion. Not a single one of these which vitally affect the strained economic conditions from which our people are suffering can be discussed. There is not a single one of these upon which the Government's policy could not be challenged and the responsibility put on Deputies for showing where they stand in connection with the Government's handling of the general situation in relation to all these Estimates.
That is all set aside. This period of the year is set aside particularly for an examination of the Government's financial proposals affecting both the taxation of our people and the general economic well-being; our production, our employment, our financial security, the confidence with which employers and business people generally face their work. A short period of the year is set for all that. As Deputy Gallagher reminded us, we have had thrown on top of that a very contentious and very obscure measure such as the Health Bill. The Vote on Account is taken before the Easter recess and, normally, the period from the time we return after the Easter recess until the summer recess is set aside by the House to consider the general economic, the general financial position, and the detailed administration of the various Government Departments. What do we find? Up to last Friday the Dáil Debates, in terms of columns, ran to 6,132 as from the 15th April last. About 700 or so of these were devoted to questions, the ordering of parliamentary business, and one or two motions on the Adjournment. Outside of that, in relation to ordinary legislation, the Budget, Estimates, the Health Bill and the vote of confidence, 5,438 columns of the debates are the measure of the amount of time given to these. Of that parliamentary time expressed in terms of columns, the Health Bill stands first with 1,812 columns as against 1,400 for the Estimates; 1,000 for the Budget and 570 for the ordinary legislation, and 490 for the vote of confidence. The vote of confidence was one of those long drawn out general discussions andall the possible things that could be obscured and could be dove-tailed in together, were drawn into this discussion, and a vote taken at the end. In regard to the Budget there was only occasion for a few decisions on that, and it was all a long discussion. The Government can have no complaint in regard to the way legislation generally was dealt with. A small amount of time was given to that, but the Committee Stage of the Health Bill was thrown in on top of that and got more parliamentary time given to it than the Budget or such Estimates as were dealt with.
We want to know the reason why it is necessary to choke down detailed discussion, because that is what the Government handling of the situation means. We are told that we have been opposing and obstructing during the discussions on the Health Bill without taking part in any votes. We may vote time enough. But I want to say the Government has attempted to make this House here just an air bubble in the general economic machinery where the whole inefficiency, incompetence and maljudgment of the Government in their handling of both financial and economic affairs has brought the country outside nearly to a standstill so far as any confidence in the country's development and progress is concerned. It has produced a considerable amount of unemployment. Anything this House has done by way of positive action in the financial line has been to the detriment of the country. Now, while the Government are recovering from the shock of the conditions they have brought about and recovering from the shock of the effect of those conditions on the electorate as shown by some of the by-elections, they reduce the position to this: that we can take no decisions that will in any way change the situation here. They are supported by a sufficiently steady number of their own Party and a certain number of Independents to make sure that they can hold the fort here so long as there are just long drawn out discussions on general matters.
The Government were asked to takethe Health Bill and send it before a committee that would have powers to send for persons; papers and documents and get real views on the problem, and consider what were likely to be the financial and other implications of the measure. The Government refused that and we had to discuss the matter in Committee with the Minister who must have a crick in his neck and a pain in his side from leaning over the edge of the bench to get information from his officials on what the Bill is all about.
That is hardly fair.
He had to tell us when we were discussing the position of the one person in the Bill who was being given control—the county manager—that he did not know what the reserved functions were, or whether they were reserved to the county manager or to the council.
We cannot discuss the Health Bill on this.
We have been charged here, Sir, with bringing the proceedings of this House to the condition to which, in fact, the Government have brought it, by reason of the fact that we had lengthy discussions on the Committee Stage of the Health Bill. We had those discussions because of the attitude of the Minister for Health in dealing with the House and with matters here.
The Deputy can review those as far as is desirable but I want to sound this note of warning: we cannot discuss the Health Bill or any provision of it on this Vote.
I appreciate that, but in view of what has been said on the Government Benches I could not say less than I have said on the subject and be clear.
The House then, as I say, is just put out of commission. The work has been so organised here that we can come in and argue and the alarm clock can be set for a particular period at which all the Government supporters can be there plus all their attendants and the,vote of two or three or possibly four or five as the case may be, can be taken and the alarm clock can be turned off again, and we can go on with general discussions. But we are not allowed to discuss industry and commerce or the supplementary agricultural grant or the various works that are under the control of the Office of Public Works or unemployment or emergency schemes or western conditions or the general policy of the Minister for Finance. All these things are just put off and it seems that the Vote on Account is taken here so that the doors of this establishment can be shut at the end of this month so that the Government can go and breathe for a month or two. During that month or two they may come to their senses and they may realise that the way in which they are behaving is just that of a dog in the manger. They have got into office; they have misjudged both the financial and economic situation and they have brought a very considerable amount of dislocation to our manufacturers, to our commercial people that has shown itself in the very serious unemployment and general situation and domestic distress on those particularly who have to rear and educate their families and have the problem of seeing their older children put into some kind of employment here in their own country. Meantime, in a general way, everything that can be said or done to obscure the situation is being said and done by the Minister for Finance and by the various other agents of the Government.
The Minister for Finance, responding to criticisms made—at the Congress of Irish Unions Conference, I think it was, at any rate replying to Senator McMullen—published a series of statements which are as grotesque as anything you could expect the Government to indicate. He stated, and it was repeated here yesterday by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, that national income—I am reading from a letter published in the Irish Timesand dated 18th July and signed by the Minister for Finance himself— in real terms increased in 1952 despite all the difficulties of that year. There was by contrast a slight fall inBritain's gross domestic production in that year, 1952.
Our national income in real terms according to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and the Minister for Finance increased last year. I asked when we would be favoured with a statement on that matter and I was told, or it was implied, that it was in the printers' hands but it was rather clear from both the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs that we are not going to see it until this House is shut down. But will the Minister or any of his colleagues or any of the back benchers of his Party connected with any aspect of the productive life of this country say what changes in technique, what changes in process or organisation have taken place in this country during the year 1952 that would increase the national production of this country without increasing the numbers of unemployed we have in industry and agriculture?
With a pretended air of responsibility and in a most detailed A, B, C, D, E, F, G kind of style, the Minister purports to reply in the most informal way to an important body dealing in a realistic way with some of the country's conditions. Is it not the fact that in that list of 32 groups of industries, with the rest generalised under the heading: "Other Industries," on which the employment in transportable goods is calculated, we find that in December, 1952, there were 3,437 persons fewer employed than there were in December the year before and that there were 7,228 fewer employed than there were in December, 1950? How does it happen that national income in real terms has gone up in 1952 with 3,437 persons fewer employed in the production of transportable goods in December of that year than in December of the previous year and with 7,228 fewer employed than in December, 1950? If we make a comparison for the whole of 1952 as compared with 1951, apart from the figures which I have given for December, there were 7,308 fewer employed in the September quarter of 1952 as compared with that quarter in 1951, 9,035 feweremployed in the June quarter as compared with the corresponding quarter in 1951 and 4,777 fewer employed in the March quarter of that year as compared with the corresponding quarter in 1951. Over the whole year, therefore, the number employed in the production of transportable goods showed a reduction in March of 4,777, in June of 9,035, in September of 7,308 and in December of 3,437.
The Minister has had repeated to him on very many occasions the number of people that were unemployed in these industries. The number of persons unemployed, classified accordig to the normal industrial analysis, which included agriculture, in mid-April, 1951, was 58,000, in mid-April, 1952, 70,275 and in mid-April, 1953, 85,167. Of the last mentioned figure, 30,000 were unemployed in the agricultural industry. Unemployment in agriculture has risen from 22,500 in mid-April, 1951, to 30,700 in mid-April, 1953. Yet we have the Minister's statement that the national income in real terms increased in 1952 despite all the difficulties of that year, despite the substantial fall in the number of persons employed in transportable goods industries and despite the substantial increase in unemployment in every one of the groups in which there is a normal industrial analysis.
As if to underline that from another direction, the Minister says that the volume index for production of transportable goods for the March quarter of 1953 was 4.4 per cent. above that for the same quarter of 1952. The March Trade Journalgives under the heading of No. 20, a statement which shows that in the year 1952 in February the index based on 100 in 1936 was 160.6, and if we add the Minister's 4.4 per cent. to that, it brings it up to 165 but the index in last December was 170.7 and the index in December, 1951, was 173.5. Again we ask what change has there been, in the case of transportable goods, in technique or organisation when the substantially smaller number of people employed are able to increase the volume of transportable goods even by 4.4 per cent. against the spring of last year? The fact is,nevertheless, that this index is still substantially below what it was in December, 1952, December, 1951, and December, 1950.
We may get some kind of line on the Minister's technique if we look at what he says in regard to community spending. The Minister winds up his letter with the remark:—
"A community of less than 3,000,000 souls which to-day is spending at the rate of £60,000,000 per annum on beer, spirts and cigarettes cannot be said to be practising austerity or enduring privation to any noticeable degree."
Is the Minister for Finance able to see the privation that the people are suffering? He makes a further statement in relation to that which I shall quote:—
"The following figures for the total consumer expenditure in each of the years 1948-49 to 1952-53 on tobacco and alcoholic beverages are equally enlightening."
The Minister for Finance thinks it enlightening for Senator McMullen to take note of the fact that tobacco, consumed as cigarettes, in the year 1951-52 cost purchasers £22,000,000 and in 1952-53 cost them £27.3 million. It would be enlightening if the Minister had added to this amount the particular part of these figures that represents taxation rather than consumption. In the year 1951-52 the price of a packet of cigarettes was 1/9; in the year 1952-53 it was 2/4. In other words, the price of a packet of cigarettes had increased by one-third. The consumer expenditure, which the Minister quotes, for 1951-52 was £22,000,000. If that expenditure had increased by one-third, then there should be an increase of £7.3 million in consumer expenditure, but there is only an increase of £5.3 million. Therefore, with the substantial reduction in the actual consumption of cigarettes, the Minister is able to take £5.3 million more out of the people's pockets. The people pay £5.3 million more for a substantially reduced consumption of cigarettes and the Minister tells us that these souls who are spending at that rate on cigarettes cannot be said to be practising austerity or enduring privation to any noticeable degree.
The Minister concludes the figures with those relating to spirits. He says that in the year 1950-1951 the consumer expenditure for Irish spirits was £9.6 million and in 1952-1953 it was £9.03 million. There was a substantial reduction. The price of the half glass was raised by the Minister's taxation from 1/6 in the former year by one-sixth last year. If the £9.6 million that was expended in the year 1951-1952 was raised by one-sixth there actually should be an expenditure of £11,200,000. Actually there was only an expenditure of £9,050,000. There was, in fact, a substantial reduction in the consumption of spirits as a result of the Minister's taxation, on the one hand, and general economic conditions on the other.
The Minister quoted the consumption of beer as showing the absence of any noticeable privation. He says that in the year 1951-1952 consumer expenditure on beer—that is porter and stout—was £17,500,000 and in 1952-1953 it was £19,800,000. But the Minister had raised the price of the pint from 1/- to 1/3 last year, that is by one-fourth. If consumption remained even what it was the year before that the increase should have been nearly £4,500,000. Actually the increase was £3,333,000. Therefore the people paid substantially more for a substantially reduced amount. The Minister sticks these figures into that long categorical kind of letter and they are supposed to be imposing by the very weight of the figures themselves and by the authority of the Minister's name at the bottom of that letter. He says: "These figures are enlightening."
The Minister starts off by saying that agricultural production has gone up by 1.6 per cent. Agricultural production ought to have been substantially higher than that as a result of the climatic conditions that existed last year. The Minister will find in the case of barley the yield per acre went up by 5 per cent. In the case of sugar beet it went up by 10 per cent. That is an indication of the favourable conditions that existed for successful farming and effective harvesting.
The reduction in the number of personsemployed in agriculture is, on the other hand, an indication of how agriculture has varied from the production point of view. If it were not for the increase in agricultural exports and the increased incomes to farmers for cattle, even the increase of 1.6 per cent. in the volume of agricultural production would not be something about which we could boast.
Every aspect of the economic situation with which the Minister has dealt here in his statement is an indication that he is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the people outside as well as of the people here. He states, quite correctly, that the exports rose by £20,000,000 from 1952, and are still rising. He states that the balance of payments deficit had been reduced from £62,000,000 in 1951 and £30,000,000 in 1950 to the more tolerable figure of £9,000,000. We have protested for the last 12 months in various ways against a policy which is operating to the disadvantage of the general economic condition of our people here. We have protested against the disastrous policy of the Minister for Finance and the Government based upon a drastic reduction in the balance of payments.
What is the position? The deficit in our trading in January, 1952, was £6.3 million. In February of that year it was £6.5 million. In March it was £6.6 million. In April it was £7.0 million. A substantial fall has taken place in these deficits. In 1953 it was £3.27 million in January. In February it was £3.17 million. In March it was £2.67 million. Therefore, a fall of £9.1 million has taken place in our trading deficit in the first three months of this year, sufficient to wipe out completely, as a result of the change in our trading balance, the balance amounting to £9,000,000 last year. When we come to April we find that there has been a further decrease in our trading deficit of £2,000,000 and we are now, as a result of the Government's policy, beginning to build up in a rather substantial way our external assets; that is, the savings of our people are being to an increasing extent loaned to Britain for the purpose of developing British economy. We are once more in a violent way changinga very considerable part of our trading position and, therefore, a very considerable part of our employment position. We believe it is necessary to have a deficit in our balance of payments in order to deal with our undeveloped general economic situation here. The continuing weight of the Government's policy is now showing itself in the creation of a situation in which, while we want all the savings we can get, we continue to export these savings and lend our money to Britain for little or nothing and the Government through its policy tolerates the appalling situation of a rise to 5 per cent. in the basic charge for money here and that appalling policy is steadfastly maintained here.
I have indicated that the Government has shut down on consideration of serious matters in an effective way here. If we may mention the Health Bill again, it is taking more and more power to build up the grip of the State on our social as well as on our economic life.
When the Minister for Finance was introducing his Budget he gave details of the £39,290,000 which it was proposed to use as capital expenditure during the current year. He indicated, when dealing with the matter, that he was going to reduce that to £36,300,000. I notice, from discussions recently going on, that we are now going up to a proposed capital expenditure during the year of £40,000,000. I think Deputy McGilligan asked yesterday where this money was going to come from. There is another question which I would like to ask. Where does the Minister think that the capital for the maintenance and for the development of the private sector of our production economy is going to come from during a year in which the State is taxing to the extent that it is taxing the people and using that money on the general supply services while at the same time proposing, if we are to understand what has been said in recent weeks, to look for £40,000,000 for expenditure on capital projects? Is that not again strengthening the hand of the State against the individual developer of our industrial and commerciallife? Where does the Minister think that is going to lead to, particularly in view of the confusion and incompetency which have so marked the actions of the Fianna Fáil Government over so many years?
I think that we require to be told by the Minister for Finance, before he shuts down this Parliament, what is his outlook and policy with regard to the raising of capital for Government capital expenditure on the one hand, and where he thinks the commercial, industrial and agricultural communities are going to get the capital which they require for the maintenance and development of the really important and really productive part of our economy— the economy that even the incompetency, the panic and the inefficient policies of the Government over the last two years have not been able to crush at any time?
Have the Government any idea how many employers there are among the unemployed at the moment? Have they any idea how many men among the ranks of the unemployed to-day were themselves employing four, five, six, ten or 12 men a year or two ago? The fact is that they are there. I want to know if the Government have any idea as to how any of these men are going to get back into the position of being employers this year or next year.
Deputy Hickey has been asking us to try and concentrate our minds on what is likely to happen in 1954. I appreciate very much his anxiety or the anxiety of any Deputy to concentrate on these things. One of the complaints which I have against the Government's policy of putting this House out of commission is that, within the next few weeks, it is going to prevent us from having a detailed discussion on the various Estimates. Estimates such as those for the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Board of Works, Unemployment Schemes, Social Welfare, and Estimates dealing with the western districts. We are going to be prevented from getting down to details on all these things. The Minister for Finance while giving us all these great figures for the purpose of misleading us, gave us no idea, good, bad or indifferent, as to what his proposals arefor getting the capital that he requires for carrying out the capital projects that he indicated during his Budget speech with a sum of £36,300,000, or with the £40,000,000 that has been indicated to us in recent speeches by members of the Government. They have indicated in their speeches that this sum of £40,000,000 is to be provided.
On the general use of language to cover and distort a situation, I find that I would like to get the Minister for Finance to direct his attention to a statement made in the Seanad on the 15th instant by Senator Professor O'Brien when the Finance Bill was being discussed there. Speaking at column 228, Senator O'Brien said:—
"I think we can say right away that the Budget is not deflationary. The 1952 Budget was deflationary."
Speaking at column 229, he went on to say:—
"We are all agreed that it was a deflationary Budget. This Budget is not deflationary. It imposes no new taxes. It reduces no subsidies. It does nothing to raise interest rates to a higher level."
He said later:—
"It is difficult to say whether it could be described as inflationary. Perhaps, the correct description would be to say that it has a potentially inflationary effect."
The Minister for Finance, and the Minister for External Affairs in his previous contacts with the Department of Finance and since then have been very adept in discussing inflationary and deflationary effects. What does it matter what terms are applied to what is happening here, if what is really happening is that the taxation burden that was put down on top of the people last year is being maintained this year, whereas, last year, it was put down on people who were emerging from a period of substantial employment, if not full employment? Last year's heavy blow of taxation hit people who had been somewhat refreshed by three years of a period in which there had been hope, encouragement and employment. The same weight of taxation is hittingthem again this year, hitting them after they had suffered from the economic and unemployment distresses of the last 12 months. What does language mean, or what do figures mean, to those people? Is it not the people and the condition in which they are that we are concerned with?
The various statements that have been made recently indicate that we are now going to have relief works. Let us have relief works. Some people object to them being called relief works. They want them called works of development. Call them anything you like, but they are, in fact, works that are carried out by the Government in relation to matters that, at any rate, are somewhat removed from the basic development of our economy here which is the development of the production that is in the hands of private employers and private companies. At any rate, this expenditure is going to be of a type that in the past at any rate was called relief works. Anybody who has had any experience of what were called relief works in the past, must be very well acquainted with the very definite argument there has been as to whether relief works are not more costly and more wasteful than the giving of maintenance payments to keep people in a position that will enable them to carry on and pay for their subsistence. There has been a long and substantial argument that it is easier financially for a country to pay direct payments to people than to pay them in the kind of works that, in the past at any rate, were organised as relief works.
Two years of the Government's control of things and of their policy brings us from a condition in which there was hope and confidence and something near full employment to relief works. That is the position to which the country is reduced. The dilemma of those who regard this Parliament from a sense of responsibility and who have an understanding of what its function is—to safeguard, help and sustain the people and to aid them to do their work—is that we find ourselves just herded in here by the type of business that the Government is ordering, and told that we cangabble along here but will not be allowed to come near practical decisions on the details of the Government's policy that would jeopardise the Government's position in the House.
So determined have the Government been to see that nothing is done, that there is just a period of halt in which they can blow and blah about things in general, that they introduced the measure to postpone the local government elections. The country has been told that the Government have plans for changing the local government machinery. Under cover of a statement of that kind, the Government introduced a measure to prevent the local government elections from taking place. The small margin of authority and the queer margin of authority that the Government have in the House has put them in the position that they can stifle the electorate on all occasions except when a by-election takes place. They are using their position in the House just to order business that will deal with general matters and, by the generality of the way in which things are being discussed, prevent them from being put in the awkward position that would arise if members of their Party and Independent Deputies would have to use their consciences in taking decisions.
Deputy Gallagher yesterday spoke of the tragedy of unemployment. He spoke in a personal way of how much he was able to appreciate it. He, nevertheless, supports the Government that is responsible for it and, when he is driven into an argument as to why on earth he would do such a thing, he has to point to the halos that surround the heads of some of his leaders, from the Minister for Justice, Deputy Boland, to the Taoiseach, Deputy de Valera. That was the final argument that Deputy Gallagher produced to us last night as to why he supports the Government that is responsible for so much of the unemployment and misery that he complains about and feels so much.
I should like, first of all, to compliment Deputy Mulcahyon the industry he displayed in counting the columns of talk reported in the Dáil Debates since the beginning of this session. One has heard of Nero fiddling but here we have Deputy Mulcahy counting columns when there is serious work to be done in the House. What is the purpose of this Vote? This Vote on Account is necessitated by the fact that the House has not dealt and cannot deal with the Estimates in full before the 31st July. When the House finds itself in that position the Government moves the Vote on Account to enable the services of the country to be continued until such time as the Estimates are debated fully and passed. That has been done not only in this country but in other countries where there are democratic institutions such as this. If we had an Opposition with a sense of that responsibility about which Deputy Mulcahy talks, the Vote on Account would be passed without any debate or discussion.
If the Vote on Account were not passed, the position would be that there would be no money to pay anybody as from the 1st August, no money to pay the Civil Service, the Army, the Garda, the old age pensioners, no money to provide allowances for widows and orphans, no money for the unemployed. There would be no money for any of those people if this Vote on Account were not passed. It seems to me that responsible people in the House would agree as a matter of course to provide the amount that is set out in this Vote on Account so that the services could be carried on until November next.
As Deputy Gallagher and other Deputies have pointed out, since the beginning of the present session, in fact, since the beginning of the year, Fine Gael have been engaged in a campaign of obstruction, a campaign of holding up necessary work. The Fine Gael Party is responsible for the fact that the Estimates have not been debated in full during the present session.
