Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 24 Apr 1958

Vol. 167 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 9—General (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—
That it is expedient to amend the law relating to customs and inland revenue (including excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance.—(Minister for Finance.)

I think that the immediate reaction of the people in general to the Minister's Budget proposals of yesterday was one of a certain sense of relief that at least they had been spared any more of the austerities and harshness so characteristic of Budgets introduced by the present Government. It is significant but none-the-less deplorable that that should be the immediate reaction; that the best the people of the country can say in existing circumstances by way of ease to themselves is that there is nothing in the Budget and that it does not impose new and further harsh restrictions. The country had looked forward, I think, with a certain degree of expectancy but not, I think, with very much hope, that, in the circumstances existing at present, there would be some positive proposals emanating through the medium of the Budget for the advance of the nation that had been so promiscuously promised by the Government and their adherents some 15 months ago during the general election campaign.

Further thought and examination of the Budget proposals will show that, far from there being nothing in the Budget, in fact, the Budget contains additional taxation and its description as a Budget containing nothing is the greatest condemnation that this or any other Budget could have in present circumstances.

The Minister for Finance, in the course of his Budget speech yesterday, took a certain amount of satisfaction in stating to the House that the Government had held the line against increased taxation. They have not held that line. This was no time for a Budget of negative character, and it was certainly no time for a Budget increasing taxation. It is a commonplace that the Budget resolutions containing the annual proposals of the Minister for Finance, are no longer merely accountancy matters, that the Budget is or ought to be an instrument of economic policy. At a time when the circumstances of the country clamantly demanded positive action, an incentive Budget to clear away the unfortunate diseases of pessimism and disillusionment that are so widespread throughout the country, the fact that nothing but a negative Budget is proposed is certainly something of a disastrous disappointment.

No positive policy appears in this Budget. The same taxes, the harsh, austerity taxes imposed last year are continued and in addition a whole series of new taxes are imposed as part of the tax structure of the country. I shall have occasion before I finish to deal with the Minister's proposal to transfer from capital account to current account the levies which were put on as a temporary expedient to meet a very dangerous situation and to turn those levies into permanent taxes of the State. That in itself is increasing taxation; once those taxes go on, they will never come off. As I say, I shall have occasion to animadvert on these proposals in a more detailed way later: my point at the moment is that this is not a Budget which does nothing; it does in fact increase taxation.

The very fact that it does nothing is the very greatest condemnation that can be given to this Budget at a time when positive proposals were needed to give incentives to industry, agriculture and commerce and we find no hint whatever in this Budget of any proposals except vague talk about much constructive thought going on to deal with the future of the country.

It is, of course, pretty well known that there are two—I hesitate to call them schools of thought—factions within the Government, one of which is represented by the lethargic approach of the Minister for Finance, and the other perhaps might be summed up by the hopping about of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. We have had many plans from the Minister for Industry and Commerce; we have had many turgid orations from him about the proposals, the many hundreds of proposals that are in his Department and are being examined. We have had hints of new industries and a whole mirage of hope built up by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in his speeches throughout the country over many years past.

We have had, of course, his famous £100,000,000 proposal. This sum was to be secured from somewhere unknown but certainly not from either the savings of the people or through taxation. In a recent publication called Development, he said that is still there and although all his colleagues took care to say in recent times it was no part of Fianna Fáil policy, we have the Minister for Industry and Commerce dangling this mirage before the people of the country, hopping from one topic to another.

Apparently the country had the choice—and certainly the Minister for Finance had the choice—between sleeping sickness and St. Vitus's dance. The sleeping sickness won in this Budget. It is a safe Budget; I suppose many economists would so describe it. But it is as safe as the grave, and there is no place more safe from accidents than the grave. We are reminded of the difficulty that faced the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Great Britain. He had problems to face different from the problems which the Minister has to face. He had problems based probably on surplus employment and certainly grave danger of inflation. The problems we have to face are underemployment, emigration and deflation, and this is a deflationary Budget. But even when the Chancellor of the Exchequer in England had those problems to face in the circumstances existing in the country at that time, no less than two of the leading economic journals in Great Britain, The Economist and the Financial Times, counselled that it was no time for caution but time for courage.

Surely that advice is very much more relevant and much more urgently required to be put into operation here in the circumstances of the present time than in Great Britain. What is required here at present is not caution but courage, and however much caution there may be in this Budget—and I give the Minister for Finance full marks for the caution and safety of his Budget—there certainly is not the slightest sign or indication of any of the courage that is so urgently required to meet the exigencies of the present urgent task.

I have frequently spoken in recent years—not to-day or yesterday—about the lack of confidence that exists in our country and I have tried to stem the tide of pessimism—so far as one man could—and the lack of patriotism and confidence in our conditions that arose because of this wave of pessimism that has gone through the country like an infectious disease. On this occasion the Government had not merely the opportunity but the duty of taking effective steps to deal with that wave of pessimism, and I am sorry to say that this Budget makes no contribution whatever to the restoration of the confidence that is so urgently required or to the curing of this infectious disease from which the country is now suffering. That they had the duty of meeting this is beyond all question, and that they had the opportunity is what I should like to show.

I should like first to paint a contrasting picture of the situation which faced the Government and particularly the Minister when he proceeded to frame his Budget proposals. On the election of the present Government, the occasion of the first meeting of the Dáil after the General Election, I said at column 31, Volume 161 of the Official Report:—

"...we sought eagerly for some clue as to what I might call the most jealously-guarded political secret of modern times here in Ireland—the policy of the Fianna Fáil Government."

We failed to find it at that time. We failed to find it although we challenged them throughout the length and breadth of the country during the election. We failed to find it in this Budget. This Budget contains no policy and no hint of a policy to meet the urgent problems of the difficult times existing at present in Ireland.

I would up what I had to say on that occasion by stating at column 34:—

"The country sees and knows that not merely is the country on trial, but, equally, that our institutions are on trial."

I have expressed, and I repeat here again, my confidence in the future of the country. The Minister and his Government had an opportunity of giving full effect to that confidence and they have failed in their duty in the proposals they put forward in this Budget. There are people—and people in high places—saying that this Government and every other Government in this country since 1922 have failed. I do not subscribe to that doctrine, but I do say that this Government has failed at the present time to make an adequate contribution to putting an end to that class of gloomy pessimism which is, in my view, as I have already said, at the root of many of our evils, and particularly of our emigration.