The House must seriously consider the whole machinery of dealing with Estimates. In the British Parliament it is agreed on all sides that certain Estimates are discussed and that certain other Estimates are passed almostautomatically. Discussions on Estimates are not discussions, as Deputy Mulcahy suggested, on matters of Government policy. It is not permitted to discuss Government policy on the Estimates. On Estimates, one may discuss the administration of a Department for the previous 12 months. That is all that may be discussed on the Estimates. If Fine Gael want to assist in the democratic constitutional Government of this State, there is no reason why they cannot arrange amongst themselves that some of their members will give the Party line in regard to the Estimates. But, unfortunately, we have developed over the years a habit that when an Estimate is introduced it is opposed as a matter of form by somebody on the Opposition Benches and the speech that he makes is repeated word for word by perhaps 20 other Deputies on his own side. Hours of Parliamentary time are wasted by this continuous repetition.
How does the Deputy relate this to the Vote on Account?
It is related to the fact that we are discussing the Vote on Account at all.
You might relate it to the Army Bill.
Deputy Dr. O'Higgins refers to the Army Bill. That is a Bill which has been discussed for a small number of hours in this House.
Years.
It is a Bill which, as far as I am concerned, will be a good Bill when it leaves this House. The amendments which I have put down to that Bill are amendments, not for the purpose of obstruction, but for the purpose of getting a decent Bill.
Publicity.
When I spent many hours at night delving into that Bill and preparing amendments I am sorry that I did not think of the publicity value at the time.
Not you.
I know that I can suggest easier methods of getting publicity. Perhaps some of the Deputies might be able to give me lessons in easier methods of getting publicity. However, last year we were in the position coming to the end of July that we had not passed all the Estimates. The Dáil, in the frame of mind it was in then, agreed to pass the Estimates in globo,with the right to the Opposition to discuss any of these Estimates after the Dáil reassembled in the autumn. I opposed that at the time as I thought it was wrong. I thought that the House should deal with its business and that there should be none of this postponement of business to another session. The debates we had on these Estimates in the autumn have had the effect of slowing up the business of the House.
Deputy Mulcahy referred to Government policy. Government policy has been discussed in the past few months on many occasions. It was very fully discussed on the first Vote on Account; it was discussed on the Budget; it was discussed on the various stages of the Finance Bill; it was discussed on the vote of confidence; and now it is being discussed again on this Vote on Account.
The Deputy is forgetting the by-elections.
I am talking about the business of the House. Policy has been discussed on all these occasions and perhaps on other occasions since the beginning of the year. Every Deputy has had his opportunity of discussing Government policy. On the votes that arose on all these matters, the Government have had the decisive support of the majority of Deputies in this House.
Except the vote of confidence.
Democratic Government can only be carried on when the Government have the support ofa majority of Deputies in the House. We are in the position that the Government have a small majority. The inter-Party Government, which was in office for three and a half years, had a similar small majority. A very strong effort was made by Fine Gael to become the Government of the country at the present time. If they had succeeded, they would have been governing this country by even a smaller majority than the present Government. A Labour Government in Great Britain carried on for a number of years with a very small majority. A British Conservative Government are carrying on since the last general election with a small majority.
According to the Tánaiste, speaking in this House on the vote of confidence, it is likely that for many years to come such large majorities as Governments enjoyed in the past will not exist. The House and the country will have to get used to a position in which the Government will exercise their constitutional power on behalf of the people with a small majority. The very fact that the majority is small does not entitle any person to say that the authority of that Government is not a good one. That is the new idea, the new line, that has developed in this House over the past 12 month, or two years.
Only then?
Only then—that because the Government have only a small majority they have no right to administer the affairs of this country.
But particularly in the last month.
For the last two years we have had call after call for a general election from Deputy Mulcahy. We have certain organs of the Press who support the Deputy calling for a general election.
Will you quote what the Taoiseach said in 1947 with regard to the powers of this House?
What is the purpose of this whole campaign?
To get you out.
The purpose of the whole campaign is to create a spirit of instability in the country.
A spirit of democracy.
Deputy Cowan must be allowed to make his speech without these interruptions.
The whole purpose has been to create a spirit of instability that would lead to unemployment.
We are waiting for the Vote on Account.
The Chair is waiting for the Deputy to relate his remarks to the Vote on Account.
That has been the whole purpose—to create a situation whereby unemployment would be caused day after day. The people are beginning to see through that. The people are beginning to see the effects of that policy which is not the policy of the Government but the policy of the Opposition, a policy of instability, of unemployment, of creating a lack of confidence in the institutions of the State.
The by-elections showed that.
If there is one thing that I would have agreed with Deputy Mulcahy about, it is this: that perhaps the Government instead of introducing this Vote on Account would have brought in a motion for consideration by the Dáil, enabling the Dáil to finish the Estimates before 31st July and the Government would have a majority in the House to see that that was done.
Now, we have had in the course of the debate a reference by Deputy Mulcahy to the Health Bill. The Health Bill is one of the Bills which the Governmenthas decided will be passed into law at the earliest opportunity. It is part of the social measures which the people of this country require. It follows and takes its place with the Social Welfare Bill which I am glad to say has been passed into law by the present Government since the general election.
It might be better to let the people decide that.
Am I going to have the whole family after me?
The family will do their best to keep you right.
After the next election.
The Army Pensions Bill, which has been before the House and has passed its Committee Stage, is another of the important measures of social legislation that the people required and which is on its way to be passed into law. The Workmen's Compensation Act is another important measure which I was hoping we would have passed into law in all its stages before 31st July. But Deputy Mulcahy has made the suggestion that the Government has decided—in fact he said that the Minister for Finance had decided—that these Estimates would not be discussed by the Dáil. The Dáil is all powerful in these matters and as far as I can see, while it may have been the tradition over a number of years to close down for recess on the 31st July, I think it is in the public interest that this session should continue until all these Estimates are passed and the work of the session is completed and if the Government take a decision to introduce a motion to that effect I am quite prepared to support it. I think it would be in the public interest.
And if somebody else introduces it, what is your attitude?
I would support a proposal that the House should sit until the business of the session is completed.
That is on the record.
It is an extraordinary thing how opposition to this Vote on Account has been taken. Opposition to it has been taken by the Fine Gael Party and the Fine Gael Party apparently are not too happy themselves in regard to their opposition to this necessary Vote on Account. Into the trenches last night we had thrown Deputy McGilligan who makes an appearance in the House now and again. He was thrown in to lead for the Opposition and he was followed by Deputy Flanagan. Deputy Rooney was in reserve waiting to be called last night and then Deputy Mulcahy with his record of columns of talk was thrown in to-day.
And columns of fighting. Do not forget that.
Deputy O'Higgins was not here to hear Deputy Mulcahy telling of the count—the precise count —he made of all the columns of talk that have taken place on different matters in his House since the session started.
It is a good thing he was in Irelan when action and not talk was required.
I am perfectly satisfied he is much better at action than talk because he certainly counted the columns and that required some action on his part. Deputy McGilligan, whom one might have expected to advance some constructive argument in regard to the matter discussed, made one of his usual propaganda platform speeches. Generally he comes into this House armed with stacks of references. Yesterday he just picked out of the hip pocket of his trousers his standard political propaganda speech and spoke it here. There was nothing new in it, nothing that has not been said many times in the past 21 years. It interested me considerably to hear him talking yesterday again about banking, currency and credit.
Deputy McGilligan was a Deputy of this House when the Central Bank Bill was going through and he made exactly the same speech on credit, currency and banking on the CentralBank Bill as he made here yesterday. He said that the bankers would have to be tackled. I have no objection to that, but what I have objection to is that a Deputy knowing that those were his views when the Central Bank Bill was going through became subsequently Minister for Finance and was Minister for Finance for three and a half years and never did anything to put his principles or alleged principles into operation and when he is out of office and can do nothing about it he comes in and repeats the whole speech of ten years ago, or so.
Deputy McGilligan had some contemptuous references for Deputies such as myself who take a line in opposition to him. When I was supporting him, supporting the Government of which he was a member, I was all right, but when I disagreed with the line he is now taking, then he must make these contemptuous references to me and to other Independent Deputies in the House. Now, I wonder if Deputy McGilligan has any right to make contemptuous references about any Deputies in this House? As I say, Deputy McGilligan did nothing about amending the Central Bank Bill when he was Minister for Finance for three and a half years. Is it possible that Deputy McGilligan had not the time to do it? Is it possible that during those three and a half years he could not take sufficient time off from his law lectures in University College, Dublin, to look after the affairs of this State? What other Deputy of this House if he were appointed Minister would during the period when he was Minister carry on his business of professor of law in a university instead of giving his full time in the public interest?
I do not think that arises on the Vote on Account.
It does, Sir.
The Deputy must not refer to the professional capacities of other Deputies.
Deputy McGilligan came in here yesterday afternoon andmade certain contemptuous references to other Deputies and he is not going to get away with it.
Chair, Chair!
The Deputy may not pursue that line.
I am not pursuing it any further because I am finished with it but I do say that when a Deputy comes in here to make contemptuous references to other Deputies, he should think twice before he does so. It was only recently I heard of that shocking affair. It has not been done by any other Minister in this State since the State was established and I do not think it has been done by a Minister in any of the States that are run under democratic institutions, such as exist in this country. It is a pity that Deputy McGilligan did not have enough time to give some effect to the observations that he made ten years ago in regard to finance and monetary reform and to which he again gives expression now when he is not in a position to do anything about it.
The general condemnation of the Government is put under four heads— unemployment, cost of living, the reduction in house building, and emigration. There have been references to marches of the unemployed. I want to say, as I have already said, that I am glad the unemployed marched in the city to draw attention to the fact that they were seeking work and wanted work. But there have been marches of the unemployed on many occasions during the last 25 years. I have seen marches of the unemployed in the last 25 years. I have addressed meetings of the unemployed on many occasions in the past 25 years and I always took the line of telling the unemployed that they would never get anything unless they were prepared to fight for it.
Is Deputy Gallagher listening?
In those years the number of unemployed in this city and in the country approximated to 60,000, 70,000, 80,000 or 90,000. The numberfluctuated, but over the past 30 years there has been that level of unemployment all over the country. Why has there been that unemployment? Because the system to which Deputy Mulcahy gave expression, the system of private enterprise, has failed to provide employment for these people. I have always said that it is the duty of the Government to provide employment for people who are unemployed and able to work. That view is not held by everybody in this House. It was not held by Deputy McGilligan when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce in the Cosgrave Government. He never accepted the principle that it was the duty of the Government to provide work for the unemployed. I have seen many cases of hardship and destitution not only in the City of Dublin but in many parts of the country. It was the sight of hardship, destitution, hunger, poverty and misery that brought me into politics at all and into public life. I want to see something done that will really put an end to this continuous misery of unemployment and hunger because I think that there should be no reason why any person, particularly why any little child in this country, should be hungry. It is a food-producing country, a wealthy country and it can provide food and the necessaries of life for everybody living in the country. Unfortunately we have not got agreement as to the means of distributing that food so that there will be no more hunger or misery in the country.
We have had this unemployment problem for 30 years. The problem to-day is as big as ever it was although the figures for several weeks show that unemployment has been decreasing at the rate of roughly 1,000 a week but we have had that unemployment and we shall continue to have that unemployment unless we have a completely new approach to the problem. When the Government prepared plans—and unemployment can only be solved by putting into operation plans of public works—we had leading Ministers of the old inter-Party Government and leading members of the Fine Gael Party, going around the country condemning every proposal that was put forwardfor giving employment to people who were unemployed.
Of course that is not so, but it does not matter.
This country can only get along in the way France and other countries get along—by the provision year after year of a certain percentage of the Budget moneys for the doing of public works. When I talk about public works I am not talking about the miserable relief works I used to see down the country where a number of people were taken from the labour exchanges in the middle of winter, unfortunate people who had been suffering hunger during the whole of the year up to that and were put up to their necks in water to clean up a drain here and there. That is not what I speak about. I speak about public works in the provision of public amenities that will enrich and benefit the country. We have sat down on that job for the last 30 years. Look around the City of Dublin and you can count on the fingers of your two hands the number of new public buildings that have been erected in the last 30 years.
Have you not too many of them already?
On the fingers of your two hands you can count the number of public buildings that have been built over the last 30 years. That is no credit to us. We should have built many important public buildings during that time. We want, as everybody knows, new Government buildings. The erection of new Government buildings will provide work over a number of years. Yet Deputy Seán MacEoin goes down the country and condemns any scheme for the building of new Government buildings.
Is he not perfectly right?
We want new Parliament buildings. That mentality is the cause of all this unemployment, and we have not yet agreed on how we are to deal with that. When we get the mentality of Deputy Giles, who holds that we should do no workat all, the question is how can we solve the unemployment problem?
Who said that?
Deputy Giles asked why should we build public buildings and says that in building five or six buildings in the last 30 years we were doing too much.
Blow up half Dublin and send the people down the country. Then you will solve the unemployment problem.
Deputy Giles will get an opportunity of making his own speech.
It is all very well to talk about taking the people out of Dublin and sending them down the country. Happily, we have not reached that state of regimentation here yet and, even if we were inclined towards that idea, the whole movement in the world is against it. The movement to-day is into the cities and towns and nothing can stop that. Deputy Giles may think it is a bad thing that the people are leaving the countryside, but the same story can be told of many parts of the world. It may be a bad thing to have the people flocking into the cities and towns but one cannot stop that movement by repressive measures irrespective of what Government is in power. We could say to the farmer: "Give your workers £2 per week more and they will stay with you." What would Deputy Giles' reaction be to that?
Give the farmer a decent price for his produce and he will employ plenty of men.
We will leave it at that. We must get down to the problem of public works. I am glad that the corporation in Dublin has taken a decision to establish a committee, of which I am a member, the purpose of which will be to endeavour to provide public works of the kind to which I have referred—not gazebos built for the purpose of only being built but things which will enrich and improvethe city. In giving employment to our fellow men in carrying out that work we will bring happiness and contentment into many thousands of homes. If we can put 1,000 people into employment to-morrow on a direct scheme of public works, paying them a decent trade union rate of wages, there will be employed indirectly as a result of that 4,000 people. For every 1,000 we put directly into employment 4,000 will be indirectly put into employment. That is a well-established fact known to economists all over the world.
And the cost?
That is the Fine Gael approach: what will it cost? Can we afford it? To the devil with broken men, broken women and hungry children ! Where will we get the money to do it? That is the Fine Gael mentality.
That is not true.
That has been their mentality from the time the Party was formed.
That was the time you wanted to stand.
That has been its idea all through its existence.
When the Deputy offered himself.
Whatever number of Parties I have been connected with, I never had anything to do with Fine Gael.
The Deputy never got into it.
Deputy Cowan is in possession.
The Fine Gael mentality has always been wrong. Where will the money come from? That has been responsible in large measure for the enormous emigration we had in the period 1922 to 1932, and for the queues of unemployed during that period.
I merely asked the cost.
As far as we are concerned in the corporation, whatever money the scheme will cost will, we understand, be provided by the Government for us. This committee was only set up last Monday. It will hold its first meeting to-night, and we will have details in relation to the cost.
What were you doing for years back that you had not the men working? Did you only get your committee when they stopped you outside Leinster House?
I have special reasons for not responding to Deputy Dr. O'Higgins in the way in which I might. I want to put before the House constructive proposals in relation to the problem of unemployment. If we can abolish this Deputy General MacEoin idea of condemning public works such as Houses of Parliament, Government buildings and municipal offices, and if we can get agreement from Fine Gael that it is desirable to spend £5,000,000 or £10,000,000 every year on the provision of public works, then we will make substantial progress in solving our huge unemployment problem. Certain unemployment has been created in the last two years by Fine Gael propaganda to the effect that the Government is not stable, that it would not exist much longer, that it only had a few weeks to run. Certain people who intended to spend money were misled by that propaganda with the result that all over the country men were let go. A good deal of unemployment is the result of that damaging propaganda directed against the present Government over the last two years.
There is very little likelihood of this Government being defeated until its term of office has run its full course and if we can get that idea across to the people we will very quickly find that there will be employment for the odd ones here and there and the total will be a substantial one. We must create confidence because confidence engenders prosperity. Fine Gael, for their own purposes, want to create a feeling of instability and they want to deprive the people of that confidence necessary to the country's maintenance.
In to-day's paper I was glad to read that the Corrib drainage scheme will give employment to 500 people in the West of Ireland. That will be very valuable and the Government should be applauded for speeding up plans and operations so that that work can be put in hands straight away.
The cost of living has been referred to. It is higher than it was some years ago but it is lower than it is in England and in Northern Ireland. One can get decent food here at a reasonable price. One cannot do that in England.
There is no comparison between the cost of living here and the high cost of living in France or in the United States of America. Every one of us would wish to reduce the cost of living if we could. I do not think it does this country any good for people to be moaning and groaning on platforms all over the country that the cost of living here is the highest in the world. That is no good to the country because it is not true. The cost of living is undoubtedly higher than it was a couple of years ago, but it should be put in its proper perspective in relation to the cost of living elsewhere.
There are few countries in the world to-day where you could get as fine food as one can get it here, or get it at the price it is in this country. The unfortunate thing is that we have people who are working but they are not earning enough money to buy the food they need. That is no new story in this country. It, unfortunately, has been so for many years. It is also true that we have unemployed who cannot buy the very fine food that we have because their allowances are inadequate, although these allowances have been substantially increased by the present Government. There are some allowances which, certainly, were not there when the Fine Gael Party were the Government, such as children's allowances, widows' allowances or the allowances for the unemployed who are now on unemployment assistance.
It would be a great thing if we could reduce the cost of living and if we could reduce the price of milk in Dublin City. It would be a grand thing,but what would be the reactions of the farmers to it, or if we could reduce the price of butter. We could not do that unless we got back to the subsidy business. It had the effect, as we all know, of enabling butter to be smuggled across the Border and sold there, butter that was distributed on a rationed basis all over the country at a subsidised price. That butter went across the Border in lorry loads.
These are the practical problems which we have to face. As I say, there will be great difficulty in any Government reducing the cost of living unless it is prepared to raise millions of money in taxation for the purpose of subsidising certain foods.
House building is another matter. We have been told that there has been a reduction in house building. As far as the Dublin Corporation is concerned, there has been no reduction in house building. We are still building on the average that we have been building over the last three years. I want the House to realise this, that we in the Dublin Corporation understand that if we build 10,000 more houses we will have solved the housing problem in Dublin City. In other words, building at the rate of 2,000 houses a year for five years the housing problem as far as the Dublin Corporation is concerned will have been solved.
Now there is one big problem confronting the city council and confronting the trade unions and that is should we speed up that work now and do it in three years or should it be spread over the five years in order to maintain continuity in employment. That is the huge problem that confronts the trade unions and confronts the corporation. It is one which must confront every person in this House who feels he has any responsibility in regard to public affairs. The position is that we are building and will continue to build for the next five years 2,000 houses a year. That will be the average. In one year it may be 2,100 or 2,200 but the approximate figure is 2,000 houses a year for the next five years.
As far as money under the Small Dwellings Act is concerned we in theDublin Corporation had to make provision the other day for £3,000,000. That money is required for payments under the Small Dwellings Acts for houses that have been and are being built. Deputy Gallagher said to-day that the average number of these houses built over some years has been 400. He also mentioned that there are 800 applications in this year so far for advances under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act. Therefore so far as the public authority is concerned there has been no reduction in building in Dublin.
We know that a number of people had the idea of buying their own houses a couple of years ago. People did in fact buy them. They paid a deposit of £200 or £250 on a house. They entered into negotiations with a building society and took a mortgage on the balance. Very many of these people have found that they have not been able to meet their commitments or their obligations. This morning I met a woman who had entered into a commitment of that kind. She is the wife of a tradesman, a plasterer who has been employed and is employed. She has a large family. She told me that the sheriff is going to put her out next Monday because she has been unable to pay the instalment on the loan she got.
Now you have said it.
I am glad to say that the Dublin Corporation has agreed to house that family. It takes a very sympathetic view of all these cases. We do our best and I am glad to say that although the woman will be put out of the house which she has been buying for the last couple of years and will lose her deposit she will not be homeless on Monday next.
I mention that case to show that there are a number of people who, by making small deposits, were endeavouring to become the owners of their own houses, but they have found from experience that they were not able to meet the charges and so a lot of these houses are coming on the market day after day. There are many applications in with the city council and with the Dublin County Council to approve of transfers in the case of these housesThere is in the building industry quite a considerable number of people unemployed. The desire ought to be to put these men back in employment as quickly as possible. There is a suggestion which I want to make to the Government. I am glad that the Minister for External Affairs is here. The suggestion is that the Dublin Corporation and public authorities generally should help people who want to build their own houses by the provision of sites with roads and sewerage installed. I would be in favour of making the provision of sites almost free for citizens. In fact I would make them free for people who want to build their own houses and I would have these sites, roads, severage and all services made available and put in by the local authority. In that way we would be able to encourage quite a number of our citizens to take the plunge and build houses for themselves. It is only in that way coupled with the reconstruction of the Castle and work of that kind that we could solve the unemployment problem among skilled building workers. Skilled building workers are a problem. Every effort should be made to put these men back into employment. They are out of employment now, not because of any Government decision but because of a natural change in circumstances. The sooner that is appreciated, the better and the sooner we will be able to solve the problem.
The last matter raised is the question of emigration. Since the Famine of 1847 there has been a drift of people out of this country year after year. Only recently a parish priest in the West of Ireland told me that there were roughly 40,000 direct emigrants or descendants of emigrants in Boston, U.S.A., from that small area of the country. When one talks to any of the older people in Connemara one finds that every one of them has lived in the United States for a time. There is nothing that will stop the people of this country emigrating. A number of them desire to emigrate, to go abroad and see their friends and relatives. That emigration is what one might term voluntary emigration. There is a different type of emigration. There is enforced emigration that isdue to unemployment. We have had enforced emigration for many years. Emigration and unemployment go hand in hand.
We must stop enforced emigration by the provision of employment here. I have talked about workers who are engaged in building and kindred work. In my view, much more employment could be given on the land if the land were properly distributed. It is a shame that there are hundreds of acres left derelict and improperly tilled and cultivated. As I have said before, the food situation in the world is very serious. There will be grave shortages and famines, unfortunately, in many places in the near future. This country can contribute a tremendous amount to ease the danger of famine by the provision of food. We have tens of thousands of acres that are not under cultivation. Those acres should be under cultivation. I have my own views about how they can be put under cultivation but, whether one agrees with my views in regard to that or not, there is a problem arising from the fact that the land is not being used to its fullest extent. If the land were used to the fullest extent, there would be opportunities for employment for thousands of people on the land. As I look at it, this is a national problem, a social problem, a problem that will have to be faced no matter what Government happens to be in power. I want to see it faced by the united effort of this Irish Parliament.
We should try to inculcate in the people as a whole the idea that they live in one of the finest countries in the world, one of the best countries in the world, that there are better opportunities for employment here than there are in other countries if we would only stand together and pull together in the interests of the country. We should try to inculcate the idea in our young people that we have amenities and sports, fun and amusement and opportunities for marrying in this country that are not in every other country. That is the line we should follow instead of the moaning and the wailing that we have on the public platforms about this country being down and out, about its being theworst country in the world, about its having the highest cost of living.
And its being bankrupt.
And the necessity to wear the hair shirt.
A person can be happy wearing a hair shirt.
He can, provided there is plenty inside it.
Deputy Cowan.
It is not how you are clothed that really counts.
Clothes do not make the man.
But the man often makes clothes.
We have a grand country if we would only get together and do the things that ought to be done. Deputy Hickey has referred to all this talk about our being bankrupt. We are not bankrupt. We need not be bankrupt. There is no necessity for us to be bankrupt.
We have saved the country from bankruptcy.
If we all make a genuine effort we can create conditions that will lead to an increase in employment. This country is reduced now to a population of roughly 3,000,000 people. We must increase that population rapidly because we require a higher population to make the country economically sound. It is the drain of emigration that is doing damage to the country. If we can stop the drain of emigration by providing employment we will be able to increase the population and bring prosperity into every home. There is a responsibility on the Fine Gael section of the Opposition to stop moaning and wailing and running down the country.
We are not.
I would appeal to Deputies of Fine Gael to give up that moaning and wailing and condemnation——
It is the Minister for Finance who has been wailing.
——and help us all to try to make this country what it ought to be, the very best country in the world.
Deputy Cowan took a line which was adopted by one of the Fianna Fáil Deputies last night and which I resent, namely, that in recent months we, on this side of the House, have pursued a policy of obstruction and that for that reason the Estimates cannot be dealt with within the statutory time. May I remind Deputy Cowan that a week was wasted discussing a vote of confidence, a vote of confidence which had been denied to the Government by the people in the ballot boxes and that that week could have been well utilised in discussing Estimates?
We also had Deputy Cowan telling the Parties to detail certain Deputies to speak on certain Estimates. How can we get the Estimate for Agriculture when Dublin City Deputies will insist on speaking on agriculture which most of them know very little about? You cannot level the charge at this side of the House that we are responsible. That charge was made last night after the Minister for Defence had thanked the House for the expenditious manner in which the Military Service Pensions Bill was dealt with. My interpretation of obstruction would be that every measure coming before the House would be opposed. It is worth nothing that the Minister for External Affairs spoke for two hours on the vote of confidence. Ministers are the greatest culprits in the matter of delaying the House by making lengthy speeches. Deputies are as much entitled to speak on any measure as any Minister.
On this Vote on Account, we intend to avail of the opportunity of putting on record the opinions of the people in relation to the Government's financial policy. As a result of the wailings and groanings that went on in ministerialcircles, following the advent of this Government to office, about the condition in which the country was then we had a recession in trade, an increase in unemployment, resumed emigration, and a general depression in industry during the past two years. The Government had to meet an obstruction of their own making in their first year of office when they could not go to the country for a loan in the atmosphere they had created by decrying the achievements of their predecessors. In that atmosphere, they could not ask the people's support for a national loan because they were afraid of the consequences. Then when they did float a national loan they paid an exorbitant rate of interest. The stock exchange returns since prove that we paid too much for that money.
A city Deputy told us last night that they would have to find £3,000,000 for loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. It is worthy of note that as a result of the interest paid on the last loan—the indications are that at least the same rate will have to be paid for the coming loan—young people in the City of Dublin will have to pay £30,000 extra in interest on the loans they will receive under that Act. I am more concerned with agriculture, and it is a great impediment to progress in that sphere that the Agricultural Credit Corporation have had to raise their rate of interest on loans as a direct result of the financial policy pursued by the Government.
Deputy Cowan blamed the previous Minister for Finance, Deputy McGilligan, for not having done something about the Central Bank. There is nothing wrong with the Central Bank giving advice to any Government. They gave it to the inter-Party Government and to this Government. The fault lay in the acceptance of that advice. We can now see the results quite clearly in the number unemployed, in the increased cost of living, and in the general condition of affairs throughout the country. For a time Government Deputies made puerile efforts to minimise the situation in regard to unemployment. But, speaking on the vote of confidence, Deputy Dr. Browne, as an IndependentDeputy supporting the Government, stated that Fine Gael had not in any way exaggerated the situation with regard to unemployment. I would point out to that Deputy and other Deputies that it was their support of all measures introduced by this Government which has brought about that situation.
As to the Government's drive to dig deeper into the people's pockets by way of increased taxation, following on the Taoiseach's statement that the country was staggering under an excessive load of taxation the Minister for Finance now finds that the law of diminishing returns is operating in a very strong way. We find that revenue has been reduced because the people were unable to consume the amount of commodities which the Minister thought they would consume so that he would have millions with which to play around. Deputy Mulcahy indicated that the revenue from cigarettes and tobacco had increased by only £5.3 million, whereas it should have been £7,000,000 if the same consumption was maintained. We have had in recent weeks very clear evidence that the tax on spirits has dealt a very heavy blow to that industry which was giving valuable employment and paying fair prices to a very large number of farmers for raw materials. The position is that that industry to-day has its back to the wall as a result of the financial policy of the Government.
Deputy Cowan stated that this Government had substantial majorities on all the votes which they sought in this House since the last election. I do not agree with that. The most important vote from the Government's point of view was when they tried to secure a majority in this House on the vote of confidence. It was our belief that as the people had recorded their disapproval of Government policy the people constituted the jury before whom the Government should go. Although it was this House which put the Government in office, when they sought a majority on the vote of confidence they failed to secure that majority. They only secured the support of 50 per cent. of the members ofthe House. One member indicated that he was opposed to giving a vote of confidence to the Government, but, for reasons best known to himself, he abstained from voting. Another Deputy elected to oppose the Government occupies the position of Ceann Comhairle and, of course, could not record his vote. Taking these things into consideration, the Government were denied a majority on that occasion.
To return to the important matter of unemployment, I would say, as representing a country constituency, that it is a matter of great concern to us that in the small towns in my constituency we have unemployment for the first time. The principal reason for that is the recession in the building industry. Many skilled workers who returned from abroad to take part in building operations here a few years ago are now registering at the employment exchanges. In the rural areas we have a ready-made scheme for absorbing these unemployed people. Deputy Cowan may sneer at the Local Authorities (Works) Act. That was introduced by a Labour Party Minister in the inter-Party Government. It is to his credit and to the credit of Deputy Corish, who was responsible for its operation after the late Minister's death, that it has given very valuable employment in the country. In particular, a very large percentage of the moneys voted for it was spent on payments to workers engaged on the scheme. Relatively little went in administrative costs. I know this, that if every the loyalty of members of Fianna Fáil who were members of local authorities was tried it was tried then because these men knew the benefits this scheme was bringing to their area and in company with other local representatives supported this at that time. They produced to the county manager and the county council officers schemes which they felt would be useful for the clearance of land or of obstructions in water courses with sure benefit to the work under the land rehabilitation scheme.
In County Cork we had at that time over £150,000 of a grant for that work.This year it was reduced to £48,000. Some weeks ago I asked the Minister for Local Government what it was likely to be next year and he said: "Half the present amount." Well, spread £24,000 over the County of Cork in schemes like that and you will see that not very much employment can be given by it. With the Government now in a state of emergency looking round for schemes to absorb the unemployed, I would ask them to take up that scheme again. Let them forget the year it was introduced, forget who introduced it and put it back into operation, safe in the knowledge that it will give useful employment to men who are not afraid of the conditions Deputy Cowan referred to. Perhaps, compared with conditions in the cities, city workers would find it very strange, but those who are used to working on the land for seven days of the week and often for 14 or 15 hours a day have to work under similar conditions and they have no court of appeal. Surely men that were formerly engaged on this work could be used for this scheme with consequent benefit to the country as a whole and it would be a definite help to increase production. I know that many acres scheduled for work under the scheme are now waterlogged and the farmers cannot get any income or profit from them. But if they were drained they would give some return to the farmers and perhaps he would be able to keep another member of his family at home working on the land, or he could put more cattle on it or obtain more crops from it. I merely suggest that, if you want a scheme that could improve the present situation in relation to unemployment in this country.
In this Vote on Account, I note with some concern a reduction of £1,738,910 for agriculture. I note a reduction in the supplementary agricultural grants of £51,000, and then I wonder how much extra employment would be given by an increase of £2,400 for the Secret Service. I wonder what field of production would be enhanced by that allowance? And that is some of the money we are asked to vote on this and asked to do it, as Deputy Cowan would have us do it, without demur.
One of the grave problems facing this country to-day is the cost of living which everybody has to meet. When Deputies speak of butter versus farmers anybody would think that the farmers and their wives and families and employees do not eat any butter and that every single penny comes back to them the moment the consumer has to pay an increased price for butter. I know this: if the Cork and Dublin consumers had been aware of the prices they would be asked to pay for that essential foodstuff before Fianna Fáil were two years in office, they would certainly think twice before they would vote for new Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party or for Independent Deputies who voted this Government into office.
The slashing of the food subsidies as they were slashed showed its result in the cost of living——
And a bob a gallon for milk——
The Deputy refers to the guaranteed minimum price which is not guaranteed by the Government. There is no guaranteed minimum price. Many results have come from the effects of the increase in the various items of the cost of living. They have been often specified here on these benches and must surely be accepted by everyone now. When I hear Deputies talking of hunger, I would ask them what Government increased the price of the loaf from 6½d. to 9½d.; or what Minister for Finance was responsible for the price of flour going up from 2/8 to 4/9½.
Would you stand for a lower price for wheat?
What Minister for Finance was responsible for the price of sugar going from 4½d. to 7d. a lb.; or what Minister for Finance or what Government was responsible for raising the price of tea from 2/8 to 5/6 a lb.? And what Minister, when he was seeking more money to carry out whatever schemes he had in mind was responsible for increasing the price of cigarettes from 1/8 to 2/4 per packetof 20? Or for increasing the price of petrol as it was increased? Or for increasing taxation on all vehicles transporting goods or passengers in this country? Transport charges have a vital effect on increasing production, as they are charges which every single one has to meet, and in particular, the farmer, because in that field owing to the type of produce he is engaged in bringing to market, any increase in transport costs is a definite blow to him. Even the Taoiseach recognised that when he sought election in Clare. He stated that the Government then in office were experts in hidden taxation because everything and anything in the way of a charge on vehicles or petrol or postage stamps or any levy was, in effect, a tax and nothing but a tax.
Now the Government, as the Taoiseach said, having reached the limit of taxation are, through the activities of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Health—by passing 50 per cent. of the cost of his new Bill on to the rates— are passing on new taxes month after month. We were told when the food subsidies were slashed there would be compensatory benefits for all sections of the community. It would be impossible, even if all 147 members of this House were to speak on every occasion, for them to recount all the ill results that have accrued from the slashing of the food subsidies. Various people were given—because they were sufficiently organised—increases to meet that increase in the cost of living but what they found cost of living but they found they were not a bit better off after getting the increase because it was all absorbed in the increased cost of living.
There were many sections of the community who got no increase and many who got increases were adversely affected in other ways. I have a letter before me from a man working for a local authority and his salary was increased to meet the increase in the cost of living. He has a home to maintain, a wife and three children. Shortly before that, he had decided to acquire a home under the SmallDwellings Acquisition Act. He applied for a grant and found that having embarked on all the preparations to erect his home, because his salary had been slightly increased, it was brought above the maximum and therefore he lost a couple of hundred pounds because of this increase which was designed merely to compensate him for the effect of the 1951 Budget. He now finds that he is at the loss of a couple of hundred pounds because of the results directly accruing from Government policy.
That is merely an instance. There is not a Deputy on any side of the House who could not find dozens of other people who have been affected in a similar way. Another case that comes to my mind is that of a widow with two children. One of the children —a girl—is employed in a co-operative creamery, and the son is unfortunately physically deficient. Instead of throwing him on the mercy of the local authorities they are looking after that boy in his home and merely because the sister got a few shillings increase in her wages and because the mother got a slight increase in the widows' pension, he was struck off the list of those obtaining public assistance.
I think the case could also be made that the increase of 1/6 given to old age pensioners is not a sufficient compensation for the extra prices which they are called upon to pay for bread, tea, sugar. If an old person has the temerity to take a "hot drop" when he goes in to collect his old age pension, or if an old man drinks an odd pint or bottle of stout, will the extra 1/6 meet all these fresh commitments arising from Government policy? I think it is clear from the results of the recent by-election that the people are demanding a change of Government. They have despaired of a change of policy. They have heard of these points of view being put forward on numerous occasions while no heed whatever is taken of them. The feeling of the people, expressed in the by-elections held since the full effect of the Government's financial policy has come to bear upon them, has beenmade quite clear. We have had an election in a city constituency and in two rural constituencies and the verdict of the people in each of these constituencies has been unanimous—a message to the Government that it is the desire of the people to have a general election. Any effort to defer the general election, or to stave off what may be described as the evil day for the Government, will be of no avail. I think that in making that statement, I am expressing the views of my own constituents, as well as the views placed on record in North-West Dublin, Cork and Wicklow.
Mayo and Waterford.
The Government, despite their promises that if given another term of office they would not impose additional taxation, have not alone reimposed the taxes which were abolished by the inter-Party Government but have added considerably to that taxation. The present Minister for Finance told the licensed trade in his own constituency that there was no foundation for the rumours circulated by people on this side of the House that if Fianna Fáil ever got into power again they would reimpose the taxes on beer and spirits. The Tánaiste had to be brought to Cork at the same time to reassure the people there that there was no truth in any of these allegations. However, they have been proved, unfortunately, only too true, with the result that in every town and village in Ireland, families engaged in the licensed trade, engaged perhaps as a sideline in the hackney business having perhaps a truck employed in transport for the local mill or the local shopkeeper or the local farmer, find to-day that there is such an attack on their means of livelihood that they cannot pay even the taxes that they were paying a few years ago, not to speak of the increased commitments they have been asked to meet since the present Government came into office. For these reasons, we on this side, desire to place on record on this Vote on Account our view that the Government is continuing a policy that cannot bring to our people the relief that isso badly needed in the matter of unemployment, the cost of living, production, emigration, or any of the other problems that affect us to-day.
The Tánaiste, in the course of the discussion on the vote of confidence, said that he felt that rural workers should not be given rights here in the City of Dublin in relation to housing and other matters which might result in Dublin people being deprived of such rights. I can see some reason for that point of view, but may I point out that we must add to the figures of people coming to Dublin the additional numbers that we are now taking into the Army? If a farmer gives employment to a young lad after he has left the national school, he has to train him, and perhaps for the first year or two the young lad will not be of much use but, working with the older labourers and perhaps the members of the farmer's family, he will become a skilled agriculturist in the course of a few years. I think it is inimical to the success of the production campaign if we have Government agents going into rural areas with their vans, loudspeakers and high-powered propaganda to induce such young men to join the Army. If it is the desire of these young men to serve in the Defence Forces, they have an opportunity of doing so in Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil, and I think it is wrong that they should be drawn from their employment to become members of the Regular Army. These young men have grown up in a different atmosphere from that in which they will be trained in the Army, and if it is the desire of the Government to secure recruits for the Regular Army, I think their attention should be directed to the people who are standing at the street corners, who are unemployed, but who are physically fit and have sufficient intelligence to absorb the training which they would receive in the Army. It would be far better to augment the Defence Forces from such a source than to draw on a body of young men who spent years working as agricultural labourers or as labourers in any of the avocations by which we seek to improve the standard of living of our people. I have intervened in the debate merely to give expression tothese few remarks and not with any idea of obstructing the business which the Government wish to put through in this session.
The object of this Vote, as the Minister stated in introducing it, is to provide sufficient money to enable the services for the various Departments to be financed pending the passing of the various Estimates and the necessary financial legislation to provide the money. Since that is the position, we may take it that no sane or rational Deputy will think of voting against this motion. Nobody will object to any Opposition Deputy— he has a perfect right on a motion such as this—declaring his views in regard to Government policy. I listened very attentively to the debate yesterday and I think anyone who was present will bear out the statement that the most remarkable feature of it was the striking contrast, the almost startling contrast, between the speech delivered by a member of the Labour Party, Deputy Corish, and the speech delivered on behalf of the Fine Gael party by Deputy Flanagan. Deputy Corish's statement, as I think everybody who was present will agree, was a reasonable and moderate one. It was a constructive one. His whole approach to the questions involved in this debate was one of a Deputy trying to find a way out of our difficulties and trying to help the nation to surmount them. One might not agree with every point he made but he certainly was. endeavouring to put to the Government constructive suggestions for the solution of our national problems, particularly the problem of unemployment. Deputy Flanagan, however, went to the other extreme. He recited all the silly partisan slogans that we heard over the past two years. I do not intend to follow Deputy Flanagan. I will deal with this debate on the lines suggested by Deputy Corish. Bearing out what Deputy Corish said, it is no harm to point out that the Trade Union Congress, which is apparently a responsible body, has considered the question of unemployment and put forward a number of suggestions. There are very few Deputies who would findfault with those suggestions. My only point in regard to them is that in all probability they do not go far enough. In the main they deal with matters of detail rather than with the question of tackling the unemployment problem in its widest, broadest and deepest aspects.
Unemployment is the most important national problem at the moment. No one can deny that. Unemployment has always been a big problem down through the years. It is not a problem that affects only the wage-earning classes. It affects all sections of the community, but in particular those in the lower and middle income groups. The farmer is faced with the problem of finding employment for his second, third and fourth sons and for his daughters. The professional man and the businessman are preoccupied with the same problem in relation to their children. The problem affects the nation as a whole and it should be our aim to ensure that the young people, educated at considerable expense in the primary and secondary schools, will find employment at home and a decent means of livelihood rather than be forced to go abroad.
Emigration ranks second in importance to unemployment. Unemployment is our primary problem. It is a problem that the Government must face. It is a problem they must tackle. Even with full employment here it is possible that we would still have some measure of emigration. Emigration is to a large extent outside our control. It is governed by the conditions prevailing in other countries. If conditions elsewhere are better than they are here, there will be emigration. Our whole aim, however, should be to ensure that nobody will be forced to leave the country to seek employment if he or she prefers to remain at home.
There are two main sources of employment. There is employment arising out of agricultural development and employment provided in the main by private enterprise through the intensive development of both agriculture and industry. It is in relation to such employment that I now want tojoin issue with the main Opposition Party. The only alternative to the present Government is a Fine Gael Government. The last Government— some of us may not have realised it at the time—was not an inter-Party Government at all; it was a Fine Gael Government, slightly disguised or camouflaged. During the last two years members of the Fine Gael Party throughout the country have been boasting that the Government that held office for three and a half years was a Fine Gael Government pure and simple.
What is the attitude of the main Opposition Party towards providing employment for our workers in the way in which it could be provided, namely, through the development of agriculture and industry? For 20 years Fine Gael has been fiercely opposed to all measures of industrial development. Every manufacturer has been held up to ridicule. Every measure designed to increase industrial and agricultural output has been denounced. Yet, it is only through the intensive development of agriculture and industry that we can provide employment for our people. Despite all the attacks levelled against industrial development the country has marched forward. Industry has expanded and is to-day providing employment for many thousands of workers.
Notice taken that20Deputies were not present; House counted, and20Deputies being present,
Despite the fierce and vindictive campaign against the development of industry over the last 20 years industrial development has proceeded. The second way in which employment can be provided for our people is through the development of agriculture. Does anybody think there is anything in Fine Gael policy that makes for increased employment in agriculture? For the last 20 years the main spokesmen of the Fine Gael Party have denounced the main factors contributing to an expansion of agricultural production. The shadow Minister for Agriculture has denounced the growing of wheat and the growingof sugar beet. It is significant that at the moment the gross income from agriculture amounts to something like £12 per acre. Now, here is an account of four acres of beet which produced a gross income of £301, or approximately £75 per acre.
Not all of the £75 goes to the farmer. Close on £100, out of the £301, goes for seeds, manures and transport, so that there is approximately £50 left to the farmer. Out of that £50 the farmer pays approximately £25 in wages. That is to say, that out of one acre of sugar beet, the agricultural worker will get approximately £25. On ten acres of beet, a sum of over £200 will be paid out in labour to agricultural workers. Is it not better to grow sugar beet and pay that substantial sum to agricultural workers than follow the lines advocated by the Fine Gael Party of having a gross income of £13 or £14 an acre and employ nobody? Under that system, nobody would get any wages. The only thing that would have to be supported is a dog. According to leading Fine Gael spokesmen, the growing of sugar beet should be terminated, and the four sugar factories should be blown up with dynamite.