It is significant that in the whole course of the Minister's speech he never referred to the word "emigration" or the problem of emigration. He never referred to unemployment or the problem of unemployment and he never gave any hope or indication whatever of a policy for production in regard to the agricultural industry. These are remarkable characteristics of the Budget in present circumstances. It is for this reason, amongst others, that the Government have failed in their duty and lost the hope of producing a real policy and putting an end to the lack of confidence which the people have in their Government and institutions.

I subscribe to what the Minister said in his Budget speech that the two successful issues of the Prize Bonds— I would add the successful flotation of the national loan—show that inherently the country is sound financially and economically, but people as a whole have got the impression that there is no hope. We on every side of the House, no matter what Party we belong to, have got to come together to put an end to that, or there will be no hope for Ireland. I think the gravest indictment that can be made in regard to this do-nothing Budget is the fact that they have lost the opportunity and failed in their duty.

I take a few of the characteristics of the present time and I do so with hope. It is something that should inspire courage in our people and help to dissipate this feeling of gloom and pessimism which is rotting and corroding the country, particularly the young people, bringing them into the mood where they see no hope for the future for themselves and, therefore, they emigrate, that there is some indication of buoyancy in revenue. Whatever measures may be taken by certain of the Ministers and Deputies on the opposite side to suggest the contrary to the people, we had a hard and arduous task in bringing about a situation in which a balance on external account was achieved last year. We are entitled to realise and rejoice in the fact that there has been for the first time for many years, although the result was achieved in very great agony, indeed, on our part, a balance in our external payments account. That, as the Minister and his predecessors said—it was said at the Fine Gael Ard Fheis in 1957—is a solid foundation upon which to build some policy for progress and production in the country.

It is a favourable situation that this Government has for the first time a surplus and an adequate surplus on our balance of payments accounts. Although the Minister said, and, perhaps, rightly said, that that situation in our external payments account must be carefully watched, the situation is now safe. I think there is no danger imminent in regard to that situation. Therefore, that is something which should give not merely the Minister but the country confidence. It should have enabled the Government to plan a forward positive economic and financial policy to meet the situation that exists at the present time. They have failed to do so.

The Minister also drew attention to the fact that the deposits of the commercial banks have greatly increased during the past 12 months. We heard the weeping and wailing of the commercial banks and others during our time about deposits falling. We had a credit squeeze and an increase in the bank rate and all the rest. The present Government have the position where the Minister for Finance is able to boast that the deposits in the commercial banks are greatly increased this year. He did not add that the dividends of the commercial banks have increased. He could have said that the holdings of the commercial banks and the holdings by other persons of our sterling balances have also greatly increased.

It is pleasing also to hear the Minister say that there has been a gratifying increase in the total savings of our people. We had to meet a situation where the savings of the country had gone down almost to vanishing point. We set ourselves positively and constructively to persuade the people of the necessity for saving in their interests. It is certainly pleasing to us at all events to know that the measures which we set in operation are meeting with such success. It does not matter whether we get the credit or not. The fact is that the savings of our people according to the Minister for Finance have greatly increased, or have gratifyingly increased, during the last 12 months; and that is something the country should know and should appreciate.

We then have what I have already mentioned—the two Prize Bond issues were subscribed and adequately subscribed; the national loan was a success, the loan by the E.S.B. was a success. Then we have the situation, as I understand it to be, that our exports of all kinds have increased. We have had a dramatic, if not spectacular, increase in our agricultural exports and we have had an even more gratifying increase in our industrial and other exports.

There is no capital shortage now. The Minister did not complain of shortage of capital, of the necessity for a credit squeeze. The only restriction he mentioned was a half-hearted appeal for restraint in income increases. There is one side of the picture—and it is a good side of the picture. It is not the sort of thing with which we had to deal. That is the picture on which the Minister for Finance ought to have had his eyes when he was framing this Budget —a solid basis on which a forward positive policy could have been devised and put into operation, instead of the "nothing in it" Budget that we had presented to us yesterday.

Of course, we have the reverse side of the picture. We have the undoubted fact that there is this corrosive disease prevalent in the country, of gloom, pessimism and disillusionment with our institutions and with our Governments, wherever they come from. That is a disease which will be very difficult of eradication. It is one of the heavy items on the debit side of the account —if I may mix metaphors; one of the gloomiest shadows in the picture—if I may resort to the original metaphor I used.

Then we have the greatly increased emigration. We have, as Deputy Norton pointed out yesterday, a situation where there has been really no definite increase in employment and very little, if any, decrease in unemployment. The figures, unfortunately, bear that out. On the 12th April of this year, the total on the live register was 77,319. For the previous year, 1957, the blackest year in the history of this country economically, it was 81,937. I need not go over the causes for that— the drop in the price of our agricultural exports, the adverse terms of trade, the Suez crisis, the credit squeeze, the situation in England and all the other factors we had to meet, which caused the economic blizzard which afflicted the country during that year. The figure for unemployment was 81,937. In the previous year, 1956, when the start of the troubles set in, it was 68,256. I shall not go behind that figure but I shall take 1956, the middle of that year, when the troubles really showed themselves at their inception. It was 68,256 at that time. The position we are in now, 12 months after this "strong Government" with an overall majority came in, is that the unemployment figure is 9,000 higher than the 1956 figure.

Even those figures are illusory. I understand that a better gauge to the employment figure is the number of persons who are actually in employment in industries producing transportable goods. From that you find how many are in work, rather than how many are out of work. The latest figure available, that for the December quarter of 1957, taken from page 38 of the Irish Trade Journal, shows the total then employed as 151,209. For the corresponding quarter of the previous year, 1956, it was 150,632—that is something fewer than 600 were put into employment in that 12 months. For the December quarter of 1955 the figure was 159,650, so that in 1955, before the economic blizzard started, about 8,000 people more were in employment than there were at the end of 12 or 15 months of the present “strong Government”. That is another bad side of this gloomy picture.

We have then the fact that the cost of living has increased to a very significant extent, bearing its effects and bringing its consequences right through the economic life of the country. It has resulted not merely in increased wages of a very moderate character; it has increased rates, increased expenses and it has brought us certainly into a higher cost economy than before. We have the farmers depressed, perplexed and their agricultural industry in almost a state of chaos. Even the Minister for Industry and Commerce pays at least lip service now to the fact that agriculture is our principal industry. From these benches over the years, we have preached that there is no necessary antagonism between the development of Irish industry on proper lines and the development, the necessary and essential development, of the agricultural industry as the first and primary object of economic policy.