Was it not the Cumann na nGaedheal Government that started the sugar factories?
(Interruptions.)
The criticism on the Vote on Account should be directed towards the present Government and not to any other Government.
What I am suggesting is that we should adopt a policy of intensive agriculture and in that way provide employment. We have listened to speakers from the Fine Gael Party over the last 20 years denouncing the growing of wheat. If you want to have intensive agriculture, with the land giving its maximum production, you must have a policy designed to promote tillage. The only way to do that is to have guaranteed prices for certain tillage crops.
For barley?
Yes, and for sugar beet. Sugar beet and wheat are the two crops in regard to which it is easy and possible for a Government to guarantee prices in all circumstances. It is not so easy to control the price of feeding barley or even of malting barley or of other agricultural products. I have often advocated the extension of the principle of guaranteed prices for commodities other than wheat and sugar beet, but we are always up against certain serious difficulties in regard to supply and demand. In regard, however, to sugar beet and wheat, there is no such difficulty. We cannot but condemn the action of what claims to be the main Opposition Party for its violent attacks on the growing of these two crops which have a guaranteed price fixed for them by the State. Deputy Rooney, I think, suggested, by way of interruption, that I should talk about barley and other crops and the prices for them. The growing of these crops also provides a good volume of employment. It will be noted that in the last two years the average price of malting barley was 76/- per barrel. In the three years of the Fine Gael Government the average price was 53/-per barrel. Even in regard to malting barley, there has been a very substantial increase in the price paid to the farmer. The average price, taking the last two years, has been 76/- per barrel, while the average price for the three previous years was 53/- per barrel. Yet, in face of that situation, we have people like Deputy Rooney going around the country persistently shouting that the present Government has reduced the price of malting barley.
Does the Deputy remember that when the Fine Gael Government was in it was 84/- per barrel?
I have given the average price for the last two years when it was 76/- per barrel. The Fine Gael Party, which is always talking about barley prices, never succeeded in bringing the average price above 53/-per barrel. I think it is about time that this whole campaign of misrepresenting the position of agriculture, a campaign which has been indulged inby the Fine Gael Party, should be blown sky high.
Agricultural prices have certainly increased over the last two years. The agricultural price index for 1950 was 260, as compared with 100 in 1938. In 1952, it was 297. That represents a substantial increase. It means that, if a farmer got £260 for his produce in 1950, last year he was getting £297, or an increase of £37. In addition, the wages of agricultural workers have been increased by approximately £1 a week. The farmer, even though he got the increase, did not put it in his pocket. He has, in the main, passed it on to the agricultural worker. You have there an indication that there has been a general effort to improve the condition of the farming community, of not only the man who owns the land but of the farm worker as well.
Over the last two years, the price of wheat has been increased by 15/-per barrel, beet by 10/- per ton, milk by 3d. per gallon, and the price of cattle, that is good store cattle, by £5 per head, and pigs by over 10/- per cwt. It is no harm to point out that the price of oats has also been increased.
The Fine Gael Party talk a lot about the price of oats. During the three years of the Fine Gael Government, the average price of oats was £19 per ton, while the average price in the last two years was £23 per ton. There, again, you have an all round improvement of the position so far as the farmer and farm workers are concerned. These are the principal people engaged in the economic life of this nation. They are the people on whom the nation, in the main, depends.
And 4/2 a lb. for New Zealand butter. That is a record, but I am not aware that the farmers of Ireland are getting it.
Deputy O'Leary would like to see the price of milk to the farmer reduced. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot pay the farmer a reasonable price for his produce and at the same time expect that the consumer will get his requirements at avery much reduced price. That cannot be done and the Government are right to recognise it.
It is all nonsense to say that whatever increase has taken place in the cost of living was due entirely to the reduction in the food subsidies. In the last three months of the Fine Gael Government the cost of living went up by nine points. Although that happened, nothing was done by the Fine Gael Government to offset that increase. The cost of living went up a further nine or ten points under the present Government and the net result of the reduction in food subsidies was an increase of six or seven points. Therefore, to attribute every increase that has taken place in the cost of living to the reduction in food subsidies is simply not facing facts which are easily ascertainable.
On a point of order. Could you swear, Sir, that this is the same Deputy Cogan who supported the inter-Party Government for three years?
The Deputy is not going to put me in the dock to swear anything.
He represents nobody now.
I think I am entitled to point out that I am the same Deputy Cogan who opposed the Estimate for Agriculture in the two years that the Fine Gael Government was in power and I was not given the opportunity to oppose it the last time their Estimate came before the House.
I would swear you are the same man.
With a different mind.
Order!
I wonder if Deputy Davin is the same Deputy Davin who many years ago, used fiercely to attack the old Cumann na nGaedheal Government and the Fine Gael Party?
Will the Deputy deal with the Vote on Account?
Until they sold out a couple of seats in the Government.
To meet the increase in the cost of living a number of improvements in social services have been introduced. When various Deputies of the Opposition—I will not mention names—speak about the higher cost of living they never refer to the fact that sickness benefit has been increased within the last two years from 22/- in a case where there are two children in the family, to 52/6.
And the Deputy voted against that.
That is a substantial increase and offsets to a considerable extent the increase in the cost of living.
How did you vote on that?
He voted against it.
Disablement benefits have been increased from 15/- to 24/-. Unemployment benefit has been increased from 35/- to 52/6 in the case of a family of the same size. Unemployment assistance has been increased from 28/- to 40/6.
And you voted against it.
Widows' and orphans' contributory pensions have been increased from 28/- per week to 40/6. Non-contributory pensions have been increased from 26/- to 34/6 per week and old age pensions have been increased from 17/6 to 21/6. All those reforms have been carried through in spite of the vigorous opposition of the Fine Gael Party.
No regard for the truth at all.
I do not think that those people who have opposed these reforms, who have despised them and resented them, have anything to talk about in regard to the lower privileged sections of our community. Since 1951, the majority in this House have been endeavouring strenuously to improvethe position of the lower privileged section of the community.
That brings me to the question which I was endeavouring to deal with when I was interrupted, the question of how to provide increased employment for our workers. I referred to the Trade Union Congress statement which was issued recently and which I commended as being reasonable and responsible. The Trade Union Congress made a number of suggestions. They said:
"Administrative delays in regard to housing schemes should be eliminated."
That is very, very sound. Those of us who are members of local authorities have had the experience of seeing a housing scheme initiated in our counties and wondering why it was not proceeding. We call at the county council office and we are told that the scheme is in the Department in Dubline. We call to the Department and we are told it has gone back to the county council. We call again to the county council office and we are told that it has gone back again to the Department.
That kind of thing goes on for months and in some cases for years. While a housing scheme may be sent up and down from the county council to the Department and from the Department to the county council, there are people living in crowded conditions, perhaps two or three families in one worker's cottage, married sons or daughters of the tenant. They are waiting for the houses to be built. There are skilled workers in the towns waiting for employment. There are unskilled workers waiting for employment that would be provided in the development of the sites and other ancillary work.
It is a very sound suggestion that unnecessary delays should be eliminated. There is a firm in Wexford which manufactures a very good type of Irish slasher. The Government should purchase one of these slashers and cut away as much as possible of the red tape that impedes the development of housing schemes.
There is no one whocould cut that as soon as the Deputy. He is in a right way now to cut it.
The Trade Union Congress also suggest that work should go ahead on the development of various derelict sites. That would provide employment. They suggest the speedy allocation of contracts, no holdup in regard to them. They also suggest a time limit in the carryingout of these contracts so that the work would be set on foot rapidly. They suggest that, wherever possible, direct labour should be employed. There may be Deputies who have an objection to direct labour but I have seen it working successfully and I have no objection to it at all. I believe that direct labour should be used by a county council wherever possible and, in addition, there could be a certain amount of contract work done. Let the two systems compete with each other and see which is the more efficient. The competition between the two systems would probably create greater efficiency.
They also suggest a speeding up of arterial drainage. That is a point on which I feel very strongly. Newspaper reports indicate that there is a considerable amount of work being undertaken at the moment in connection with arterial drainage. I think the Office of Public Works should be asked to get more work done in regard to arterial drainage. There has been a great deal of talk in this House about providing for increased work under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. Work in regard to drainage generally has got to be tackled in a comprehensive national way. You have to follow the streams from the source to the outlet and you cannot always do that with a county scheme. The widening and expansion of arterial drainage work would be very desirable. I, therefore, have no hesitation in commending the suggestions put forward by the Trade Union Congress. They are sound and reasonable. In regard also to the question of drainage, there should be a certain amount of co-operation between the Department of Agriculture and the Office of Public Works so that when a scheme of reclamationunder the land project is likely to be held up by the need for arterial drainage the work will be set on foot immediately.
Notice taken that20Deputies were not present; House counted and20Deputies being present,
Most of the Deputies taking part in the debate have referred to a restriction of credit and stated that sufficient credit is not being made available for agricultural and industrial purposes.
Would it be in order to suggest that when a quorum is called for the number of Deputies present from each Party should be recorded on the records of the House?
There is no such provision made.
Would it be in order to ask Deputy Rooney to call back the Deputies out of their hiding place?
This is not Question Time.
I think the figures relating to credit facilities for agriculture over the last two years should be published. There has been a very wide expansion of credit in regard to the purchasing of tractors and other agricultural machinery over the last two years. I know also that over the last two years there has been a very great expansion of credit for tillage operations, particularly for the growing of wheat. I am sure that in the present year, credit to the extent of tens of thousands of pounds has been given to farmers in connection with the provision of seeds and manures. That is a very good type of credit for agriculture. It is short-term credit, if you like, but if a farmer is in need of capital that is one of the ways in which he can get it with the least possible trouble and by which he can equip and stock his land. By growing a satisfactory and successful crop of wheat a farmer can acquire a certain amount of capital which will enable him to increase his stock and also add to the general equipment for the working of his farm. So that there is a great deal of exaggeration and of misrepresentationin regard to the question of credit for agriculture. I think we have extended it very considerably over the last two years. We all regret that the interest charges are higher but, as has been indicated, that is something over which the State has not any really effective control.
In opening yesterday's debate, Deputy McGilligan referred at considerable length to the question of finance. It is an extraordinary thing that when Deputy McGilligan is out of office he talks in a vague kind of way as if he were a monetary reformer, as if he had swallowed all the theories of Major Douglas and the other experts in finance. But when he becomes Minister for Finance he forgets all about these theories and he plods along in a crude way endeavouring to carry on under the existing system, perhaps not very effectively. He told us—and it is one of the stock arguments of Fine Gael—that his Government left £24,000,000 of Marshall Aid money behind them. He did not tell us, however, that every dollar borrowed from the United States under Marshall Aid was spent before his Government went out of office. What was left was sterling which carried a relatively high rate of interest. It has been proved in this House that 2½ per cent. on money borrowed from a country with a hard currency represents a much heavier burden upon the community than even 5 per cent. payable on money borrowed from our own people. When money has to be paid out to citizens of another nation it is dead money, so to speak. When it has to be paid in dollars to a country with which we have an adverse trade balance, it constitutes a much heavier burden upon the community.
In reply to a question some time ago it was pointed out here by the Minister for Finance that in 30 years' time we will be paying £9,000,000 annually to the United States. We will have to pay that £9,000,000 dollars in the form of goods exported to the United States from which we will get no return. It is about time that all these stupid misrepresentations of Fine Gael were abandoned. Perhaps during the recess they will consider this questionin a more constructive way rather than trying to misrepresent the position that existed when they were in office and the position as it exists to-day.
I did not intend to refer to Deputy O. Flanagan but he did make one statement that deserves comment. He said that two years ago when the Coalition Government was in office, there was no conflict between any sections of the community. I wonder does he think that our memories are so short. Does he think that we have forgotten that Deputy MacBride and himself were chasing each other around this House with long knives in their very bitter opposition to each other? Does he forget the bitter conflict that arose in regard to an appointment in Baltinglass?
I hope the Deputy has not forgotten the Vote on Account.
Does he think we have forgotten these things and that our memories are so short that we are prepared to accept Deputy Flanagan's statement that everything in the garden was lovely two and a half years ago? Two and a half years ago the then Minister for Agriculture was violently attacked for pouring abuse——
The Deputy is travelling away from the Vote on Account.
It would be impossible to reply to any point made by Deputy Flanagan without straying from the rules of order, so I shall have to leave it.
I do not think that is so.
The Deputy should have respect for the Chair.
You are worried about the Chair.
Another statement made by Deputy Flanagan and otherDeputies was that there has been a slowing down on land reclamation projects. I think it is time that was effectively dealt with. Figures available to every Deputy show that in the last year the Coalition Government were in office £569,000 was spent on land reclamation, that £2,500,000 was spent last year and that there is provision for a much higher expenditure in the present year. That represents five times the amount expended on land drainage and reclamation in the last year of the Coalition Government's term of office. I hope the expenditure will continue, as I believe it will continue. It will expand under the provision which has been made for an increased grant to the farmer who undertakes the work himself. Where a farmer undertakes the work of land reclamation he can secure as much as £30 an acre. With the aid of good tractors in each district, farmers will be able to undertake the work themselves and will do it much more efficiently and cheaply than the Department could ever hope to do it for them. It is a good thing that farmers should carry out work of this kind on their own farms and that the grants for that purpose are being substantially increased.
Land reclamation is not a Party issue. It has not been introduced into this country by any one particular Party more than another. It was first undertaken on a modest scale, let us say, by Fianna Fáil about ten years ago and it was gradually expanded year by year. When Deputy Dillon came into office, to his credit let it be said, he paid a generous tribute to the work that had been done in regard to land reclamation by his predecessors in office.
That was ditch cleaning.
It is to his credit that he paid that tribute. I suppose Deputy Rooney would not like to give credit for the making of such a statement. It is proper to have it on the records of the House that he paid tribute to the work done by his predecessors, and it is also to his credit that he endeavouredto extend that work by introducing mechanisation and by increasing the grants available to the farmer for that purpose.
It would be a good thing if Deputies on both sides of the House would refrain from bandying words across the House in regard to this project. Every farmer is entitled to avail of any scheme that is designed to improve his farm and to increase his output. There is no decent farmer who does not try to get the maximum from his land and to bring it up to the highest state of fertility. I know farmers in my own constituency who are so keen on developing their land that they are now availing of this grant to remove earth fences and to replace them by wire fences, so that when the farms are small the farmers can increase the area which they can put under cultivation. As I said, one of the main inducements to increased output in agriculture is the fixed and secure guaranteed prices for certain products of the land. One of the farmers to whom I have referred is an extensive beet and wheat grower. He realises the value of every inch of his holding and he is endeavouring to extract that value from it, not wasting it with fences which are only the breeding grounds for rabbits.
In regard to ground limestone, I have heard people claiming that we owe that scheme entirely to Deputy Dillon. Again, I think there ought to be a little more broadmindedness in regard to this matter. The manufacture of ground limestone was being undertaken before Deputy Dillon took office. In this connection, I would like to pay a tribute to an ex-member of Fine Gael, and that member was the late Deputy Hughes. We remember in this House, in the years before the Fine Gael Party came into office, Deputy Hughes was constantly advocating the manufacture on a large scale of ground limestone.
That manufacture was undertaken under the administration of Deputy Smith and it was continued under the Coalition Government during the three and a half years they were in office, but it continued very slowly because Deputy Dillon opposed the granting of a subsidy on ground limestone.
It was only after long and bitter agitation by Independent Deputies and by the American E.C.A. representative that we succeeded in getting a subsidy on the transport of ground limestone. As a consequence there was very little output applied to farms in the last year of the Coalition Administration. The total output applied to farms was only £75,000. In the present year we are approaching very close to £1,000,000. That is a very substantial expansion and it is one that is very desirable. There is nothing calculated to do more to improve output generally than a scheme of this nature.
Certain Deputies are trying to contend that there is something wrong in the nature of a close-down, or something in the nature of opposition on the part of the Government to long-term works of national development. I indicated at the very outset that national development undertaken by the State forms and must form a substantial portion of the work to be done in alleviating unemployment, no matter what may be done by private enterprise and no matter how we may expand agriculture. There will always be need for large-scale works of development by the State so as to absorb the unemployed and to give an opportunity to the young people growing up, so it is significant to note that in the last year provision for housing has been substantial. Thirteen thousand houses were built in 1952 as against 12,000 in 1950. Turf production in the last year was trebled as compared with 1950.
Rural electrification has been increased and expanded by 30 per cent. Generating stations are being established and projected to the extent of 11 new stations. During the three and a half years of the Fine Gael administration only two generating stations were established and those two were established to use imported fuel. It will be seen that the whole policy of the present Government over the last two years has been directed towards expanding works of national development with a view to providing employment. The area under forestry has been doubled and the grant for the improvement of our harbours has been very largely increased.
In all those works there is the need being met for the provision of employment, but all those works, in my opinion, are not sufficient. We must advance still further and provide the necessary money. It can only be provided, as I say, by borrowing for long-term works of this kind, and it must be used and it must be provided so that increased numbers of our people will be given an opportunity of obtaining work.
Some Deputies may have been impressed by a number of workers here in the city demonstrating in order to focus attention on their claim for employment. We have heard them cry out, "We want work", but while those men are demonstrating and while they are appealing for work we have at the same time very large-sized advertisements appearing in all the newspapers seeking workers. Bord na Móna is spending enormous sums of money advertising its slogan, "We want workers. Workers wanted". They outlined the wages that they are prepared to give, and to the ordinary unskilled worker and to the young man who is prepared to face healthy outdoor work I think there is not very much wrong with the terms that they offer.
They are falling.
If they are, I would like to have that expounded. Is it not a strange thing to find men parading through the city and crying out, "We want work", while we have a huge State organisation. financed by the State, spending large sums of money advertising for workers? There must be something wrong somewhere and I think we are entitled to find out what it is and where it is.
£4 10s. per week is what is wrong.
That is what Deputy Morrissey said in 1950.
2/9 an hour.
The workers are getting only £4 10s. a week. Thepiece-rate is all right but they will not be allowed to do it.
They will.
They will not.
Surely these advertisements should be drawn to the notice of these people who are demonstrating and crying out for work. I think there ought to be some solution of this problem. It is not right or desirable that we should have, on the one hand, young men crying out that they cannot find employment when we have, on the other hand, a large State body crying out that they cannot speed up their production to the extent to which they would desire because they cannot get sufficient workers.
The Army is short of recruits.
I do not think there is anything ignoble about joining the National Army. It is a very fine Army which has a very fine tradition, and it is hard to see why any young man who is unable to find employment, or, indeed, any young man, would not be prepared to join the National Army for a time. I think that there should be opportunities, particularly for young men and for single men, to get employment. For the married man with a family and a home the problem is a little more difficult, but even in regard to married men I think that a real effort should be made to step up the opportunities of employment. Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy McGilligan denounced proposed measures on the part of the Government for works of national development on the ground that they were relief schemes.
What measures? Was it the House of Parliament?
No. The House of Parliament was projected in the mind of Deputy Dillon. What I am thinking about are works of national development scattered throughout the country. I cannot see why those works should not be undertaken and why they shouldnot be supported by Deputies on all sides. We can provide for the improvement of our country roads, for the extension of arterial drainage and for a number of schemes of that kind which will increase employment for our people, but one thing that the Fine Gael Party appear to be afraid of is that these schemes will be undertaken and that they will give considerable employment, and that they will be deprived of one of the many arguments they have used against the Government. Their whole anxiety is and they are determined on it, that the country's economic and social condition is on the up-grade, that it is improving and that it will continue to improve, and that they cannot capitalise the discontent and the grievances which they have been trying to exploit.
I said at the outset that there was a commendable difference between the speech delivered by Deputy Corish on behalf of the Labour Party and that delivered by Deputy Flanagan on behalf of the Fine Gael Party. Deputy Corish's speech was moderate, restrained, sane and constructive, Deputy Flanagan's was abusive, destructive and silly to a very large extent.
He quoted agricultural statistics designed, as he claimed, to prove that there never was and never will be such a Minister for Agriculture as Deputy Dillon. I notice that in this Deputy Flanagan was simply repeating what Deputy Dillon had said about himself in Carlow. A newspaper described Deputy Dillon on that occasion as floating majestically into the auditorium of the Carlow Town Hall like a swan. One of the outstanding features of a swan is its marvellous and substantial neck. Deputy Dillon had neck enough to go to the town where he admitted he would like to blow up the sugar factory, to tell what he had done or was going to do about agriculture. Deputy Flanagan, nevertheless, quoted a number of figures in regard to various types of live stock to show that Deputy Dillon was a wonderful benefactor to the farmers generally. Deputy Dillon himself in Carlow claimed credit for every calf born since 1948, every increase in the pig population and inthe live-stock population generally, with the exception of the rabbits. Modesty prevented him from claiming credit for that spectacular expansion in live-stock production.
Figures are things that cannot be overlooked. There are figures recorded in the Statistical Abstractwhich show the measure of success achieved by Deputy Dillon in the last year he was in office. In that last year he was in office, the number of sows—he often talked about “one more sow”—went down by 400; the total number of pigs went down by 90,000; the number of geese—Deputy Flanagan would be interested in geese—went down by 9,000. The number of ducks—Deputy Flanagan would also be interested in ducks —went down by 40,000.