We have business activity restricted. Every business person will tell you that business is bad. In the towns and villages, the shopkeepers are experiencing financial difficulties of the acutest character. We have an apparent rise in industrial production which, to the extent it goes, is satisfactory; still it is not anything like it was when we were in office, before the economic blizzard afflicted the country. The latest available figure for industrial production for the December quarter of 1957 stood at 108.8. In the same quarter of 1956 it was 100; but in the same quarter of 1955, before the economic troubles came, it was 113.5. Therefore, it is well below—given such increases as have been indicated in the last few months—the figure at the end of 1955.

We have not got—as everybody knows, and as has been reiterated so frequently—any completely accurate indication of the number of emigrants; but from the figures available in reference to this matter we can ascertain the trend of emigration. The net passenger movement by sea out of the country last year was 46,712, an increase of over 11,000 on the year before and the highest figure in the last ten years; indeed, the figure is nearly three times what it was some ten years ago. Those are figures which cannot be overlooked. In considering whether or not there has been an increase in employment or a decrease in unemployment, those figures for emigration must be taken into account.

From this side of the House, in our time, we heard denunciation, loud and long, of ourselves and of our policy and of the figures we produced showing that we had put more people into employment and that there was less unemployment. We were told the figures were faked because we did not take account of emigration. I do not propose to indulge in that sort of thing. The fact must be faced and taken into account that there has been greatly increased emigration in the last 12 months. There cannot be any doubt about that.

That is only a bare outline of the gloomy side of the picture; but it is of such a character that it required urgently that the Government should take note of it and should make use of the favourable side in order to dissipate the gloom and take away the darkness from that dark side of the picture. There is not the slightest indication in this Budget of any incentive to production. There is not the slightest hope held out to the agricultural community. There is hardly any hope of additional employment being created and there is very little hope of an end of unemployment.

The Minister for Finance said that there was constructive thought of the best method of dealing with our economic and financial problems. I do not understand why it is that the Capital Investment Advisory Committee's Report on that aspect has not been given urgent priority.

The Minister said there was a report on housing. It has not yet been published. I suppose it has been there for a long time—for some time anyway —and we can forecast what is in it. I have not the remotest touch with that committee at the moment but, from what I saw when I was in office, I have a very shrewd idea as to the kind of recommendations made about housing. It would not surprise me in the least if the recommendation was that there should gradually, if not immediately, be decontrol of housing and, indeed, a cessation of house building altogether. That will not bring about any increase in employment or help to solve our problems.

I should really like to know why it is we have been waiting for so long for the really important report of that committee, the report to which the Minister referred, as to the best method of dealing with our present economic and financial situation. It is of some significance that it is something like 18 months since another report other than that on housing— and in my view the report on housing is of no significance whatever—has emanated from that capital advisory committee. I should have thought that in the circumstances existing at the present time, circumstances which call for incentives and for a positive policy, that advisory committee would be asked to give an urgent report to form and inform the Minister's mind in relation to the problems he has to face and the country has to meet. Again, at the risk of repetition, I insist that, search as we may, we find no positive policy in this Budget and we find no incentive whatsoever.

The Budget has been precariously balanced. It has been balanced by taking the levies from capital account and putting them into current account, making them part of the permanent tax structure of the State, probably for all time, and by taking a net figure for overestimation. That figure can be put completely out of balance at any moment by some unexpected turn during the course of the year, involving additional and Supplementary Estimates. We heard the Minister last year swear by all the financial gods that there would be few Supplementary Estimates during the course of the year. He took away the food subsidies. We warned him of the effect that that would have. We warned him of what would happen in so far as the consumption of butter was concerned. One result of that was that a greatly increased amount of butter had to be exported because of the drop in consumption at home due to the increase in price. That was something that should have been foreseen.

Are we to acquiesce now in the Minister's suggestion that there will be no Supplementary Estimates this year beyond about £1,000,000? I think that was the figure he estimated in his Budget statement. Of course, there will be Supplementary Estimates. If there are, what then? A precarious balance has been achieved now by these two devices to which I have referred. The boasted point of principle on which the Government allege they are standing is the principle of the balanced Budget. We have heard that throughout the length and breadth of the country over the years. We have heard the taunts flung at me and my colleagues because of our so-called deficit budgeting. This Government set itself up as a headline for financial rectitude and for balanced Budgets. It has not balanced its Budget this year. It did not balance its Budget last year. The policy of securing a balanced Budget at all costs has failed, and failed signally.

Last year the Government had a deficit. They blamed us for that. This year they cannot blame us. They have had control of the finances of the country, with an overall majority and a so-called strong Government for the past 15 months. Whatever false propaganda they may have been able to throw around, by suggestion or otherwise, but never openly in this House, that there was something wrong in our handling of the finances of the State, they have not got that alibi this year. Nevertheless, they had a deficit of £5.8 million in the Budget for the year which has just ended. This is the Government that boasted of their great principle of balanced Budgets at all costs.

Goodness knows, the country has paid heavily from 1952 to 1957 under a Fianna Fáil Government. In practically every Budget of which they had control from 1932 onwards they have increased taxation. Despite their harsh measures and the austerities imposed on the people last year, in the name of a balanced Budget and the maintenance of this principle, the Government ended the financial year with a deficit of £5.8 million. What hope have they of fulfilling their promises and adhering to their principle of balanced Budgets when they can achieve only the precarious balance to which I have referred by the methods to which I have adverted?

Food subsidies were taken away last year because at all costs, and however great the pain inflicted upon the people, the Budget had to be balanced; £9,000,000 was taken away by the removal of the food subsidies. Part of that £9,000,000 went by way of compensatory payments but there was over £6,000,000 available from the saving effected by the removal of those food subsidies and nobody yet knows the secret of where that £6,000,000 has gone. Certainly the people and the country generally have not got any benefit. Where has it gone? Wherever it has gone, they have certainly not balanced their Budget, and they will not balance the present Budget. They have not balanced their present Budget.

I do not know whether some fortuitous inflow of revenue will enable them to meet their contingencies during the year. I hope they will balance their Budget. They said last year they would balance at all costs—at the cost of increased taxation, an increased cost of living and widespread suffering. But, despite all that, they were not able to maintain their principle of balancing the Budget. The year 1956-57 was a harsh, tough year. We ended with a deficit of £6,000,000. That was upcast to us. We were the rakes on a rake's progress, to use the phrase that came so trippingly from the tongue of the former Minister for Finance, now Minister for Health.