In ordinary fowl, day-old chicks went down, in the last year in which Deputy Dillon was in office, by 500,000—and that occurred because he claimed that 2d. per egg was a very good price. The number of heifers in calf went down by 23,000; the number of milch cows by 10,000; the number of mules and jennets—this is something that would appeal to Deputy Flanagan, and to Deputy Rooney, too—went down by 1,000. On 13th June, 1951, Deputy Dillon himself went down and his Government went down, too. After they had gone down, there was a substantial increase in the numbers of the principal items of live stock I have mentioned—sows, pigs, ordinary fowl, heifers in calf and ducks. We know that the reduction in the number of milch cows was brought about by the effort of Deputy Dillon in 1950 to reduce the price of milk.
Give us the 1950 live-stock figures, not 1951.
Those are the 1950 figures, compared with 1951. Those reductions took place as between 1950 and 1951.
Do not blame us for 1951.
Anyone who can read can go to the library convenient to the House, where they will find the Statistical Abstractfor 1952, whichcontains all those figures which I have mentioned.
Including the import of tomatoes.
Do not worry about tomatoes. We gave them protection.
Deputy Mulcahy opened the debate to-day. It has been said in regard to Deputy Mulcahy that when he speaks in Irish he speaks very intelligently and very coherently, but when he breaks into English he finds it difficult himself to understand what he is saying. He made just one ccoherent statement and that was in regard to unemployment, that it is better to pay doles to workers than to establish relief works. I join issue with Deputy Mulcahy on this matter. I believe that, no matter what difficulties of organisation or planning arise, it is better to give employment to our men than to pay them the miserable and degrading dole. Even the Independent—which, by the way, is not the official organ of the Independent Deputies in the House; I think it would be more truly described as theIzvestiaof the Fine Gael Party—has denounced the provision of the dole as against giving employment.
Wherever it is possible, and no matter what difficulties have to be overcome in organising and providing the work, the work should be provided. It should be the duty of local bodies— county councils, city councils, town councils and parish councils—where they exist—to plan out schemes of employment, each in its own district, which will enable workers to keep their self-respect and to do useful work for the community. It is an ugly and sad thing to see a man cycling three or four miles along a road strewn with potholes and almost impassable, to sign for the dole. Would it not be better for that man, instead of taking a pen in hand to sign for the dole, if he were given a shovel and allowed to put into permanent repair the road that he has to travel—to sign his name, as it were, permanently, with his shovel rather than to sign with a pen on some official document?
Deputy Mulcahy, reading up, someobscure theory of economics or social teaching, probably not from any Christian source, has laid down the doctrine that it is better to pay a dole to unemployed workers than to give them employment. That is a statement that ought to be refuted by Deputies here and that ought to be refuted in a real way by the Government through the provision of the necessary work. This country is not down and out and is not likely to be down and out. Many of the economic problems that faced us last year, such as the frightening balance of payments, have been solved. In the last year, agriculture has expanded to a tremendous extent. One has only to travel through the country to see the flourishing fields of grain, of wheat and beet, to see that agriculture is on the upgrade. I know there are some crops of barley which may have been damaged by the weather. We hope and pray that the valiant efforts of the farmers over the last year to increase tillage and the production of their land will be rewarded by a bountiful harvest.
Over the last year, 140 new industries were established. I find in my own constituency and adjoining constituencies a real effort made to get into production in various manufacturing industries. Only in the last week I have come across a case in which a firm setting out to engage in manufacturing industry found that they had not the difficulty that they anticipated in securing the necessary credit from the bank for that work. Therefore, I do not think that things are really as black as the Fine Gael Party would have us believe.
I belive that with a united effort on the part of Deputies on all sides of the House and with a united effort on the part of voluntary workers who have the interest of the people at heart, we can put this country on a firm and secure foundation and we can increase the output of our land and of our fields and our factories and increase the employment for our people. Therefore, I think there is hope in the statement that was made here last evening by Deputy Corish, in the statement that was issued bythe Trade Union Congress and in the real efforts being made by men of good will and national outlook to improve the economic position of our country. I think that that is a source of hope for our people.
I see no reason why progress should not be continued. The main Opposition Party cry out again and again for a general election. I think that one of the reasons why they cry out for a general election is because they believe and know that the passage of time will show up the false nature of much of the propaganda on which they are concentrating at present. The passage of time will show that this country is developing, that the capital works being undertaken are yielding results, that agriculture is now really expanding and that industrial development is making headway.
The unemployed have the sympathy of every well-meaning citizen in this State. We should leave aside Party politics and co-operate in an effort to discover ways and means to provide more employment for our people. I speak as a farmer. I try to give as much employment on my farm as I can. I am sure that every well-meaning farmer does the same. Every farmer should avail of the increased grants for land reclamation and improvement and should employ additional men to add to the productive capacity and arable area of the farm. In that way, we shall come nearer to a solution of the unemployment problem. That problem will not be solved by statements such as those which we heard yesterday from Deputy McGilligan and Deputy O. Flanagan. Such statements are deliberately designed to create instability, insecurity and to frighten the people away from undertaking increased productive work. An effort was made last year to frighten farmers from increasing their acreage under wheat and beet. That effort failed but it indicates that all such panicky measures, designed to stampede our people into doing the wrong thing, will fail.
The legal gentlemen who control the Fine Gael Party realise that they will inevitably fail and, for that reason, they are pressing, shouting, screaming for an immediate general election.They want to get to the electorate as quickly as possible and before the electorate have an opportunity of finding out how cruelly, how viciously and how unscrupulously they have misled and deceived them.
In rising to take part in this debate, I must confess that since I came into this House about a month ago I have been somewhat amused, though very disappointed, at the attitude of certain Ministers and Deputies on all sides of the House.
It is strange that, while the Fine Gael Party are accused of deliberately obstructing the Government's work, we had to listen here last night and again this afternoon to a Fianna Fáil Deputy who spoke for one and three-quarter hours without saying anything of value. All that is very disappointing to a newcomer to public life.
I am not blaming anyone in particular or any Party in the House in particular but it is very disappointing to find this kind of thing going on. Whether it be on a vote of confidence, the Vote on Account, the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture or anything else, I believe that any Deputy can make his case in an intelligent way to this House and to the country in half an hour. Example is better than precept and I now propose to be very brief in my contribution to this debate.
I want to refer, first to the excessive taxation which the present Government have imposed on our people. That point is so obvious and has been stressed so much and so frequently that it is hardly necessary for me to dwell on it at length now. In addition, there are increases which are not reflected in the cost-of-living index figure—increases in the price of petrol, in the price of drink, in the rates, and so forth. Both directly and indirectly, the present Government have placed a burden of taxation on the backs of the people of this country which is unequalled in any other country in Europe, including those countries which had to go through the ravages of the recent war. Furthermore, the impositions in the 1952 Budget happened at a time when prices, generally, were steadying elsewhere and when world economicconditions were becoming more stable. One can only assume, in regard to the Budget of 1952, that the 69 Fianna Fáil Deputies looked upon the population of this country as children who were spending too many pounds and too many pennies and that they had to be saved from themselves by the prudent 69 Fianna Fáil Deputies. We all know what the result has been. The housewife in Youghal, in Midleton, in Cobh, Fermoy and Mitchelstown must now pay more for bread, tea, sugar and other essential foodstuffs. The farmer and the farm worker must pay more for the pint and for cigarettes. The prospective house-owner must pay a higher interest rate on his loan, if he is lucky enough to get it, to enable him to build a house.
Despite all the talk which we have heard here in the past three weeks, no decent attempt has been made to rectify our economic ills. The excessive taxation on the people of this country caused the people of East Cork to send me into this House to say to the Ministers and to the Government: "There is something wrong with your economic policy. For goodness' sake, put it right." On behalf of the people of East Cork, I say to the Government that if they want to remain in office, they should make a decent and immediate attempt to lower the cost of living.
Unemployment has been referred to here, ad nauseam, both yesterday and to-day. Without a doubt, the unemployment problem is becoming more acute day by day. Yesterday morning, before I left Fermoy, I took a look in at the labour exchange. I found that the number on the register had increased since last week and that it was about three times as great as the figure for the corresponding period two years ago. That is a sad state of affairs in a country town like Fermoy. In fact, one would imagine that people in a country town should not have to go to the labour exchange. At this stage I should like to say to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Government—being one of the first members from that town in this House for 27 years—that it seems rather strange that Fermoy is not as prosperousnow as it used to be. Fermoy was very much to the fore in the fight for freedom even though, at that time, it was a garrison town. Its coffers were full and business was brisk when the military were there but, in spite of all that, the people of Fermoy and district were well in the vanguard in the fight for Irish freedom. As a result of achieving that freedom, business in the town of Fermoy has dwindled away and its population has seriously fallen. I can never understand why at least one substantial factory from amongst the couple of hundred of factories that Fianna Fáil boasts so much about which were doled out in their 18 years of office was not located in the town of Fermoy, and I can never understand why some encouraging action on the part of the then Fianna Fáil Government did not put one man into gainful employment in that town.
I said I would be brief because I want to give an example, for reasons I have already explained. I want to say, finally, that I do not quite follow the policy of the Government in regard to external assets. When Fianna Fáil was a more vigorous Party than it is now, they had very much in the forefront of their programme the withdrawal of external assets and their reinvestment at home, but, of late years, it seems that they were, more or less, advised by some contacts they have made in this country, whether consultative or otherwise, and they are preaching in the best university style about how and why our money should be left with John Bull. It seems rather strange that that money, for all the owners know, may be supporting slavery or semi-slavery in some remote corner of the globe, instead of being put back here into useful industrial and agricultural development. That is a policy which Fianna Fáil, in their declining years, seem to be forgetting entirely.
I think it is a pity, coming as I do from a country town and depending upon my livelihood on the side of a street in a country town, that there is such a recession and depression in trade, as the result, no doubt, of Government policy. It is a pity that somany of our country people have to emigrate. Some few hundred years ago, Goldsmith wrote:
"A bold peasantry, their country's pride,
When once destroyed, can never be supplied."
That is as true to-day as it was then, and it is more apparent to-day than it was then, because many of our young men and women are going from the country and the country towns to seek employment in other towns. That is a sad state of affairs for one like myself who has to live on the side of a street and depend on the welfare of the country. How much more sad must it be for their parents, who cannot but feel that, when they go to another country, their morals and their health will not be the same. I say that there is something wrong with Government policy and I have been sent here by the people of East Cork to tell you that. It has been debated for the last two days and may I say, in conclusion, that if the Government are honest with themselves, they will get out and give the people of the country a chance of deciding which side is right, which side is wrong, and who has the better policy? The people, under the Constitution, are entitled to get that chance.
I should first like to compliment my colleague, a new-comer to this House, on his statement. I want to say that I agree with him entirely with regard to the conditions prevailing in the town of Fermoy. Every word he has uttered in connection with conditions in that town is true. That town did its part during the Black and Tan war and paid for it afterwards. From 1922 to 1932, it remained a wreck. I asked a question of the Minister for Industry and Commerce a fortnight ago in connection with an industrial project which I had put under way for that town and I was rather amused to find that the licence in respect of that industry was given on the day of the poll in East Cork— a licence which was lying in the Department for a least four months. I suggest to the Government that there should be a bit of a clean up in so far as the higher civil servants——
It was a bad slip anyway.
The Deputy may not continue with that criticism.
When my colleague. Deputy Barry, complains about high taxation, I should like to remind him that, while he and I were fighting things out in East Cork, his Party were here very busy on the bribe, and here is the bribe that was held out:—
"If the Government do not honour the award in full, I hope it will not be many months until another Government is in office. If the Labour Party have any responsibility in that other Government, we shall do our best to ensure that whatever balance of this award is not paid by this Government will be honoured and paid by the next Government."
That was Deputy Norton on 27th May, 1953. We had the same guarantee from the benches opposite and the amount guaranteed is £966,000 of further taxation—21 weeks' back money for the civil servants. Where was it to be got? That was a definite bribe held out, a bribe which was on par with the bribe given in the three letters sent by Deputy Norton, Deputy Keyes and Deputy J.A. Costello to the local authorities of the country from seven to 15 days after the previous Government was dissolved and which cost the taxpayers £850,000 in taxes and the ratepayers roughly £2,000,000.
If the civil servants are to be dragged into the political arena by a bribe of £1,000,000, let them come out in the open and let us not have the miserable spectacle we saw at the last general election, of everybody, from the county manager down to the office boy, with their six months' back wages in their pockets going out on the warpath. If there is to be democratic rule in this country, let it be the rule of the people and not the rule of the Civil Service. Deputy Barry was interested in taxation. Let us take that item alone. In 1951 there was an increase of £3,600,000. In 1953 there was a further increase of £2,400,000.That £6,000,000 per year had to be found in the pockets of the people and it had to be found by taxation for increases in civil servants' salaries alone.
That is dishonest.
It is true.
It is dishonest.
It is no more dishonest than what the Deputy's Party did when the findings of the arbitration board were on the Table. They made no provision in the Budget.
What about the judges?
Deputy Davin speaks of the glorious position that existed during the time of the inter-Party Government. At that time, according to Deputy Davin himself, the farmers were selling potatoes at £5 per ton.
In Cooley.
At column 273 of the Official Report of the 18th November, 1948, Deputy Davin stated:—
"The constituency of the Minister for Industry and Commerce must be affected in the same way as my constituency. He knows more about this matter than I do and I hope he will see that I am not exaggerating the position. If the Minister for Agriculture encouraged different committees of agriculture to grow oats and guaranteed a market for the crop, that guarantee should have been honoured."
At that time—in November, 1948— according to Deputy Davin oats were being sold in his constituency at 22/-a barrel. At column 274, Deputy Davin says:—
"In parts of my constituency potatoes have been sold at £5 a ton..."
That was the condition of affairs under the Minister Deputy Davin brought in here.
And he is trying to put him back again.
Those are his own words —£5 a ton for the spuds and 22/- a barrel for the oats, while the taxpayershad to pay for the advertisements that went up on the wall exhorting the people to grow more oats and potatoes as there was a sure market for both.
Speak up. We cannot hear you.
During the same period there was a reduction of between 10,000 and 15,000 acres in beet. We had a reduction of about 300,000 acres of wheat and the acreage in respect of oats was reduced by 60,000. Deputy Davin knows well why the farmers would never grow oats if Deputy Dillon was in power.
Who reduced the price of barley?
I increased it well. The price for barley that was got by the grain growers' branch of the Beet Growers' Association in this country is a headline for any Minister of State. It is a headline that no Minister of State has yet reached. We got 2/6 per barrel for malting barley over the price paid to any British farmer. This year it will be 3/9 a barrel over the English price. That is the guarantee this year. I, and also Deputy Davin, have heard Deputies on the Opposition side of the House say: "Oh, yes, I grew 20 acres every year and I grew one acre this year."
How much are Messrs. Guinness going to pay this year?
Deputy Davin will find that out. He contributes to Guinness in a way that I do not. Deputy Davin will find out that information and he should not draw me out. The Deputy came into this House having committed the criminal act of putting Deputy James Dillon sitting on these benches as Minister for Agriculture. The result was that the Deputy's unfortunate constituents got only 22/- a barrel for oats and £5 a ton for potatoes. The Deputy came into the House openly on the 18th November, 1948, driven in by the nailed boots of the unfortunate growers who produced the stuff, to attack the Minister in regard to those prices. Deputy Davin, therefore, ought to keepquiet. When I heard him interrupting I went out and procured the speech he made.
You quoted that about ten times.
I went out and found it. I can assure the House that there are even worse quotations than that.
I think you had that under your pillow.
Deputy Davin knows as well as I do that the acreage of beet is up by 10,500 acres. He knows there will be 200,000 tons of beet more for motor transport this year than there was last year. He knows that will improve the position of lorry owners, the C.I.E., the men working in the factory and the men working on the land.
When I hear all the wailing and moaning about the unemployed I wonder. In the Fermoy area to which Deputy Barry alluded there was a list of unemployed two months ago. There was also a list of unemployed in the town of Midleton two months ago but 150 men had to be got from the County Mayo and paid from £10 to £15 a week singling beet in the area. We had to go to Mayo for them whilst the unemployed were signing in the labour exchange.
I admit they might dirty their boots. What, then, is the trouble? I hope I will hear from some Minister before this debate ends about the activities of a board set up during the past two or three years known as the Industrial Development Authority. To what extent and for how long have they retarded industrial progress? And what did they cost? Let us get down to bedrock in this and let us get rid of the machinery brought in by the inter-Party Government for the purpose of retarding industry in this country.
Why do you not abolish it, then?
I am getting down to bedrock. I am asking a straight question. I asked 15 questions here in connection with the Haulbowline steelindustry and the last reply I got in 1950 was that it was in the hands of the Industrial Development Authority. Last week the Minister told me that there had been some finding now referred to himself in connection with Haulbowline sheet mills. Did it take from 1950 to 1953—three years—to decide on the extension of the industry? What do they expect the men who are waiting for employment during that period to do—I admit those bucks themselves are all right with their £2,500 a year—but what about those who are depending on those industries to provide employment for them and save them from emigrating? Let us think of that. That particular industry would be giving employment to over 100 people in the town of Cobh to-day were it not for, first of all, the inactivity of the inter-Party Government during their period in office and, secondly, the activity in retarding progress, of the Industrial Development Authority. I say that without putting a tooth in it. We are importing each year the materials which that sheet mill should be producing—that sheet mill for which three-fourths of the machinery has been lying at Haulbowline since 1939, lying there rusting.
I admit that on the first opportunity he got of getting the balance of that machinery from abroad which was in November, 1947, the Minister went over there with me and examined the condition of affairs and guaranteed in my presence the money to erect that sheet mill and put it into production. I was three and a half long years sitting over there begging the Deputy Davins, the Deputy Nortons and the Deputy Morrisseys and all the rest of them for the £150,000 necessary, and during that period they borrowed and squandered £94,500,000 of the Irish people's money, and then they had the neck to come in here and talk about taxation. They had the neck—no wonder Deputy Cogan would say they were like swans, for their necks were thicker than swans, if you ask me. That is the condition of affairs there. We are importing into this country each year something over £2,000,000 worth of tinplate and tin cans while the machinery was lying at Haulbowline. Those twoitems alone and the subsidiary industries that would follow them would provide enough employment to put every unemployed man in my constituency into a job—that is those of them that want jobs. As far as those who do not are concerned, the sooner they get out the better.
That is in my opinion the first way in which we should deal with the unemployment situation—by the establishment of those industries which were foreseen many years ago. Anyone who would read the prospectus of Irish Steel Limited in 1938-39 would see that whole group of steel works envisaged there. Unfortunately, there was only the full machinery for one of those mills in this country when the war broke out. One quarter of the machinery for the sheet mill was caught in France or Belgium, and portion—I am afraid the greater portion of the tin sheet mill—was caught there also, but there is no reason that I know of why those industries should not now begone ahead with. We have, thank God, a Minister now who will do his part and get ahead with it. The whole go-ahead movement in regard to that industry was held up for three and a half long years due to the unfortunate advent of the mixum-gatherum Government of this country.
That is hard luck on Deputy Cogan.
I challenge Deputy Davin or any one of his colleagues to tell me the number of industries established by the inter-Party Government when they were in office?
About 200.
They even ruined the tomatoes. Deputy Dillon ruined that when he brought in the Dutch tomatoes. I would like every Deputy to go into that matter from that point of view, from the point of view of industries that could be established in his constituency. I do not want this dang thing—relief work—that will get 30 or 60 or 100 men off the dole for six months and bring them back on it again when it is over. That is not what we want in this country.
That is what your Government wants.
Tell me how much of the £94,000,000 borrowed and squandered by that mixum-gatherum Government in three and a half years—how much of that went into industry? Can they show me ten men employed in this country out of the expenditure of that money? I see that according to one figure they paid £6,000,000 extra to the civil servants. We can add to that £7,200,000 to be paid in interest and sinking fund on the money the inter-Party borrowed and which will have to be paid no matter who is here. That will have to be raised by taxation each year on the unfortunate taxpayer.
60 per cent. of the civil servants come from Cork.
If they came from Cork you would not want one-third of them. If they were from Cork you could immediately relieve yourself of two-thirds of them. If one-third of them come from Cork I will make the serious suggestion that you get rid of the rest of them and let the Cork fellows carry on.
Do you want to send them home again?
The position is this: at the start of the emergency——
Deputy Corry is right —the Cork people were the best in helping us in Wicklow.
Sure, wherever you get a Corkman, you could not beat him. You are half a Corkman yourself.
Deputy Corry on the Vote on Account.
At the start of the emergency here when we had to go into the condition of affairs such as rationing, compulsory tillage and all those other things, we had to recruit for that purpose something like 4,200 extra civil servants on a temporary basis. Any of us who, in the course of our duties during that period, went over to Balls-bridge saw an army of them there. There were 4,200 of them there on atemporary basis and, when the inter-Party Government came into office and the emergency was over, they made them permanent. They added to that number, during their three and a half years of office, another 5,400. You have to-day 9,600 more civil servants in this country than you had in 1939. It is no wonder that we Deputies, who are endeavouring to do work for our constituents, find that we have so many civil servants to pass the buck from one to another that we cannot get any result or decision.
Are they not nearly all Corkmen?
We cannot get any result or decision. That is our trouble. These 9,800 extra unwanted men and women are costing this nation £3,800,000 a year. We have Deputy Davin and other Deputies then coming along and demanding a subsidy on this or that, but the money spent on these extra civil servants would mean a reduction of something like 2d. a lb. on butter if it were devoted to that purpose. Consider these things for yourselves. Consider how much relief could be given, for instance, if that £6,000,000 were available for subsidy purposes. Take the £7,200,000 that we have to pay for the squandermania that went on for three and a half years. If that money were available now for useful governmental expenditure, we need not have put anything on beer or "fags". We could even afford to give an increased subsidy on bread.