If we had done what the present Government has done, if we had taken the levies and put them into current account and not into capital account, if we had made them a permanent part of our tax structure and not, as we said they were and intended them to be, merely temporary expedients to meet a crisis of a grave character, we would have ended that year 1956-57 with a deficit of only £1,500,000. There was something over £4,000,000 from these import levies at that time. If we had utilised those for current revenue, we would have had a deficit of only £1,500,000 and we would have maintained the £9,000,000 for the food subsidies.

What has happened? The present Minister has taken the £9,000,000 from the food subsidies. As far as we know, nobody has got any advantage from that. They have taken them away and brought them into revenue. They have also brought into revenue the remaining proceeds of the import levies. Yet they have ended after all that with a deficit of £5.8 million. We would have kept the food subsidies if we had adopted their device and we would be down only £1,500,000. They have taken £9,000,000 from the food subsidies and they have taken the import levies; yet they have ended last year—their first financial year—with a deficit of £5.8 million. This Government, whose only known point of policy, economic or financial, was the principle of the balanced Budget, have ended this year when they have full control, when they are a strong Government with a clear majority, with a deficit of £5.8 million.

Everybody subscribes to the principle of the balanced Budget. I suppose I shall be told, as we have been frequently told before, that that is merely lip service, that we were on the rake's progress and that we had deficit budgeting all the time. At the risk of having that taunt flung at me, I repeat that it is not the beginning and end of all economic policy that our national accounts should be balanced or even that we should secure an equilibrium in our balance of international payments. The securing of a balanced Budget is a necessity. In normal circumstances the securing of an equilibrium in our balance of payments is an even more urgent necessity. But both are only a beginning.

A balanced Budget does not secure any employment, does not give any incentive to industry, does not give any hope to emigrants or any chance for increased employment. The principle of a balanced Budget and the principle of balance in our international trade are only things which mark the beginning of economic policy, something that should not be aimed at exclusively or even directly. But it should be something to be achieved as a by-product of a proper forward policy for economic progress and industrial and agricultural productivity.

Have your principle of a balanced Budget if you like, but do not stop at that. The Minister for Finance in this safe Budget—safe as the grave—has stopped at the recognition of that principle and has not made it at all a basis on which to build a proper economic and financial structure. We have no policy and no incentive in this Budget. Starting on that solid foundation I have mentioned, building up on a growing confidence, a growing realisation of what we have always said—that this country is sound economically and financially—and also starting on the basis that we have had for the first time a surplus in our balance of international payments, a forward, positive, dynamic economic policy ought to have been created and certainly the economic circumstances of the country urgently demand that it should have been put into effect by means of this Budget.

But we have not any indication of any such policy. All that has happened is a safe Budget in which all the heavy taxation, all the harshness and all the austerities are consolidated and continued and, in addition, further taxation put on by way of the switch of the import levies from capital account of a temporary character of permanent taxation. That is all that has happened in this Budget. There is no policy for incentives, and every aspect of our national life at the moment requires those incentives.

Why has the bank rate not been reduced? It was increased at the time of the bank rate increase by the British to meet their special circumstances. It was not increased to the same extent as the British bank rate; nevertheless it was increased but it has not been reduced to the point at which it was before the British increased their bank rate. In conditions where deposits have increased, where the sterling assets of the commercial banks have increased, where people have subscribed their money to the E.S.B. and the Government through the national loan, where the Prize Bond issues and the Exchequer borrowings sought by the Government have met with success, why is the bank rate not reduced? Is that not something that requires to be done in order to give some hope to the country and to business and industry?

We have nothing in this Budget to deal with agricultural policy or the problem of agricultural credit. We have nothing at all to give hope to the farmers that they will get out of their condition of perplexity or to give hope to their industry which, by the action of the Government, and particularly the action of the Minister for Agriculture in the last 12 months, has been reduced to the status of a depressed industry.

I should like, before I go into further suggestions about what ought to have been done, to deal with this question of the levies. I want to register, with all the force at my command and all the emphasis I can muster, my protest against this performance of switching the levies from the category of a temporary expedient to meet an economic crisis of a passing nature to one in which they will be permanent taxes and will become part of the tax structure of this State probably for all time. I want to emphasise that and make my protest as strongly as I can. I assert here, as I said when in office as Head of the Government, and as that Government said through their Minister for Finance, Deputy Sweetman, that these levies were temporary. We put them into a special account under the Central Fund Act, 1956, to be utilised only for capital purposes in order to emphasise that they were to be temporary.

When the then Minister for Finance told me that was the expedient, I approved of it. I felt it was important and vital that the public should realise that these levies, which were causing so much distress, unemployment, restriction of credit, restriction of grants and restriction of capacity to get capital, should be removed at the earliest possible time. I felt that strongly as a matter of principle. I still feel, and I assert, that it is a breach of faith with the people to take those levies, which were of a temporary character to meet an urgent temporary crisis afflicting the country, and make them part of the tax structure of the State permanently in order to enable the Minister to balance the Budget.

That is breaking faith with the people. It is certainly breaking my faith with the people. I do not think it proper for a Government that succeeds another Government to make it a party to breaking faith with the people in that way. I do not suppose it will affect me or my colleagues in our reputation or anything else. It was our intention to take these levies off as soon as we could. I watched them week after week and month after month, seeing if there was any possibility of taking them off because I knew the effect they were having on the people. I knew the effect they were having in creating unemployment and it was a source of suffering to all of us. I am not saying that dramatically or histrionically but merely as a fact.

My aim, the aim of all my colleagues, was to get these levies off as quickly as ever we could. We had difficulties in getting capital, of course, and it may be said that that was the reason we put them into that account. It was not. It was the fact that these levies were something different from taxation, and not revenue, that we put them into that special statutory account. I can realise what Deputies on the opposite side of the House would have said now if they were in these benches, in opposition, had we, as we might very well in our extreme difficulties at that time, taken these levies as revenue to tide us over the difficulties of that time. We would have been denounced throughout the length and breadth of the country with all the vituperative force at the command of people such as the Minister for Health and some of his back benchers, like Deputy Corry.

The Minister for Health does not like to be associated with Deputy Corry, seemingly.

I have been since 1918.

I see the viciousness of this switch arising from the breach of faith that it typifies with the people and I again put upon record my strongest condemnation of a proposal of that kind.

There are other aspects of it, also, that require to be considered. Will the people ever believe a Government again if they have occasion to take temporary measures of a restrictive character to meet an economic crisis and the people are told that it will be only temporary? They will go back to this precedent. They will refer to the undertakings given and acquiesced in by the present Government, then in opposition, that these levies were only temporary and that they would come off as soon as possible. Now they are cynically taken as if it were a matter of mere routine, as if it were appropriate for a Budget that does nothing, a safe Budget, to break faith with the people.

Broken faith with the people is not forgotten and they will not believe the present Government if—and I hope the Minister will not have to resort to it—he is obliged to resort to restrictive measures again, as he has indicated in his Budget speech of yesterday, to deal with a further imbalance of our international payments. He says that situation is going to be watched carefully and measures will have to be taken to deal with it. What measures are available to him now, once he has taken away this instrument which we forged to meet a temporary emergency and a temporary difficulty amounting to a crisis? That instrument is no longer available to the present Government. We could have kept them as revenue and used them as capital if we were short of capital but we put them in that account by statute, so that it could be apparent to everybody that it would not be legally possible for the Government to use them otherwise than for capital, in order to mark our determination that these levies were to be temporary and to show that we were in good faith with the people.

Last year, in the course of the speech I made on the Budget proposals of that year, I made certain suggestions. The Minister for Finance, in his broadcast of that year, had made the sort of platitudinous suggestion that those who opposed the proposals of the Budget at that time, the withdrawal of the food subsidies, with their harsh impact, should come forward with some constructive proposals. Having taken the precaution of prefacing any remarks that I made by the statement that I repudiated the suggestion that it was any part of my duty in opposition to tell the Minister how he should balance his Budget or how the Minister for Finance in any Government that I was head of would have balanced the Budget, I suggested that, if he were in difficulty, he might have utilised these levies to balance the Budget.

I want to refer the House to some observations the Minister for Finance then made in concluding the debate, when I had no opportunity of replying. He referred to the suggestions that I had made. He quoted the former Minister for Finance, now Deputy MacEntee, at column 2093, of Volume 161 of the Dáil Debates. Before he quoted the former Minister for Finance, he said:—

"It would be interesting to know how they would have saved that £5,500,000. The former Taoiseach—"

that is your humble servant—

"and some of his colleagues including Deputy McGilligan say they would have used the special import levies to meet current expenditure."

Then he quotes the relevant section of the Central Fund Act, 1956, and says:—

"They were created as capital and if we had done what Deputy Costello and Deputy McGilligan advocated we would have had to change that Act."

They are doing it now. He went on to say:—

"I am not saying that is impossible but it just gives the House an idea of the Fine Gael Party who this time last year passed an Act of Parliament to make them capital and they now come along and blame us for not turning them over to current expenditure."

He then quotes Deputy Sweetman from the Official Report of the 20th March, 1956. It is relevant for me here to re-quote that quotation. This is what Deputy Sweetman said:—

"I want to state clearly what Section 4 of the Bill means. Section 4 of this Bill provides that the Minister for Finance of the day cannot use the special import levies for the purpose of balancing ordinary current expenditure. He cannot do it under the law when this Bill is passed and enacted. I never intended to do it."

Then the Minister adds a comment:—

"But he would not mind our doing it."

Deputy Sweetman repudiated that he ever said such a thing. The Minister for Finance went on and said:—

"I mean the Deputy's colleagues. Deputies Costello and McGilligan would not mind our doing it if they thought they would put us in a hole."

Then he goes on to say:—

"Now his colleagues Deputies Costello and McGilligan want to put us into the depths of using them for current expenditure."

They are in the depths now by their own positive action to balance this Budget. That was the attitude of the Minister for Finance last year to doing as was suggested—not the way the Minister for Finance said I suggested, because I am going to quote that in a moment. But, by misinterpreting and misquoting what I said, he said we would endeavour to put them into the depths of using the levies as current expenditure. That is the way he regarded it last year—that he would be doing something wrong, something deplorable, something that I say was a breach of faith with the people. We would be putting him into the depths of doing that. That is not his attitude to-day. Last year, if he carried out our suggestion, as he said, and misquoted what I said, we would be putting him into the depths.

I did not suggest he would go into the depths doing that and I want to refer to what in fact I did say. At column 1138 of the Official Report—I had dealt with the suggestion that had been made by the Minister in his broadcast that we should put up some constructive proposals—I repudiated the notion that it was any part of my business to say how he should balance his Budget, but I did put forward a proposal, and this is it:—

"Let us assume for the moment that we are passing through a very difficult year and that any Minister for Finance would have found it difficult to balance his Budget and in doing so would be faced with a formidable task. We are facing a period not of emergency but a period of temporary necessity. We met the emergency last year and faced the difficulties and we went a considerable way towards solving them. Now we are in the transition period when we hope times will improve. We are in a transition period and let us take these levies and put them into the current account and use them for current purposes this year as a temporary measure."

That was the suggestion I made that, if the Minister found himself in a position of difficulty because of the transition period through which he and the Government were passing—the emergency was going, though we had not got back yet to normal conditions —instead of taking food subsidies away from the people, he should let the levies be used for current purposes as a temporary measure for that year, until times bettered themselves, should take the import levies of something over £4,000,000 and use them for temporary purposes as a temporary necessity for one year. The Minister for Finance tried to misrepresent what I said in my speech. He said I was trying to put him in a hole.

I never let up on the principle that they were to be used for temporary purposes. Even in that suggestion I made, I again took the utmost care— if the Minister said he was, as he did say he was, in a state of very great difficulty, because of the transition period—to say that until times got better he should use the levies for that one year alone. That is no justification for what has been done by the Government in this Budget. I reiterate and repeat my emphatic protest against this gross breach of faith with the people. Even though the present Government were not in office, even though they were not the Government at the time when that pledge was given to the people, it was given with their full approval. Not merely was it given with full approval, but they did not even criticise us, and the Minister, last year in his speech, indicated what the present Government would have said about us if we had endeavoured to use these levies for current purposes.

I am glad to note that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has become a convert to the necessity for foreign capital. In the speech he made at University College, Dublin, in 1956, he said the whole thing was illusory. In fact, he said it was a stunt, but I do say one of the first duties that impinged on this Government, that devolved upon them in this Budget, was to take steps to secure foreign capital for the development of the country. I think I have said it before, but I want to say it again, that in all sectors of our economy we require capital. We require capital for the agricultural industry, for the industrial sector and for the social sector. We require export, but we require something more than export. We have a great appreciation of the value of our export trade. It is of vital importance to the country, but we require something else. Unless we get wealth into the country, we will not be in a position to make progress and it will be utterly impossible ever to reduce taxation.