Let those people remember every time they are paying this £7,200,000, that they are only paying for the luxury and the pleasure of having a mixum-gatherum Government in this country for three and a half years. It is not we who are responsible for the extra taxation; it is the spree boys of the western world. That is the position. These are the definite replies I received to questions asked in this House from the Minister for Finance. Can there be any denial of it? There were on the Front Benches there ex-Ministers who would deny, if they were able to do so, the fact that there was borrowed during the three and a half years of inter-Party Government to run this country £14,000,000 more thanwas borrowed from 1922 to 1948. Let us examine that. Let us realise that when we hear the whispers going along in one place: "Oh, you have to pay 4/2 per lb. for butter"; and in another place: "The farmer is not getting half enough for his milk". These are the two eries, the two voices from the one source, the two different tunes on the one fiddle.
Let us get down to business and examine the matter from a business viewpoint. Deputies opposite should shed their irresponsibility. They know that taxation had to be imposed to pay the £7,200,000 in interest on the money with which they had a spree. They remind me of a particular type of farmer. You will find one in every parish. On Sunday he goes to Mass and when he comes out from Mass he makes for the local pub. At about half-past three he goes home and kicks up a row with the wife because his dinner is not ready. Then when the dinner is placed on the table, he will go off again because he cannot eat it. He will get up next morning and come down to the yard after his wife and the boys have the cows milked and harnessed the pony to take the milk to the creamery. He will go off for the rest of the day. About 3.30 p.m. in the evening, when the calves are bawling with the hunger, the young lad will have to go off to the pub, throw him into the cart like half a sack of meal, bring him home, and when he gets home he is no good for the rest of the day. When the rates and annuities fall due he will do what the inter-Party Government did-he will borrow to pay them.
After a few years the bank manager will refuse to give him any more money. Then the young lads will take over the farm from him, put him sitting in the corner, give him 2 ozs. of tobacco a week and half a dollar on Sunday for a few pints. Mind you, that is the nearest picture I can give of what the inter-Party Government did, with this difference, that when that poor old devil is put sitting in the corner he will stay quiet in the corner, and will not kick up a row by asking where they got the money to pay his debts. You over there are all the timeshouting. I cannot give you a better picture than that. Let them think it over for themselves and then they will not have the neck——
They do not believe you anyhow.
You would not believe me that the spuds grown on Deputy Dillon's orders in your constituency were sold at £5 a ton. If I had not been able to give the quotation, you would be on your hind legs to know who made that foolish statement.
We are hearing this for the hundredth time.
Deputy Corry should be allowed to continue without interruption.
It is no wonder you lost the East Cork by-election.
The East Cork by-election was——
Mr. O'Higgins
A shock for Deputy Corry.
Not one bit. The net result of the East Cork election was that our man was beaten by exactly the self-same vote as he was beaten in 1951.
A Deputy
He will win the next time.
He will be here the next time with me.
Mr. O'Higgins
But Deputy Corry will not.
There is no fear of that.
Will Deputy Corry come to the Vote on Account?
I cannot help it. I hate being interrupted. That is the position. When I heard Deputy Barry talking about what the people in East Cork told him to do when he came in here——
Mr. O'Higgins
He represents East Cork.
He does, and I am glad to see him here, but I can tell you one thing—his comrade will not be there the next time. I will give you five to one on that.
Mr. O'Higgins
Done, in any sum you wish.
If Deputy Corry has nothing further to say on the Vote of Account, I will ask him to resume his seat.
Mr. O'Higgins
Is the bet on?
Deputy O'Higgins should cease interrupting.
Mr. O'Higgins
I was provoked.
The Deputy should not allow himself to be provoked. Deputy Corry is in possession.
Mr. O'Higgins
I take it the bet is made.
We will talk about that outside. I will fix it to my satisfaction, anyway, even if it is not to the satisfaction of the Deputy, for I will be drawing.
If Deputy Corry has nothing further to say, I will ask him to resume his seat.
I cannot understand why this Vote on Account is being held up. I cannot understand what the objection is on the part of those Deputies who know that responsibility for this extra taxation rests on their shoulders, and only on their shoulders. What objecttion have they to voting the money required now for the services of the country? Apparently the only claim they make is that we should put on more taxation in order to give 21 weeks' back pay to the civil servants. That would mean another 2d. in the lb. on butter.
On the New Zealand butter?
The New Zealand butter is gone, gone with the Formosan sugar. Brian Boru's butter is gone. All those are gone with the Minister who wasresponsible for bringing about a condition of affairs that compelled us, as his successors, to import butter. He was the Minister who was responsible for the disappearance of 57,000 milch cows in 12 months. That was the direct result of the policy of our Jamesy.
Mr. O'Higgins
Is that in order?
Is the Deputy referring to a Minister or an ex-Minister?
Mr. O'Higgins
In reference to any member of this House, is that in order?
If there is any objection, I withdraw it. I will call him, "Sir James Dillon".
Deputy James Dillon.
Mr. O'Higgins
I want a ruling on the point of order.
The Deputy has withdrawn the reference.
Mr. O'Higgins
That is not an answer to the point of order I have raised.
The Chair has pointed out that the reference is not in order and the Chair understands the Deputy has withdrawn.
Mr. O'Higgins
That is as may be, but I wanted the ruling of the Chair.
Deputy James Dillon was appointed Minister for Agriculture by the mixum-gatherum Government. Twelve months prior to his appointment he said here in reference to wheat: "It was only last week I had the exhilarating experience of eating bread made from Irish wheat; you held it out in your hands and you squeezed the water out of it and then you looked at it and you decided whether it was boot polish or bread; if it was boot polish you applied it to your shoes and, if it was bread, you masticated it, if you were able." Then Deputies wonder why in three and a half years with Deputy Dillon as Minister for Agriculture there was a reduction of 300,000 acres in the acreage of wheat.
I am sorry I was not here when the shortage of milch cows was referred to. I spoke about that before and know just as well as Deputy Corry knows what brought that about.
Deputy Corry is in possession. Deputy Murphy will get an opportunity of making a speech later.
There is a change of policy now and instead of letting the foreigner produce 300,000 acres of wheat for us, we have this year increased the acreage under wheat in our own country by 100,000 acres. During the last three or four months, Deputy Dillon, ably supported by Deputy Rooney, has been endeavouring to prevent the farmers producing on their land the food required by our own people. That was the policy that operated here when Deputy Davin's oats were only 22/- per barrel and when 1,200,000 tons of foreign malting barley were thrown into the market here within a month of the delivery of our farmers' harvest. During the last three or four months Deputy Dillon has been preaching here and demanding the flooding of the market with foreign maize before the farmers have the barley harvest reaped.
I have given the House the facts. I give every Deputy credit for wanting to see the unemployment problem solved; no one wants to see men drawing the dole, men who should be working in productive employment. I appeal to Deputies in their constituencies to think out ways and means of ending unemployment.
Mr. O'Higgins
Do you want us to do the Government's work? There is an easy way of doing it; get out and keep out and we will end unemployment.
I guarantee that the bill that Deputies opposite left after them when they ran out the last time will be remembered by the people of this country for the next 50 years because they will be paying that bill for the next 50 years. Mind you, you were not put out at all. You ran out.
Mr. O'Higgins
We were not put out by the people.
You ran out and you left the debts after you.
The Deputy should address the Chair in the third person.
I am sorry, but that is the fifteenth time that that Deputy has interrupted me. I know, of course, that I would be wasting my time in making appeals on that particular line to Deputy O'Higgins. I give him this guarantee that, unless something very extraordinary happens, I will be looking at him over there this time two years, and that this Government will still not have gone out of office.
Mr. O'Higgins
Are you going to have another bet on that?
If the Deputy looks at it from that point of view he will be all right. I do not want to delay the House. I have given the facts as I see them. I hope Deputies will approach these matters in a more serious and helpful frame of mind than we have seen some of them do in the last two days.
This Vote on Account is designed to gag the Opposition Deputies who have reason to be critical of the present Government. We have a situation at the moment where, with the aid of a couple of Independents, the strength of Dáil Eireann is 72 on either side. In that situation we have 72 Deputies who are supported by the vast majority of the people. They are not in Government but, instead, we have a group which is supported by a minority of the people.
Notice taken that20Deputies were not present; House counted and20Deputies being present,
I was pointing out that we have a situation where half the Deputies of this House, supported by the vast majority of the people, are not in Government, while the other half, supported by a minority, are the Government, aided, of course, by a couple of irresponsible Independentswho are afraid to face their constituents. Deputy Corry, who was speaking a moment ago, is one of the Deputies who does not wish to face a general election. He has as much fear in him of a general election as the three Deputies who are keeping in office at the moment a Government which the people do not want.
What about yourself?
This Vote on Account is designed to gag the people, to ensure that the Deputies on this side of the House will not be given an opportunity to criticise the work of the different Departments. We will not be given the opportunity to criticise the Department of Industry and Commerce, particularly in relation to the cost of living and unemployment, to criticise the activities of the Minister for External Affairs or the policy that is being pursued by the Minister for Finance. We are faced with the situation where, instead of being able to do that in detail, we are asked to give this Vote on Account in order to keep the country going until November. This Vote on Account is designed purely and simply to put an end to the business of this Dáil in order that it will go into recess and that no question of a general election or a change of Government can arise until near Christmas.
I have listened to some of the Fianna Fáil Deputies trying to justify the policy of the present Government. One had to admire them for the manner in which they beat the air in their attempt to justify the present Government and its activities. One of the excuses they offered for asking for this Vote on Account, which prevents Deputies on this side from criticising each particular Minister and Department, was that the Fine Gael Party had opposed the Health Bill. We did, and we consider that we were justified in our opposition to it. It will be seen, I think, that our attitude to that Bill was well-founded and justified. But that was the excuse that was offered by Fianna Fáil Deputies in asking for this lump sum Vote instead of allowing Deputies an opportunity of dealing with the Estimates for each Department.I would remind those Deputies that, when the inter-Party Government were attempting to put the Local Authorities (Works) Bill through this House— a very different matter indeed from the Health Bill—they did not show the same consideration. That Bill was held up in this House for eight months by the members of the Fianna Fáil Party. The Health Bill was opposed by the Fine Gael Party line by line and comma by comma during the last eight weeks for a very good reason and we are criticised for that.
We have a situation now where the people outside Dáil Eireann are clamouring at the walls, where the Government are under siege. They are besieged in this House while there is a tumult of the people outside clamouring for a change, but they are not going to be given an opportunity of bringing about a change of Government and a change of policy. It is apparent that, instead, they are going to be offered relief schemes which will not be of a productive nature. These relief schemes will have to be paid for by the taxpayers without any prospect of a return for the investment made in them.
We have a situation, too, where the policy that was announced by the Fianna Fáil Party in 1951, when they were seeking the support of a couple of Independent Deputies in order to bring about a change of Government, has been reversed. They have reversed the policy which they set out in their programme at that time when they were seeking the support of a couple of Deputies who call themselves Independents in order that the present Government could be established. They have gone back on the policy which they set out at that time. The only honest thing for them to do now is to say that they repudiate that policy, and that they are going to put to the country the policy which they are implementing at the present time.
We have noticed, in the last few days, that Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll has become very impatient. He was elected to this House because he said, in his election programme, that he intended to increase the sub-O'Carrolsidies on essential foods In order to get his support, the Fianna Fáil Party promised that they would maintain subsidies and control prices. Instead of that, as soon as they got Deputy ffrench-O'Carroll's vote to bring about a change of Government, they immediately proceeded to decontrol prices one after another and in the next Budget they abolished subsidies in respect of bread, tea, sugar and butter. There is a subsidy on bread at the moment but it is only the remainder of the subsidy, between the price of 6½d. a loaf, which was the price in 1951, when the change of Government took place, and 9½d. now.
We have seen several drastic changes of policy since the present Government came into office. We have observed in various by-elections that the people are opposed to the policy being pursued by the Government. We got a result in Cork, Wicklow, Cabra and Limerick. When Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Wicklow speak, their voice should be heeded by the Government. Instead of that, they introduce a Vote on Account which will enable them to go on holidays and ignore the demands of the people for a change of policy and a change of Government.
Some Deputies say that Fianna Fáil won the elections in Waterford and Mayo. They had a narrow victory in both places. At that time the taxpayers' money was used advertising a social welfare scheme and a new arrangement was arrived at whereby children's allowances were payable monthly in advance. A couple of days before the by-elections in Waterford and Mayo housewives queued at the post offices and got a month's payment of children's allowances in advance. That was the bribe to get their support a couple of days later at the polls. A month later, the prices of tea, sugar, butter and bread were increased, when the people had spoken in Waterford and Mayo and had no chance to change their ideas about the Government.
The change in Government in 1951 took place mainly as a result of an increase of 2d. a lb. in the price of butter. There was considerable agitation, fanned, of course, by the FiannaFáil Pravda, theIrish Press, fanned by political sabotage, obstruction and sneering on the part of the Fianna Fáil Party. Combined with the damp Fianna Fáil squib in Baltinglass, as it has proved to be in the Wicklow by-election, all those things brought about a situation where a couple of Independent Deputies found themselves in a position, because they had become cranks for one reason or another, to bring about a change of Government. None of those Deputies who are responsible for this Government can face his electorate without serious loss. Four of them cannot be re-elected have no hope of being re-elected. Deputy Noel Browne will certainly find a vary substantial loss in his support in his constituency, if he does not lose his seat.
This is a Vote on Account for the present Government. The Deputy is travelling over various by-elections and the results of them. Expenditure and administration are concerned in this debate.
We have got a decision outside the House on the policy of the present Government. I want to bring that point before the Minister for Finance in this debate. We will state in this House the reasons why we believe that an opportunity should be given to the people to bring about a change of policy and a change of Government. We will criticise on this Vote the policy of the Government. The people outside have already given their decision. We are criticising the fact that, instead of being allowed to debate each Estimate separately on its merits, we are now being asked to give £40,000,000 to the Government so that they can carry on the services until next November.
I would remind the Government that when the inter-Party Government were in office, taking the cost of living at 100 in 1947, it remained at 100 in 1948 and dropped to 97 in 1949. In 1950 it came back again to 100. In 1951 it had gone up to 105. At the moment it has gone up to 127. When the cost of living, in three years, had gone up by only 5 per cent., the incomes of our people had been increased by 20 percent., which left a margin in their favour. As a Government, we considered it was better to leave the money in the pockets of our people and to let them do the spending. Deputy Lemass said that the Government should take as much money as possible from the people and let the Government do the spending for them. That is the difference between the present Government and the last Government, a difference that is appreciated by the voters, as shown in recent times when they got an opportunity of speaking.
Let me remind the Government that on 1st July, 1951, there were 38,000 people registered as unemployed. On 1st July, 1953, there were 63,000 on the register. The increase in the number of unemployed shows the result of the Fianna Fáil policy over the last two years. Business is slumping; there is a trade recession, stagnation, a lack of stability and credit restriction and, of course, almost a complete stoppage in building development owing to the increased interest charges, owing to dear money, owing to the fact that many families cannot now afford to embark on the building of a home for themselves which they were busy doing when the change of Government took place.
It is all very well to have the present Government hitting the headlines trying to pacify our people by saying that stability has at last been reached, that progress is ahead. Let me remind the Taoiseach of his statement last February, when he said that taxation had reached its limit. I can quote his own words from Volume 136, column 502, Dáil Debates, 10th February last:
"....we are bearing a burden of taxation which is already so heavy that we are practically staggering under it."
That is a statement by the Taoiseach at that time. A few days later we had an announcement that wireless licences were to be increased. The total amount to be collected on wireless licences was to be increased by £750,000. That was followed by an announcement of an increase in post office charges which was to bring inan estimated £750,000. Then we had the Minister for Agriculture asking for £250,000 to buy Tulyar. After that there was an announcement of an increase in the price of stamps and telephone charges which was to bring in a further £1,000,000. These things all followed the Taoiseach's statement that the country was already staggering under a heavy burden of taxation.
That was not the finish of it, however, because we had an announcement recently made to the county councils that the supplementary agricultural allowance was to be withdrawn. That means an increase of £350,000 on the rates of the farmers. In County Dublin it means putting something like £30,000 extra on the rates, in addition to the extra 5/- in the £ put on the rates of every property owner in this country in the last two years. That will be followed by an extra 2/6 in the £ on the rates when the Government decide to bring the provisions of the Health Bill into operation and force the county councils to operate them. Of course, this taxation on the land came after the Budget statement of the Minister for Finance in which he said that taxation presses lightly on the land. He is following that up by an increase in the rates on land amounting to nearly £500,000, on top of the extra rates imposed on the farmers and property owners of all kinds during the last two years in consequence of the policy being pursued by the Government.
That does not represent all the taxation imposed since last February, when the Taoiseach said that the country was staggering under the burden of taxation. The tax on lorries, particularly those belonging to farmers and people carrying their own goods, went up from £25 to £70 in many cases. Interest charges on loans have gone up from 3¾ to 5¼ per cent. This increase applies, not alone to people who desire to avail of a loan under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act but to houses built by county councils. If the families who will live in these county council houses do not bear this extra burden of interest, which will possibly amount to 10/- per week on each house, it will be necessary for the ratepayersto pay that extra charge of 10/- on each house in consequence of the increase in the interest charges on loans for house building. Similarly, the bank interest rate on overdrafts has been put up and imposes a very heavy burden on many businesses.
How can you relate that to the Vote on Account?
Of course you can. You want £30,000,000 now to spend which has to be raised in taxation.
It has been said that it relates to Government administration.
I know the Minister for Lands does not like to hear the truth when it comes to facts and figures. These are the things which affect our people. Deputy Corry talked about money in millions of pounds, but most people are interested in a week's wages and not in millions of pounds. Deputy Corry and other Fianna Fáil speakers should come down to the week's wages instead of talking about millions of pounds when they are trying to confuse their listeners and to impress some of their supporters. Where is the stability and where is the progress that we hear so much about, not alone from the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Taoiseach but from other Fianna Fáil front benchers who are trying to make people believe that the situation is not as they find it and that they are not suffering from hardships imposed by the policy of the Government?
We know that the Minister for Finance considered that our people during the inter-Party régime were eating and spending too much and living too well. The attack on the people's pockets is due to the fact that the Fianna Fáil Party believed that to be true. They believed that to be true because in 1950 more butter was consumed than ever before in the history of this country, and every ounce of it was Irish butter.
I should like to give some comparative figures in relation to the taxation imposed under the policy of the presentGovernment and under the policy of the inter-Party Government. We have a situation now where rates have gone up by 5/- in the £ on property owners since 1951; butter from 2/10 to 4/2 per lb.; bread from 6½d. to 9½d. per two-lb. loaf; flour from 2/8 to 4/9½ per stone; sugar from 4d. to 7d. per lb.; tea from 2/8 to 5/6 per lb.; the pint of stout from 11d. to 1/3; cigarettes from 1/8 to 2/4 per packet of 20; petrol from 3/2 to 3/9½ per gallon; income-tax from 6/6 to 7/6 in the £.
Then we have the Government wondering why there is unemployment in this country, why there is a recession in trade, why business is slumping, why the bottom has fallen out of the property market and why stocks and shares have fallen considerably in value. Many people who are not physically fit to work were depending on the returns from these stocks and shares to give them a bare living. The value of these stocks and shares decreased considerably when the loan was floated last year offering 5 per cent. interest and extra facilities. The result was that many of these people were compelled to sell out at a loss of 10 or 15 per cent. when they could ill afford it. These are the people who are suffering most at present in addition to those who are unemployed.
In Balbriggan during the inter-Party régime people had a full week's work. They had overtime; they had round-the-clock work, and they had shift work. Now most of them are lucky if they can get half a week's work in the factories in Balbriggan. Many skilled workers who were engaged in the Balbriggan hosiery factories are now picking gooseberries and strawberries in Donabate. Many families are emigrating. I could give the names of families who got new cottages in Balbriggan and Skerries and who had three or four children. These families have packed up bag and baggage and gone to England or Canada as the case may be. That is because they could not eke out a living on the present unemployment allowance having regard to the increased charges, particularly on tea, sugar and butter. We know, of course, that many people have been forced to use margarine asa result of the policy of the Government in relation to butter. That has happened, particularly in the City of Dublin and probably in the City of Cork.
What do you think about the price of milk?
In regard to the price of milk I would like to remind the Deputy that he has a Minister for Agriculture in office at the moment who, when he was in opposition, said that creamery milk suppliers should be paid 2/- per gallon for their milk, but when he came into office, instead of giving them 2/- a gallon, he gave them 1d. a gallon increase. They have since got an increase of five farthings per gallon.
Deputy Dillon said he would give them 1/- a gallon for five years.
Yes, but he could not give it to them.
Because they would not take it.
We have the Minister for Industry and Commerce opening some factories which were planned during the term of office of the inter-Party Government. During that time the arrangements were made, the sites were acquired, the factories were built, and now we have the Minister for Industry and Commerce turning the key in the door of those factories and receiving a certain amount of publicity for it. There is only a skeleton staff and a board of directors going into them instead of the number of persons we anticipated when those factories were being planned during the inter-Party Government régime.
Do not make us laugh.
There are many new factories, and even factories established 20 or 25 years ago, which have only skeleton staffs. It is a remarkable thing to hear in this debate some of the Fianna Fáil Deputies claiming credit in connection with the E.S.B.They followed up by claiming credit for the Dillon scheme of field drainage. I am not talking about the ditch-cleaning scheme that was in operation before Deputy Dillon became Minister for Agriculture. I am talking about the land project which involved field drainage and brought about the increase in production which is being reflected now in our statistics, including those dealing with exports.