Every member of the Government knows that we have reached the point of no return in taxation. We have reached the point where the very fact that you are putting on taxes prevents you getting in sufficient revenue. Exports are vital to our economy. We gave evidence of that by the taxation incentives we gave and it is a great source of gratification to know that the export trade has increased. Those export incentives were a great success. They were devised by us and extended by the present Government with our full approval, but we require something more than a mere export trade. We require capital for home industry, for our industrialists here at home, for people who have built up worth-while industries. The Minister for Finance takes the view now that some of these must go to the wall, but, at all events, some of them are worth while. Business people who are suffering at the present moment from stagnation of business want some incentive to try to augment their affairs, increase their activities and secure increased employment. What have they got? They have got nothing.

During the years in which Fianna Fáil were in Government, and even during the years in which we were in office, every known device by way of taxation was tried to secure the principle of a balanced Budget, to which I have already adverted, but we have got into a vicious circle because those very devices of increased taxation to balance the Budget are themselves injurious. Can you get any more from petrol, tobacco, whiskey and beer, if you put more taxation on them? You cannot. We have reached the point of saturation. You put on the taxation, and next you increase the taxation, and it results in a vicious circle because the taxes put on to balance the Budget are preventing production. We must get out of that vicious circle in either of two ways.

You can get out of that vicious circle here by doing what the Minister for Industry and Commerce said in, perhaps, an incautious moment during the election—take a risk on capital. He meant, of course, take a risk on expenditure. We are against taking risks on expenditure. I have made it very clear that our view is against wasteful expenditure and we gave proof of that all the time we were in office. I do not think there is any hope along that line advocated by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, of taking a risk on capital, but there is some hope for the country if we take what should have been taken by the present Government, that is a calculated risk on decreasing taxation. That is where they have failed. It is along those lines that we will get increased economic development in the country.

If you take the calculated risk of decreasing taxation, you will get a greater increase in revenue from the very taxes that are saturated at the present moment. One of the principles which Deputy McGilligan had when he was Minister for Finance was to increase economic activity so that, by a lesser yield of tax, you would get a greater flow of revenue. That is the calculated risk that the circumstances of this country call upon and demand of the Government to take. Why? A safe Budget is of no use to the country in present circumstances.

This calculated risk was a very small risk compared with some of the risks this country has taken in not having an incentive Budget at the present time. I think it is worth taking any risk to stop the pessimism and disillusionment that is so widespread. It is worth taking a calculated risk that brings little prospect of any damage at all either to the revenue or to the Minister for Finance, and that certainly gives every prospect of benefit to the country. You will not get economic activity from this present condition of stagnation, unless some stimulant is given and that stimulant must be given on all levels and in all sectors—agriculture, industry, social matters such as housing, schools and other social activities of that kind.

I would recall to the attention of the House the well-known Biblical parable of the burying of the talents. Who was it who received the commendation of the Lord in that parable for his utilisation of the talents? Was it the man who played safe, like the present Minister for Finance? He was banished into exterior darkness as he had buried his talent but those who took the calculated risk were the people who got the commendation. I commend the parable of the talents to the present Minister for Finance and I ask him to take a calculated risk as Minister for Finance in the circumstances existing at this time.

It is not personal, I hope.

I will give him a few examples of how he can take that calculated risk. It is to be taken through the medium or the instrumentality of tax incentives. I will give him one example. I suppose some people will hold up their hands in holy horror at what I have to say. It is not to-day or yesterday that it has been one of my pet hopes, which I was never able to realise, and perhaps never will, to abolish death duties. Years ago, down the country, I said to a man from across the Border that if I had my way, I would abolish death duties. His answer was: "If you do that, we will be in with you in a very short space of time." However, leaving aside that aspect, look at what would happen here.

We are trying to get wealth into the country. We have very little wealth. We have many undeveloped resources but not sufficient capital to develop them. If we could get in a few rich entrepreneurs with their money, knowing that they would not have to pay death duties, we would get from them sufficient return in increased taxation yield and in increased flow of revenue to offset all the loss or to indemnify the Minister for Finance or the Revenue Commissioners against the loss that would accrue to them by reason of the abolition of death duties. You must get wealth into the country.

It is not to the derogation of the present industrialists or those who bore the burden of the day in building up industries here, both before and after the Treaty, and both before and after Fianna Fáil, and the policy of industrialisation of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to say that we want their capital; that we want not merely, as they phrase it, their "knowhow" but their methods of marketing, above all things. Get them in with their capital. You will get a greatly increased flow of revenue and then you will be able to decrease taxation, but not till then. Until you do that, we will, year after year, be precariously balancing our Budgets by devices of high taxation and other expedients of that character which lead to the vicious circle to which I have already referred.

If the Government are timorous about going the whole distance with my proposals, let them proceed by stages. Let them at least give a remission of all death duties to those people who invest their money in Irish industry and business. From that, you will get the necessary incentive. You will get the necessary increase in employment. You will get a consequential increase in purchasing power. You will get an increased flow of revenue from increased economic activity which will not only wipe out any loss to the revenue but increase the gain from taxation and certainly increase the wealth, happiness and prosperity of the country. You will get the hope of ending emigration.

Play safe and you will get nowhere. If my suggestion were carried out, I have no doubt that a number of wealthy people would bring their money in here and it would be available for the purposes I have mentioned. However, it would have another consequence. It would be a headline to some of our own people to invest their money at home and in Irish industries, instead of sending it abroad to Great Britain and elsewhere.

I was about to say that I am quite well aware that I am open to the suggestion: "Why did you not do that when you were in Government yourself?"

The Minister for Health knows.

Yes. You had to play Left as well as Right.

The Minister for Health should keep his vituperative tongue silent. We have had enough of it and the people are tired of him. If anybody chooses to look up the records, he will find that we increased the ceiling of death duties and gave remissions of death duties. All the time, we had the plan I have mentioned in our minds. I suppose that the rather sardonic expression on the face of the Minister for Health together with the curl on his lip, and the wave of his hand in the direction of Deputy Norton, is meant to suggest that, because of him, it was not done. We know we would be denounced by the man who is now the Minister for Health, and who was formerly the Minister for Finance and whose name will go down engraven in the hearts of the suffering poor of this country for the Budget of 1952 and its unnecessary austerities which are largely responsible for most of our present difficulties.

Why did you not repeal them?

Once an action is taken, once measures of that kind are brought about by the Minister for Finance, as he was then—Deputy MacEntee—they cannot be repealed. They have got into the structure of our economy.

You promised to do it.

We could not get them out of our economic structure. I give the lie to the Minister for Finance when he says that we promised to do it.

Deputy McGilligan did.

Look up the records of this House and see what I said again and again in 1954. It was that I was promising nothing. Apparently the Minister for Health is getting a bit restless. If he had sufficient courtesy, he would at least remain silent at the present time.

I want to proceed with some further comments I have to make. This is an important Budget. I make no apology for holding the House for so long. That is at least one constructive suggestion of a character which I think would bring considerable benefit. Courage was what was required here and not caution. A so-called "safe" Budget is not the way to deal with the problems we have to face.

I now come to the one proposal that was made in the Budget—the proposal dealing with whiskey. I had intended, too, before I heard the Minister's proposal, to deal with the question of the export of whiskey to America. I suppose every Government in this country must take its due share of blame for the high imposts that have been placed upon the distilling industry. It may be that the justification for that is not merely the question of revenue but the question of the prevention of unnecessarily high sales of that particularly potent liquid. At all events, the present Government, when in office before, during and after the war, did something which was the reverse of what the British did. Not merely did they increase taxation on whiskey—for which I and my colleagues, I suppose, and all the rest of us must take our due share of blame—but they prevented the export of Irish whiskey.

The British prevented so far as they could, by high taxation and other measures, the consumption of Scotch whiskey in England and concentrated on exports abroad with the result that a vast export trade of a character that is almost impossible to eat into was built up. We kept our whiskey at home. That is what the present Government did when they were in office after the war, the reverse of what should have been done. Now it is quite clear that one of the major ways in which we can increase exports and get into the American market is through whiskey exports.

Deputy Norton, when in office as Tánaiste and Minister for Industry and Commerce, made some progress in this respect. We all know the difficulties of catering for American tastes. Scottish distillers know how to do that. Some progress was made in that respect and more can be made. I take it that the proposal of the Minister for Finance in giving £25,000 to Córas Tráchtála, as he says to promote increased exports in the distillery business, indicates that he is mindful and appreciative of the necessity for these exports. However, this is not the way to do it. It is characteristic of the present Government that they have adopted this measure.

Instead of giving the £25,000 which they had available direct to the distilling industry, they increased Government expenditure by giving it to a State-sponsored body. Is that the way to help the whiskey distilling industry? Instead of giving that money to the whiskey distillers to use as they thought fit—and they would be the best persons to use it—on condition that it was utilised for the purpose of securing a radical increase in the export trade, it was given to a State-sponsored body to spend it partly in the way of administrative expenses, travelling expenses of the members of that body, who are quasi-civil servants, advertising expenses, and so on.

The distilling industry is a peculiarly advantageous industry in this country in that it draws its raw materials from native sources. If we could greatly increase the exports of whiskey to America and elsewhere it would be of great benefit to the country. But this is not the way to do it, to give this money to this statutory corporation to utilise in any way they think fit. It should have been given to the industry itself so that the efficient parts might utilise it to the best advantage. The only effect of the course taken will be that both efficient and inefficient will equally benefit if there be any benefit. It is certainly a bad principle to say, as can be inferred from the Minister's proposal, that a statutory body is better able to look after the exports of a native Irish industry than the industry itself.

The last item to which I wish to refer is the tourist industry. We have all heard talk about long-term policies. What is required, and urgently required, is something immediate, something that will bring results. We have an export trade and that is desirable. Its expansion is equally desirable. We want capital for all sectors of our economy. We want some incentives to the building up of our native industries by our own people. We want to induce people with wealth to come in and help to create wealth here and so reduce taxation and increase employment. These things will take time. The one quick way in which you can get results is through tourism.

I fully appreciate that the Government have made what they probably consider, if not adequate provision for the tourist trade, perhaps sufficient provision having regard to our difficulties at the present time. However, there are other ways in which it could be done. There are other incentives which could be given which would cost little if anything by way of taxation. One of the principal deterrents to hotel keepers, boarding house keepers or anyone catering for the tourist trade is that if they make any improvements in their premises or otherwise they are immediately subject to increased valuation or taxation. Some sort of incentive should be given so that if hotels make additions or provide other amenities, they will not have increased taxation imposed on them. In that way you will get increased activity in the tourist industry and you will be able to meet in a better manner the highly competitive tourist industries of other countries. Every country in Europe at the present time is spending considerable sums of money and making every effort to capture an increased and increasing tourist trade.

I regret I have kept the Dáil for so long but, as I said in extenuation, this is a very important Budget. The Fianna Fáil Government have failed in their duty. It could be that the Government under the leadership of the Taoiseach are carrying out the second part of the Machiavellian principle to which I adverted in my speech last year. The first part of that principle was based upon the sound doctrine that injuries ought to be done all at the one time. Is it because we are apparently so far off a general election that we have had this "do nothing" Budget, this safe Budget, which is so inappropriate to present circumstances and so inapplicable to existing conditions, or is it because of the Machiavellian principle that benefits ought to be given little by little so that the flavour of them may last longer? Are we just having a "do nothing" Budget for this year so that something may be given next year, a little more the year after and, the final year before the general election, a burst of benefits to the people, a shower of favours to compensate for the austerities of previous years?

Why did you not stay in and do that last year?

Whatever the meaning of this Budget is, I indict this Government for failing in their duty; I indict them for losing their opportunity and, therefore, failing in the task which confronted them. Something was required to be done urgently to give increased incentives and secure increased economic activity. That opportunity has been missed. All the Government have done in this Budget is to present a sort of badly mixed cocktail the ingredients of which are the left-overs of past Budgets. It is a sluggish mixture which will depress and fail in any way to stimulate. As I have been talking about whiskey perhaps we can call it a "whiskey sour".

It is the normal duty of an Opposition Leader to find fault with any Budget produced by the Government. Deputy Costello made a rather half-hearted effort this afternoon to fulfil that duty. I am sure that he is as conscious himself, as the Deputies sitting behind him are, of how half-hearted his effort was. Apart from some general references to the need for incentives to production, and the need for courage instead of caution, he made no attempt to put forward a point of view in serious conflict with that of the Government and during the greater part of his speech he was lost in a maze of generalities and detail.

Deputy Costello, however, at the beginning of his speech did turn to the economic indicators which are available to us and he found from examining them that they disclosed a consistent pattern of improvement in our general situation. I shall pay tribute to Deputy Costello for the fact that he did not try to minimise or obscure the picture which these economic indicators reveal. They represent a very considerable change from the picture facing us this time last year and that in itself is a fact worthy of comment. It is quite true, as he said, that there are disturbing features in the present picture also, that unemployment is still at an exceptionally high level; that emigration is continuing, some of it inspired often by causes not completely economic and which reveal the development of a certain lack of confidence in the country's future; that the inflationary pressure on prices, which we have experienced since the end of the war, was still active during last year and that our total economic effort is still inadequate to give our people the standard of living we wish them to have.