Apparently Deputy Corry reflects the view of the Fianna Fáil Party in relation to civil servants when he referred to them as unproductive drones. Speaking here to-night he tried to justify his belief that they were not entitled to an adjustment of pay from the date of the award, but Deputy Corry refrained from stating that that award was made necessary by the policy of the Government and by reason of the fact that there is a clear understanding regarding the cost of living and Civil Service pay. They submitted their case for decision in an open court.
The decision could have gone against them but it went in their favour and should have been honoured. The result is that the conditions of the Civic Guards, the teachers, the Army and, of course, the civil servants proper, have been worsened in consequence of that policy and in consequence of the fact that there were so many persons in the Fianna Fáil Party who, like Deputy Corry, considered them to be unproductive drones.
Deputy Blowick did not believe in giving them anything at all. He said that very clearly on the Vote.
Deputy Blowick had no responsibility in the matter.
Deputies
Oh!
It is a matter for decision by the Government. I would like to remind the Government that in relation to industrial production there has been——
A marked increase.
——a considerable fall, and I propose to give the Minister forFinance some figures. The average fall in the volume of industrial production amounts to about 12½ per cent. Amongst other things, we have vehicle production down by 19 per cent.; furniture production down by 15 per cent.; clothing production down by 12 per cent.; boots and shoes down by 14 per cent.
For what year is the Deputy quoting?
I am quoting for 1952.
Oh, now!
From what is the Deputy quoting?
From his memory.
I am quoting from my notes. I went to the trouble of getting these figures for the benefit of Deputy Briscoe.
From what, and when?
I know you do not want to hear them.
I want to hear them, but where did you get them?
You can find them in the Library, where he got them.
Do not prompt him.
It is probably a closer date than the date I have given. It is probably in the first six months of this year. In addition to that, internal purchases have dropped by about £50,000,000 and that explains the business slump, the trade recession, unemployment and credit restriction. All these things add up.
Where did the Deputy get the figure, £50,000,000?
I will produce that, also, for the Minister on another occasion. I would like to remind the Minister—maybe he will not dispute this—that a one-point rise in the cost of living means an increase of £1,000,000 against the consumer here. Is the Minister prepared to accept that?
I am not prepared to accept anything the Deputy givesbecause he has given no authoritative source for the figures he has been quoting.
I can give these figures from the official statistics.
I do not forget the Deputy's brilliant attempt to reform the poultry industry in this country.
Do not worry about poultry for the moment. Every rise of one point in the cost of living means an extra £1,000,000 of a burden on the consumers. The cost of living has risen approximately 20 per cent. since 1951. That means that our people are paying out of their pockets for the ordinary things they were purchasing in 1951, and are paying to-day an extra £20,000,000. That can be regarded as extra taxation in addition to the various types of taxation applied to different commodities.
Another reason for the conditions existing at the present time, particularly in relation to trade, business and credit restriction, is the fact that the purchasing power of the £ has dropped 2/- in the last two years. The purchasing power of the £ now in relation to pre-war is about 8/10. In 1951 it was 10/10, and its value is continuing to decline. Nevertheless we have the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce telling the people that prosperity is around the corner while the purchasing power of the £ continues to decline and the value of people's earnings declines with it. I would like to remind the Minister for Finance that 500,000 people have emigrated from this country since the State was established and in spite of all the talk of the Fianna Fáil Party in relation to emigration it was greater in the last two years than it was ever before.
Again there is no proof of that.
I am going to quote now. This is a quotation.
This is a wild assertion.
The Minister will be surprised with this quotation.
On a point of order, surely a Deputy should be permitted to make his speech without this, I will not refer to it in the manner in which it should be referred to, but without this interruption.
The Deputy himself should help to maintain order.
I want to quote here from the Clare Champion.This is a report of a Fianna Fáil convention which took place last September.
Will the Deputy give the date?
Well, Sir, I have the date. I do not mind whether I have the date or not, but I can tell you that here is a statement of a Fianna Fáil delegate which was published and he said: "People are emigrating by boat loads simply because they cannot find employment at home". This statement was made at a Fianna Fáil convention by a Fianna Fáil Deputy, a Fianna Fáil delegate, and it was published in the newspaper.
A Deputy or a delegate?
Who was the Deputy?
What was his name?
That is what some of the ordinary people who were foolish enough to support Fianna Fáil in the past and apparently were supporters of Fianna Fáil when this convention took place think of emigration at the present time. They say that people are emigrating by boat loads simply because they cannot find employment at home. That is the position, particularly in relation to Dublin County, and I suppose County Dublin is no different from the western counties, because if we go to Westland Row or to Rosslare, or to any of these places we will see fine young boys and girls obviously having packed up and stepping into the emigrant ship because there is no policy here and there is no prospect for them here and there is no enticement for them to remain at home and they must travel elsewhere, not alone for a living, but for an existence.We have a situation now where we must expect from the Government some positive action. The only positive action they have indicated recently is that they are going to draw up a plan of relief schemes in order to absorb the thousands of people who are unemployed. That will bring them relief of a temporary nature, but how long is that relief going to last? Would it not be better for the Government to sit down and consider a proper scheme by which these people could be engaged in productive work, such as the work they were engaged in when the inter-Party Government were in office and when the number of unemployed was reduced to 38,000 in July, 1951, compared with 63,000 at the beginning of the present month? That is the situation we have at present and it is obvious from the statements of the Ministers and of the Government that they have no solution for it.
Apparently they do not want to bother about trying to find a solution for it, because the only remedy they are going to offer is relief schemes instead of productive work. In common decency, I consider that the Government should put their policy to the people. It is not the policy which they put before the people in 1951 when they were trying to deprive the nation of the inter-Party Government. We had some of the Fianna Fáil Deputies saying: "Why did the inter-Party Government go out of office in June, 1951? Why did they do it?" I would like to remind the House that when the inter-Party Government was established it was forecast by the Fianna Fáil Party that they would not last three weeks. Then it was three months and then it went into three years, but all during that time the validity of the inter-Party Government was being challenged by Fianna Fáil. We had nothing but obstruction, sabotage and sneering from the Fianna Fáil Party, and it was being fanned, of course, by the Party organ, the Irish Press, until the people had been worked into a frenzy and we had a situation where——
I have reminded the Deputy already that we are discussing a Vote on Account of the present Government.
Very well, Sir; I am replying to the argument put forward by Deputies who said that the inter-Party Government should not have had an election in 1951.
The Deputy is proceeding to discuss certain incidents that happened during the inter-Party Government. This is not at all relevant to this Vote. What is relevant to this Vote is expenditure and administration of the present Government.
Well, Sir, I felt that I was entitled to reply to points which were made by Fianna Fáil Deputies.
The Chair cannot remember everything that was said by every Fianna Fáil Deputy, but I have no recollection of those things being said.
Well, Sir, if I am not entitled to reply, I will not attempt it, but the people know the answer. They gave their answer in East Cork, in Wicklow, in Dublin and in Limerick. They gave their answer to the present Government in those places, but the present Government are determined not to heed them. Instead of that, we are being asked now to vote this money in order that the services can be carried on until next November, and that in the meantime this Dáil will be closed down and the people will not be given an opportunity of speaking through their Deputies in this House in relation to their many problems, not the least of them being the unemployment problem. We have a situation now where we are being asked to go on holidays instead of being asked to remain here in this House in order to consider a solution of the unemployment situation, and the business slump and the stagnation in agriculture and the lack of stability that exists in the country. We are being asked to close down the Dáil in face of these very great problems, and they are very great problems when there are hungry people, people without a week's wages although they are willing to work. For that reason I think it is only fair to expect from the Government that they should give anopportunity in this House to Deputies of all the Opposition Parties, who are the voice of the people at the moment, to put before the Government the various problems and the difficulties under which the people are suffering at the present time.
This is the first time in the history of this House that a second Vote on Account has been asked for by any Government-the first time in the history of this House since it was established, and seeing that it is a very strange thing we must examine the causes. They are not hard to seek and not far to find. The cause is that the time of this House has been deliberately frittered away and wasted particularly this summer by the present Government's proposals.
They were principally trying to regain lost fortunes, in a frantic effort to see what has happened that turned the people against them in the way revealed in the last three by-elections.
A very short time ago the Taoiseach tabled a motion of confidence. It could have been disposed of in 15 minutes, instead of the 28 hours of the time of the House, proposed for it. Now we have a second Vote on Account. This is a new way to manage the affairs of the country. It is a strange thing that we have a Government which cannot go ahead with the business because it might deprive Deputies of a few days' summer holidays, customary in the previous years. Seeing that Deputies are here to give the people the very best management they can of the country, I do not think anyone would object, except a few on the Government side, to take the Estimates as usual one after another in accordance with the custom since the House was established. Now we are asked to rush through a lump sum of £40,000,000 to give the Minister money to run the country until November. This is just a clever parliamentary device to stifle criticism-particularly criticism of the remaining Votes. I can understand the Minister and the Government not being very anxious to discuss the Estimates for Local Government or the Board of Works, to mention only two. The Estimate forAgriculture has not been finished yet and the debate so far has not been very favourable towards the management of that particular Department by the present Minister for Agriculture.
Such things as unemployment are not pleasant things to discuss at the present time. Discussion must be stifled. This is really only the second part of the trick. A few weeks ago we had the Taoiseach's motion of confidence, wasting a week of valuable time. Now, we have a second Vote on Account, for the first time in the 30 odd years' history of this House.
Not at all. The Deputy does not know what he is talking about.
If the Minister will tell me when it occurred and, secondly, that the Government agree that, before the Dáil rises for the summer recess, each of the remaining Votes will be taken, I will not delay further on the subject and will withdraw what I have said as having accused the Government of doing something that it did not intend to do. No answer is forthcoming.
Does the Deputy remember 1951?
There are at least half a dozen Votes to be discussed yet.
Why did you not finish Agriculture in 1951?
It would not be very pleasant to have a discussion on those Votes. There is not a single one of the remaining Estimates on which the question of the 67,000 unemployed could not come up in some way or other. The people are aware that the present Government has lost completely all knowledge of what is happening in the country. The Government seems to have deteriorated into a system of bungling and bad management, which has brought distress and uncertainty into every single home in the country.
It is only now that the full impact of the Government's policy of restriction of credit is being felt by thepeople. All over the country hundreds of people whose business depended to some extent on credit are very hard hit. Small farmers anxious to purchase stock, farm machinery, fertilisers or, perhaps, an extra bit of land, are told when they go to the banks that they will not get any money. The Government has produced a situation where even the vested farmer with a good local reputation, not alone during his lifetime, but of his family for generations, will not get a pound on his land when he goes to the local bank now.
That has all been produced by the Minister for Finance, sitting across the floor, because he entered into competition with his colleague the Minister for Industry and Commerce shortly after they came into office in 1951, in a desperate attempt to try to discredit the inter-Party Government. They both went around the country wailing that the country was sunk, that bankruptcy was around the corner. They retracted these statements a few months later when they were made do so in the Dáil, but already the damage had been done, the freeze had set in. That freeze has not yet fully solidified. I am sure the present Minister for Finance must feel very proud of the way he has handled the particular portfolio he got in 1951, of the distress and misfortunes brought upon the people. Several speakers quoted in this debate what is only too true—the vast number of unemployed, the lowered standard of living of all the people, of practically every single one in the country. That is intersely noticeable, as is the recession in trade, hitting particularly small traders and shopkeepers all over the country.
These are things sticking out noticeably at present and since the bungling and mismanagement that the present Government started long before the inter-Party Government took office in 1948. The first effects of it were seen in the Supplementary Budget introduced in October, 1947, months before they thought there was going to be a general election so soon, imposing a tax on tobacco and drink. I challenge the present Government with taking the advice that we got while we were the inter-Party Governmentfor three and a half years from the people behind the scenes; and I am proud now that as a Government we rejected that advice. I am sorry to say that the present Government accepted it in September and October, 1947, and as soon as they came into office in June, 1951, they took up where they left off. The result is that to-day it is not Fianna Fáil policy that this country is being administered under, but the policy of people behind the scenes.
The present Government put forward, when they wanted to gain certain support for the election of Taoiseach and a Government in June, 1951, a policy of 16 points. On every single one of them they have gone back absolutely shamelessly. We can take a few of the points. The promise to maintain the food subsidies has gone overboard. Then there was the promise of the present Minister for Finance—I am not speaking in his absence now—made in the Rathmines Town Hall that if he and his Party were returned to power the taxes on tobacco and drink would not be reimposed.
I did not make that promise. The Deputy had better recite what I said.
The Minister for Finance—Deputy Seán MacEntee as he was then—made that promise in the Rathmines Town Hall to his constituents two nights before polling day in the 1951 General Election.
I will not allow the Deputy to put that gloss on my words. He may be an adept at misrepresentation, but he had better give the exact quotation.
If I wanted to become an adept at misrepresentation I would need to go to school for a few years to the Minister; I might learn a little about it then. The Minister stated at Rathmines Town Hall that people in the Opposition Parties up and down the country were saying that if Fianna Fáil were returned to power the tax on tobacco and drink would be reimposed. Deputy MacEntee, replying,said: "There is not a shadow of truth in those rumours." What does the present Minister for Finance, Deputy MacEntee, make of that? Was that intended as a cunning trick, so that the people, particularly his own supporters, would understand that Fianna Fáil, having got a kick in the pants in 1948, at the general election, could not go back and reimpose the tax on tobacco and drink? The very gentleman sitting across from me could walk in here last April 12 months and was only too glad to reimpose the tax, as much as to say to the people: "We are back again and we will show you that we will do what we like."
It is absolutely useless to be talking about that here. No impression can be made on the present Government, not even by the catastrophic fall in their votes in the two recent by-elections, a drop that ran to extraordinarw proportions in County Wicklow and was alarming for the Government in power.
The rise in the cost of living is beyound the capacity of the ordinary people to bear. The result, if we examine it, is borne out in a short statement which the Minister for Finance made in his Budget speech in this House when he boasted that £20,000,000 worth more of agricultural produce was exported this year than last year. He added, in a semi-undertone at the time, that a small amount of that increase in agricultural exports was due to increased production. I think he said £2.5 million worth. Where did the rest come from? Where did the other £17.5 million worth of agricultural produce that we exported come from?
From better prices.
The Minister should not make a joke of a fact of which he must be very well aware by now, and that is that the standard of living of the community, and particularly of the working-class people and the small farmers, has been lowered very seriously. The Minister knows as well as I do that what has produced that extra £17.5 million worth of exports from this country has been the fact that our own people have been deprived of the power to purchase our own food.
I know that farmers' incomes are up by nearly £11,000,000.
Very good. If that be the case, then the farmers of East Cork and of Wicklow must have just gone mad. They seem to be determined to vote for the inter-Party Government because that Government injured them and they seem to be determined to vote against Fianna Fáil that is acting like the father which the Minister for Finance would have us believe he is to the community. Let us give him the figures lest he should have forgotten them. Twenty thousand people odd in Wicklow voted against this benevolent Fianna Fáil Government which we have at present. If we are to take the Minister for Finance seriously, only 7,788 people in the Wicklow constituency are sane or have their heads screwed on properly, and the 20,109 who voted against Fianna Fáil must be absolutely daft. Is that what I understood the Minister for Finance to say? If it is, I do not believe it is true.
The Deputy does not understand the figures.
In the Cork by-election, 17,381 people voted against the present Government while only 11,000 people voted for it.
The Deputy is shutting his eyes to the facts. A substantial Labour vote was transferred to the Fianna Fáil candidate in Wicklow and in Cork.
The Minister and his Government are shutting their eyes to the misery which they have brought on the people of this country. However, the people will not stand for it. In at least three constituencies in the past 12 months the people have told the Government in no uncertain manner that they do not agree with their policy. Despite that, the Government pig-headedly continue with their policy as if it were quite all right. The final touch was when the Minister for Local Government proposed to slash £500,000 off the agricultural grant to be paid to farmers and a few days ago the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs ranin here breathless to make a present of £800,000, derived from an extra charge on post office services, to the Minister for Finance.
This time last year we were all up to our eyes wondering what section of the community the Minister for Local Government would tax next. He hit the petrol buyers, the paraffin users, the tractor owners, the lorry owners, hackney-car owners, and so forth. Every section of the community has been pretty hard hit by the present Government. On top of all that, we now have the highest ever number of unemployed. The scenes which have been taking place for the past few weeks in O'Connell Street and outside Leinster House are unparalleled in the history of this State. A Cumann na nGaedheal Government ruled this country for ten years, then a Fianna Fáil Government for 16 years, then an inter-Party Government for three and a half years and for the past two years we have had a Fianna Fáil Government again. In all these years, this is the first time that such scenes have been witnessed in this country. Three or four thousand men have stood clamouring outside the gates of Leinster House. Some Deputy said earlier that the Government are now under siege. In the name of common sense, should all that evidence not be sufficient to make the Government realise that there is something radically wrong in the country? Should not the fact that 78,000 men between the ages of 15 and 45 have fled from the land during the past six years tell the Government that something is wrong? Should not the train loads of young men and women fleeing from this country through the port of Dublin and Dún Laoghaire Harbour tell the Government that something is radically wrong? Have the Government gone blind or stupid? I believe that they are both. Along with all that, the Government are absolutely heedless of the condition of things throughout the country. They are now asking for a Vote on Account. My guess is that the remaining Estimates will not be taken but will be bundled together next November or December.
They will go through before we rise.
I am not accepting Deputy Cowan's statement for the Government.
It is not the Government. It is the Dáil.
If the Government do not present the Estimates to the House the House can do nothing about it.
The House need not adjourn unless it wishes.
Will Deputy Blowick tell me why the inter-Party Government ran away from the division on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture?
Deputy Cowan is not a member of the Government.
I am a member of the House.
I have challenged the Minister for Finance to tell me whether or not the remaining Estimates will be taken before we adjourn and he has remained silent.
I hope that they will be taken.
The Minister for Finance and the present Government have been feeding the people for the past two years with talk about plans— plans that have never materialised. They have been promising more employment, and other things. The trouble is that the good days ahead are always just around the corner. A lot of our people are wondering if we will ever turn that blessed corner.
Do you remember all the estates that you promised to divide? You never divided one of them.
When Deputy Cowan becomes Minister for Lands I hope he will do half as good a job as I did. I am proud of what I did.
Deputy O. Flanagan said he would make a better Minister for Lands than you.
Deputy McGrath should hold his tongue. If he feels cutup by recent happenings in Cork, I can assure him that I can quite understand it and that I sympathise with him.
Do you know what Deputy O. Flanagan said about you?
I know what he said about Deputy McGrath and it was not complimentary either.
Deputy O. Flanagan said that he would make a better Minister for Lands than you.
Deputy Blowick is in possession and should be allowed to make his speech without interruption.
This is a new line of procedure to try to dodge the discussion of very important Estimates which have yet to come before the House. The Minister for Finance expresses a pious hope—a hope not a certainty. Bear in mind that that pious hope is expressed by the second principal Minister in the Government of this country to-day—a hope that the Estimates will be taken. He expresses that pious hope although one can safely assume that at recent Government meetings they have considered every possible scheme to try and dodge the unpleasant criticism which they know is inevitable on certain Estimates.
The Deputy is very well aware that the introduction of this Vote on Account has been necessary because of the obstructionist tactics pursued by the Fine Gael Party for a considerable time past.
The people of this country know quite well that a Fianna Fáil promise is nothing but a Fianna Fáil promise, and they know that the Fianna Fáil plans do not exist even on paper. They are just like the biscuit factory that was to have been established in Ballina—the factory that the people of North Mayo were promised last year by the Tánaiste, the Deputy Prime Minister of this country. He had the unbounded cheek to go down to North Mayo and to tellthe people of Ballina, on the Saturday night before voting day, that Fianna Fáil intended to establish a biscuit factory in Ballina.
This is reminiscent of Greyfriars.
I understand that a few days prior to that, the present Minister for Finance presided, very ably no doubt, at a convention. Some of the candidates at that particular convention——
That does not seem to be relevant.
It does not arise and it is an awful pity that it does not arise because, if it did, we would have a very lively discussion here in a few minutes.
Deputy O'Hara gets very uncomfortable when you talk about North Mayo.
Does he?
I will give the Minister a run for his money. I will take him on next week, if he likes.
We will give the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce a chance to go down to North Mayo and explain away the beautiful plans for the establishment of a biscuit factory in Ballina —the plans which never materialised. That kind of talk will not cut ice any longer. I admit that it deceived a lot of decent people in North Mayo at the last election, but the famous plans the Government have up their cuff for unemployment and other problems did not deceive the people of Cork, or of Wicklow, or of Dublin.
It is time the Government took a proper view of the present condition of the country. They should try to cut down unemployment and to restore in some measure the prosperity which the people enjoyed during the inter-Party Government's term of office. Let them remember this: it is the same country,the same people, the same land, the same climate, the same towns and villages——
And the same speeches.
——and the same ability and willingness of our people to work that the present Government has to manage as we had. I said before that, with the exception of the United States, there is not a wealthier country in the world to-day than this country, if it were properly managed and given a proper chance.
Why did you not stay here longer?
Deputy Cowan put us out—so he says.
I want to refer now to the Irish Press,which to-day has a big heading: “£2,000,000 Drainage Plan— Western Counties Will Benefit—To Employ 500 at Peak Period.”
Surely the Deputy will not criticise that?
There is nothing of the Ballina biscuit factory about this, and the reason is that this was ordered by Deputy Donnellan when he was Parliamentary Secretary in the inter-Party Government. On 3rd May, 1948, the survey was ordered, and, one month after the inter-Party Government went out of office the Corrib drainage scheme was to start. Sufficient of the survey had been completed and machinery had been ordered down. The present Government took office in June, 1951, and all these orders were cancelled. The only contribution the present Government have made towards the Corrib drainage scheme, which is now to employ 500 at peak period, was to delay it and hinder its operation for the past two years. This announcement would not appear now, were it not for the pending by-election in portion of County Galway. I notice —I mention this because I want to draw attention to the meanness of Government policy or whoever was responsible for this announcement—that they take great care not to say that the Government have done this. We will read what they say.
Who say?
Will the Deputy tell us who passed the Arterial Drainage Act?
Here is the announcement:—
"A £2,000,000 drainage scheme for the Corrib-Clare catchment area designed to drain about 52,000 acres in Counties Galway, Mayo and Roscommon and which will give employment to 500 men at peak development, has been prepared by the Commissioners of Public Works."
It has not been ordered by the present Government. They could not claim that because they would be leaving themselves open to a refutation.
Will the Deputy tell us who passed the Arterial Drainage Act, in the teeth of the opposition of the Deputy and his colleagues?
Perhaps the Minister would hold his tongue. I am in possession. When he starts, I can assure him that he will get what he has always got from this side—empty benches. More co-operation than that he cannot get. There will be no interruptions because there will be nobody here to listen to him, as nobody ever waits to hear him. That scheme was initiated by the inter-Party Government. Deputy Cowan was a supporter of the inter-Party Government and he can claim a certain amount of credit for it, if he likes. This announcement in the Irish Pressof to-day does not say that the Government ordered it and they have omitted to say that the Government have delayed the starting of this work since they took office.
You do not want any work to go on—is that not it?
They fail to mention that Deputy Donnellan, as Parliamentary Secretary, gave the order for that work to commence, for the survey to be proceeded with on 3rd May, 1948.
There were a lot of things Deputy Donnellan did which were unmentionable.
Mention them. If the Minister knows anything about them. let him mention them. Let him not try to save Deputy Donnellan, me, or anybody else on this side. I have never know him to do it. If he has anything to mention, let him come out with it— I am here to listen to it. If there was anything to mention, I can assure the House that the Minister would not have kept it in his head until now. We would have heard about it. What is getting under his skin is the fact that he has not got more mud to sling.
The Deputy seems to be annoyed.
I am annoyed about one thing; I am annoyed because the Minister has brought poverty into practically every workingman's home, because he has deprived thousands of employment, because he has taken butter and meat off the tables of many of the working-class who were accustomed to it during our period in office. I am annoyed because he has spent the past three months in vote catching nonsense and in wasting the time of the House and because now, when the business of the House should be discussed, he has brought in this device of a second Vote on Account to stifle discussion of very important matters, a discussion which would not be too palatable for the Government.
You are annoyed because you started talking about it over five years ago.
These interruptions should cease. Deputy Blowick is in possession.
It is not easy to remain in possession when we have to listen to unintelligible grunts from Deputy McGrath.
Five years ago you were talking about it.
The Deputy should cease interrupting.
The Deputy is suffering a certain amount of anxiety at present and I feel for him. Regardless of what the Irish Pressmay say,Deputy Donnellan, the inter-Party Government and Clann na Talmhan, if the Minister wants to know the truth of it, were responsible for the Corrib arterial drainage scheme. The only part the present Government have played is deliberately to delay it and to butcher it, if they could, just as they butchered the Local Authorities (Works) Act passed by the inter-Party Government, as they butchered the forestry scheme of the inter-Party Government and reduced it from 25,000 acres to 12,000 acres, as they butchered and cut down on the work of the Land Commission and have tried to cut down the relief of rates on agricultural land and have gone shamelessly back on their promises with regard to food subsidies.
When the Minister is replying, I suppose he will clap himself on the back and boast again of the £20,000,000 worth of extra agricultural produce we exported this year. He will be too careful to mention the policy of the Government in particular directions, the first inkling of which we got was the short and terse statement of the Taoiseach when he said, in a pained way, that the people are living beyond their means. By this time, the people of the country know quite well the full depth of that statement. They have felt the full impact of it in no uncertain way, and they know exactly what the Taoiseach meant. The average person wondered at the time who were these horrible bad-minded people who were living beyond their means and causing the poor Taoiseach all this trouble and anxiety because they were doing so. Now they know exactly whom he meant. They know that he meant themselves—the workingman, the small farmer, the small businessman, and the housewife. They know that it is they themselves who were living beyond their means, and they know what that very strong expression by the Taoiseach meant.
I wonder could we have a record made of this and have it played? It would be much easier.
I do not say that outof political bitterness. I want to state the hard facts which the Deputy will encounter whenever the election comes off. Whatever is happening in the towns of Connaught is happening also in the towns of Munster and Leinster and in Dublin City, too.
Would what the farmer gets for his beef have anything to do with it?
The people are not going to be deceived by that kind of side-tracking in regard to the farmers. The farmer is finding it as hard to live as anybody else and the working people are beginning to realise that. The present Government, backed by Deputy Cowan, has reduced the standard of living of the people, but what is much worse is that families and children of school going age and younger have not now the standard of living that the Irish Medical Association prescribes as being the lowest possible minimum.
For God's sake, leave the Irish Medical Association out of it.
You show signs of it.
We will see how Deputy McGrath gets on at the next election. Deputy McGrath may joke about the poverty of the people in his constituency. That is his affair, but I take it that the people of Cork are not the fools that Deputy McGrath would have us believe. Deputy McGrath himself may not be feeling the pinch but his constituents are. We were upbraided by the Government because we asked for a general election. We do not ask for a general election. It is the people who are asking for it. In the recent by-elections the people told the Government in no uncertain manner to get out. The biscuit factory in North Mayo is there as a monument.
Even at this late hour I want to ask the Government at least to face the most urgent problems that confront them. Unemployment and the high cost of living are two of these most urgent problems.
What does theDeputy suggest in regard to unemployment?
Another urgent problem is the flight from the land, including emigration and the flight to the towns and cities in our own country. That is a most urgent problem at the present time. I would ask the Government to face up to their responsibilities even now regardless of whether this Vote on Account goes through or not.
Of course, it will.
Give us a full discussion on the Estimates. We do not mind if three or four weeks of our summer holidays are taken from us but we know that the Government Deputies mind. They are in a panic and ostrich-like they are sticking their heads in the sand. They want to close down the House and get away from the searchlight of criticism which is being played on them by the Opposition. They want to get away and close the House until November. That is no policy and I warn the Government not to follow that particular line of country.
Deputy Rooney in repudiating Deputy Blowick's opposition to the back pay for the civil servants said that Deputy Blowick had no responsibility.
He was not in the Government.
Deputy Rooney said that Deputy Blowick had no responsibility. The Fine Gael people and the Labour people promised they were going to give this extra million to the civil servants and Deputy Rooney said that Deputy Blowick had no responsibility.
He was not in the Government.
That is typical of the whole Coalition set up. They have no responsibility. Deputy Davin supported Deputy Dillon in reducing the price of milk to 1/- a gallon and when Deputy Rooney went round to the dairyfarmers he said that Deputy Dillon had no responsibility and Deputy Davin had no responsibility.
What about Deputy Cowan?
None of them had any responsibility. Deputy Cowan is prepared, as is every member on this side of the House, to take responsibility for his own vote, but Deputy Rooney is not prepared to take responsibility for Deputy Blowick. When Deputy Blowick became a member of the Coalition, he took no responsibility for the promise he made that he would never join a Coalition. He took no responsibility for having sworn that all over the country Mayo and other parts of the West, after describing the bad smell that was in the Dáil when the other Parties joined Fine Gael. I do not believe that the voters are going to take any responsibility for those groups who will not take responsibility themselves.
How does the Taoiseach like his Coalition?
If Deputy Rooney wants to form a Coalition with Deputy Davin and Deputy Blowick——
And Deputy Cowan.
——or with anybody he likes, all he has got to do is to get them together and show the people a policy in respect of which they are prepared to take responsibility.
This is a rum Coalition.
Deputy Mulcahy indicated to-day that Fine Gael had not changed its policy. I remember 1931 when Deputy Mulcahy was Minister for Local Government. We asked him to promote a great housing campaign. Deputy Mulcahy's answer was that they could not build houses until the cost of materials and wages came down so that houses could be built to let at an economic rent. To-day he showed that, notwithstanding the fact that he rubbed shoulders with Deputy Davin for a short time, he has not lost his fundamental philosophy. He pointed out that this idea of having public works for the relief of unemploymentwas a very dear business and that really Dublin Corporation should make no effort to co-operate with the Government because it was dearer to keep a man on public works than it was on the bureau.
In fact, he stated that it was cheaper to give him the full wage for doing nothing.
Is it?
Deputy Davin would take no responsibility for what Deputy Mulcahy said and Deputy McGilligan took no responsibility for the Labour Party's social legislation. They let Deputy Norton talk his head off about what he was going to do in regard to social welfare for three years and they were not prepared to take the responsibility of finally putting it through the Dáil.
You voted against it on the 2nd March, 1951.
We put the social services legislation through here within a few months after we became the Government.
You voted against it in 1951.
We were the only majority Party in this House for the last 30 years that was prepared to take the line that those who are in the greatest need in the country are entitled to get help from the community——
You butchered our scheme.
——and we did that in one piece of social legislation after another. The only thing that the Labour Party got when they were members of the Coalition was the right to put an extra 9d. on the national health stamp without increasing the benefit.
What did you do on the 2nd March, 1951?
That is something that Deputy Davin cannot get away from.The only thing the Labour Party did as members of the Coalition was to increase the national health stamp—by 9d. I think—without increasing the benefit. We were not back in office more than a few months when the national health benefit was doubled.
You butchered our scheme.
The cost of living was doubled.
Will the Minister be allowed to make his speech?
Tell us about the death grant.
Will the Minister be allowed to make his speech without interruption?
There is a certain attitude of blueshirtism around among Deputies Davin, Rooney and Blowick.
On a point of order is the Minister allowed to tell a damned lie like that? To describe me as a Blueshirt?
He wants to do everything except deal with the problem of the cost of living at the present time.
If Deputy Davin tells the Minister he was not a Blueshirt the Minister will accept it.
But I did not say that.
He is not going to get away with the barefaced lie that I was a Blueshirt.
To say a person is a Blueshirt is a political accusation.
But I did not make it. What I said was, that there was a certain element of blueshirtism about this whole business; that when the Government is elected here to carry on the national work a Minister replying to a debate, in which no other Minister has spoken, is not allowed to get in two consecutive sentences without interruptions.
On a point of order, would the Minister explain the differencebetween the hairshirt and a blueshirt?
He would do anything to get away from the cost of living and the unemployment problems.
Deputy Mulcahy made a statement in which he said that we were endeavouring to build up external assets, so that we would give the people's money to Jhon Bull to oppress the negroes in Africa. Let us take the external assets held by Government Departments and the Central Bank since 1948. In 1948, the nominal value of departmental funds invested in British securities was £49.7 million. In 1951, under the régime of the groups who would not take responsibility for each other, it rose to £56.8 million. During their time Government funds alone showed an increase of £7.1 million worth of external assets. Nobody accused them at that time of having increased departmental funds in external assets for the purpose of enabling John Bull to oppress the rest of the world. Nobody accused them of investing £7.1 million extra in wastepaper, as Deputy McGilligan called it.
Since March, 1951, the same funds have dropped from £56.8 million down to £41.55 million, a drop of about £15,000,000. The Central Bank's holdings of external assets in March, 1948, just after we left office, were £43.9 million. What did they go up to? In the March before the Coalition left office they had gone up to £80.6 million, or an increase of £36.7 million. They had fallen last March to £71.4 million. Deputy Rooney does not like to hear about the increase in sterling assets during their time in office, and I would like to ask Deputy Rooney does he take responsibility for Deputy Blowick or for Deputy Davin? Does he take responsibility for Deputy McGilligan? Does he take responsibility for the increase in the sterling assets held by the Central Bank from £43,000,000 to £80,000,000 during his régime, and the sterling holdings of departmental funds from £49,000,000 to £56,000,000?
It is a week's wages the people are interested in and not in the millions.
I knew the Deputy was afraid to say he takes responsibility for the actions of Deputy McGilligan. That is what bedevils the whole situation. What this country wants is a Government not afraid to take responsibility. Deputy Rooney is afraid to say: "Yes, it is true that during our régime the holdings of sterling assets by the Central Bank went up from £43.9 million to £80.6 million and the sterling holdings of departmental funds went up from £49.7 million to £56.8 million. Deputy Rooney is afraid to take responsibility for it. He is afraid to take responsibility for the process that Deputy Mulcahy described here to-day as giving the people's money to John Bull in order to beat the negroes.
The Minister is afraid to let the people judge.
And that is another little bit of blueshirtism. Our Constitution, which Deputy Rooney and some of his colleagues tried to defeat, is a democratic Constitution. It provides that we have an election every five years and the Government once elected can remain in office for the five years, so long as it holds the confidence of the House. This Government have proved no later than the last week or two that they retain, on a deliberate vote announced a fortnight beforehand, the confidence of the House.
But not of the people.
Mr. O'Higgins
Not even the confidence of the House.
If we were to have a general election every time a Government is beaten in a by-election we would never be done with by-elections.
Mr. O'Higgins
You would not be in office.
Fine Gael were often beaten in by-elections.
Mr. O'Higgins
We were beaten once and we went to the people.
You were beaten in 1924. Deputy Lemass beat the Fine Gael candidate by about two to one, butthere was no general election until 1927.
Mr. O'Higgins
That was the time you said you would never go into Dáil Eireann. You said you would never swallow the Oath.
We did not invite the King to the Park, did we?
You gave us the External Relations Act.
The republicans of Bantry, the Bantry band. I can quite understand Deputy O'Higgins trying to blueshirt us out of office here, because the O'Higginses were always hungry. They want to grab office by fair means or foul, by honouring a foreign king or a native president— anything at all that would do them, in order to get in.
Mr. O'Higgins
Has the Minister still his top hat?
He has the one your father wore at the Imperial Conference.
Is it the suggestion that he would not buy one of his own?
All that is worrying Deputy O'Higgins is that he cannot get three or four jobs for the O'Higginses.
Mr. O'Higgins
The Minister is disgusting as he usually is. He is sordid, disgusting.
If a man acts as a gentleman I am prepared to treat him as a gentleman, but if he tries to roughhouse it with me, I shall treat him as he deserves.
Mr. O'Higgins
The Minister would not know the meaning of the word "gentleman".
Deputy O'Higgins should cease interrupting.
Mr. O'Higgins
Surely I am entitled to some protection from the Chair. Isthere a licence to cast reflections on me?
There certainly is not, but those reflections arose from the Deputy's interruptions.
Mr. O'Higgins
No matter how they arose.
Deputy O'Higgins, any more than Deputy Rooney, is not prepared to take responsibility for the increase in sterling assets. They have been yapping around the country about the sterling assets we hold. They have been saying that the reason we held them was in order to give cheap money to John Bull. Yet, during their régime, as I have already pointed out, a much higher amount of the funds of the Central Bank and of Government funds were invested in sterling assets. Of course, they will not take responsibility for that, but they will go around the country yapping that we hold sterling assets although we have decreased the sterling holdings of departmental funds since we came back from £56.8 million to £41.55 million, while the Central Bank's holding of sterling assets has dropped from £80.6 million to £70.4 million. These Deputies still go around the country yapping that we keep these moneys there to provide cheap money for John Bull.
I have on many occasions before pointed out that if we want to have external reserves with which we can meet our debts, buy machinery and anything we want for capital development, we must have sterling assets of some kind unless, when we want machinery, we are prepared to go to Britain or America to borrow a few million pounds in order to buy that machinery. So long as this country as a national unit has external assets, somebody must hold them, whether it be the Central Bank, Government funds, the commercial banks or ordinary individuals. Our Central Bank has still £71,000,000 in external assets and Government funds have £41,000,000 of these assets. We could to-morrow realise that £111,000,000 of Central Bank and Government funds. We could, by law, force the Central Bank to get rid of their holding andtake it back here for investment in public work funds or development funds. What would be the first result of that? If we sold the £71,000,000 of external assets held by the Central Bank and took that amount back to the Bank of Ireland, the result would be to decrease the sterling holdings of the Central Bank but at the same time to swell the Bank of Ireland's external holdings by the same £71,000,000. All this talk that we should keep this money invested here simply means that Government funds and the Central Bank should realise their external assets to swell the sterling holdings of the commercial banks.
Deputy Mulcahy to-day also said that we were very anxious to grind down the people by taxation. We are not. Any more than other politicians in the world, we do not go seeking unpopularity or seeking to impose unpopular taxes on the people without having a basis of honesty which appeals to us. If we were dishonest enough to meet all Government expenditure by inflationary finance, there is no reason why we should go to the rounds of deceiving the people by switching external assets from Government funds to the commercial banks. We could take any of the direct inflationary measures to increase the amount of money in the country, get it into the Exchequer and dole it out to the people. The reason that we have held that it is wrong to decrease taxation, that it is wrong not to increase it in an inflationary period and restore a fairly normal balance between the production of goods and money, is because it is the correct financial procedure and it is honest treatment of our people.
The worst possible form of taxation is inflation. At the present time there is in circulation £70,000,000 or £80,000,000 in notes. We could double that to-morrow by the process of law. We could double it by getting inflationary loans from the banks or an inflationary advance from the Central Bank by one means or another. Supposing we doubled the circulation of money, doubled the level of deposits in the banks and instead of having £80,000,000 of Central Bank notes and another £300,000,000 or £400,000,000 on deposits, we raised the total to£1,000,000,000, it could be done quite simply, but is that going to make the people any better off? The only people whose position it would improve would be the owners of the lorries, who would be dragging the notes from one place to another. I say that inflation is the worst form of taxation because it takes as much off the £ of the poor man, by reducing its value, as it does off the £ of the rich man.
It decreases in value the poor man's £ just as much as it does the £ of the rich man. A man with £1,000 a year can afford to have a reduction of 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. in his standard of living if the value of money decreases owing to inflationary Government finance but the man with a few pounds a week cannot. The reason why normal Government with a sense of responsibility set their faces against an inordinate inflation of credit and money is because they know it is the worst possible form of taxation. I grant you it is a form of taxation which weak Governments, Governments comprised of groups that are not prepared to take responsibility for one another, Governments that are not prepared to accept responsibility to the people for unpopular acts, will adopt; it is the type of taxation to which they resort. They will not put so much on the beer or on cigarettes or income-tax, but they will decrease the value of money by inflation.
That would be one system of running the country's finances; instead of imposing taxation we could have a system of progressive inflation. We could dismiss all the Revenue Commissioners and everyone else engaged in the collection of taxes and substitute the other system of creating sufficient money to enable the Government to pay the Civil Service, the Army, the police and run the social services. That could be done simply by increasing the amount of money in circulation and progressively decreasing the value of each unit of money in circulation. But we do not think that is a good system. That system has been followed, not to the utmost extreme of abolishing all taxation but a good distance along that road, by Governments in France in recent years. The result is that France, potentially therichest country in Europe, with the richest land in Europe per head of the population, is in a bad way. Some of the smaller countries with not one-tenth of the resources France has but with Governments prepared, as we were, to grasp the nettle and honestly consider the right thing to do by the people and prepared to take the unpopularity attaching to that step, have done reasonably well in the post-war world.
I am glad to say that the measures which the Minister for Finance took two years ago to remove some of the inflation out of the situation here have been successful. Looking forward in June, 1951, and noticing that our balance of payment was running at a deficit of £60,000,000 a year, I did not think then that the Minister for Finance would be able to bring that balance down to reasonable proportions for at least two or three years. The extra taxation, however, that he had put on and some of the consumers money that he got in by way of loan reduced that inflationary circulation to reasonable proportions and during last year, as the Minister pointed out, the deficit in our balance of payments was down to about £9,000,000. I would not worry about £9,000,000 per year as a deficit, but I hold very strongly against deliberately reducing our external assets to the tune of £60,000,000 a year because the Government was afraid to take unpopular steps, the unpopular steps of applying the correct financial procedure.
We could not have lasted as a financially independent people if we had continued with a deficit of £60,000,000 per year for another few years. Away back in 1949, or thereabouts, we had only £222,000,000 net in external assets. Three or four years at the rate of £60,000,000 per year would have left us going on our knees to some foreign country for a loan in order to buy the machinery we required. There is no reason why the Irish people should have to do that if they live within their means. Our present means are not by any standard insignificant. We have the highest standard of food consumption in Europe outside a couple of the richest countries, such as Switzerlandand Sweden. Deputy Blowick likes to sympathise with the starvation of everybody else and he assures his constituents that they are starving, but in 1951 the average consumption of creamery butter per head per week was 8.9 oz. as against 8.63 oz. in 1950. The consumption of butter had gone up a little from 1950, the year of plenty when the inter-Party Government was in office spinning our money at the rate of £60,000,000 per annum. Beef consumption in 1952 stood at 10.74 oz. per head per week, as against 10.14 oz., so that even beef consumption in 1952 was better than it was in the year of plenty in 1950. Sugar went up from 18.55 oz. per head per week in 1950 to 21.16 oz. per week in 1951. Mutton went up from 3.09 oz. per head per week to 4.03 oz.
It would not be true to claim that our people have anything like the standard of living that we would like them to have but the only way in which we can permanently increase our standard of living as a nation is by increasing our standard of production. We could increase our standard of living temporarily for a year or two by running through all our reserves and all our savings like a farmer with £200 a year income and with £100 in the bank who decides that he will live at £300 per year for one year by spending his savings. Our country with a national income running about £400,000,000 a year and with foreign reserves of around £200,000,000 could live, say, at the rate of £600,000,000 a year for one year. We could increase our standard of living by 50 per cent. for one year but at the end of that year if we wanted to make progress and develop we would have to go looking to some other country for a loan; and that is a position into which we do not want to put our people.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.