We have no wish to deny that the economic indicators reveal the existence of these disturbing factors as well as the encouraging improvements in the situation which took place during the past year. The results of last year's effort brought the economy into a state of balance but it was balanced at far too low a level of activity and the purpose of our efforts this year, and in the years ahead, must be to raise the level of activity while maintaining the balance. That is something which Deputy Costello might have acknowledged.

Those of us who want to understand what is happening in the country should not ignore this change in the situation between this year and last year, that last year the economy was going down and this year it is going up; last year it was going down rapidly, this year it is going up slowly and the aim of our policy and of the whole national effort will be to accelerate the rate of progress in the direction we are now going. Last year we had to apply measures to arrest the decline then in progress. It was, I think, no small effort, no small achievement on the part of the Government to have, within the course of one year, produced that reversal of the tendency so that we can now say that production is going up instead of going down, that production is increasing rather than decreasing, that the deficit in external payments is turning into a surplus, that exports are increasing and that the prospects of the country getting out of the dangerous economic crisis into which it was moving are now reasonably good.

I am sure that there were many Deputies in the Dáil last year who did not think that the improvement in our conditions could have been brought about so quickly. Deputy Costello says that the Government should abandon caution for the sake of courage; that in the circumstances of our conditions courage and not caution is what is required. What does the Deputy mean by courage in this context?

The £100,000,000 plan.

I will deal with that later on and I hope the Deputy will sit there to listen to me. When Deputy Costello talks about courage I presume he has in mind that virtue which political parties show when they take a course of action they believe is good for the country even though it is likely to weaken their popularity with the people and lessen their chances of reelection when the time comes. Is that what he means by courage? Last year this Government tried courage and brought in a Budget which they regarded as necessary in order to bring about the improvement in conditions which has now taken place. There were very few Deputies on the opposite side of the House who commended us for that courage. What does Deputy Costello mean by courage, is it doing the things we believe the interests of the country require should be done, irrespective of the consequences to our political fortunes? Whether Deputies opposite believe we did the right thing or the wrong thing last year they cannot deny that what we did required courage. This year we are being condemned for lack of courage.

I wish Deputy Costello would make up his mind as to whether he believes in a balanced Budget or not. He hopped from one foot to the other during his speech. The importance of a balanced Budget was stressed in one part; the desirability of taking a calculated risk by reducing taxation was urged in the next part. What risk has the Deputy in mind? What is this risk he is talking about? A risk of what? Is it a risk that the Budget would be unbalanced? A risk that we got back to the appalling financial condition out of which we are now climbing?

Deputy Costello talked about Deputy McGilligan's financial principles. May I express my view that all the financial difficulties of this State stem from the time that Deputy McGilligan was Minister for Finance? Half-way through his term of office, as Deputy Costello knows, Deputy McGilligan wanted to be translated to another place but when Deputy Costello refused to translate him he turned around and to spite his colleagues proceeded to breach the bulwarks which it was his duty as Minister for Finance to preserve.

The Tánaiste knows that that is a damn lie.

That is quite untrue.

It is a damn lie.

Deputy Sweetman will have to withdraw the word "lie."

If he does I shall repeat it.

Deputy Sweetman knows what I am saying is true.

If the Minister withdraws his statement I will withdraw.

The Deputy must withdraw the word "lie."

If the Minister withdraws, I shall withdraw.

I have no intention of withdrawing.

I will leave the House rather than withdraw the word.

Deputy Sweetman withdrew from the House.

I said that I would repeat it and I wish to repeat it too.

The Deputy will have to leave the House if he will not withdraw.

The only contribution that Deputy McGilligan ever made to the economic development of this State was when he refused in 1954 to be made Minister for Finance again.

What about the man beside you?

I asked Deputy O'Sullivan to leave the House in view of the fact that he would not withdraw the statement he made. Deputy O'Sullivan must leave the precincts of the House.

I understand when I am outside the barrier——

There must be no argument about the decision of the Chair. Deputy O'Sullivan must leave the Dáil.

Deputy O'Sullivan withdrew from the House.

I want to say that the statement made by the Tánaiste is a falsehood and he knows it is a falsehood.

The Deputy must withdraw that statement which is tantamount to calling the Minister a liar.

I shall not withdraw it.

Then the Deputy will withdraw from the House.

Deputy Dillon withdrew from the House.

We are told that the Budget should give incentives to production. Deputy Costello seems to be thinking in terms of gimmicks. This Budget gives incentives to production which are very real and solid, not mere eye-catching devices but real contributions to the expansion of that production which it is the whole aim of Government policy to create.

It is quite true as Deputy Costello said that the improvement in the national economic position which was achieved during 1957 is only the beginning of the process of national recovery. We are told Deputy Costello had difficulty in ascertaining the policy of the Government. I do not think there is any difficulty in understanding that policy or the applicability of the various measures which the Government has already adopted towards its fulfilment. The policy of the Government is to create here a climate favourable to the expansion of investment in productive activities. That, I will admit, is putting it in very general terms but I hope to show that aim has been pursued consistently and not without success during the past 12 months and perhaps to outline some additional steps that we will take in the early future towards its realisation.

As we see it, the economic recovery of the State requires more than anything else the raising of the total level of investment expenditure. In 1955 I made a speech during the course of which I attempted to calculate from the information then available to me what additional investment expenditure would be required to bring about in this country a condition of full employment. I estimated then that if we could raise the level of investment expenditure, whether on public or private account, by any amount which aggregated over five years would reach £100,000,000 we would be getting to the point of full employment.

Values have changed somewhat since then and the calculation made four years ago is to some extent invalidated now but I would not altogether change that estimate because it was prepared to err upon the side of conservatism rather than the reverse. I said then in prefacing the proposals which I put forward then for consideration and debate that these proposals were based on the view that the successful application of a sound development policy "required an adequate and carefully prepared investment programme and would depend on the country's capacity to execute such a programme, and that the investment programme must in the earlier stages be undertaken mainly by the Government.""I do not believe however," I continued, "that Irish progress and prosperity can be secured by Government action alone and an essential part of the proposals is therefore concerned with the promotion of a sufficient and expanding volume of investment on private account."

A year later, after the abrupt deterioration in economic conditions under the Coalition Government had become apparent, I again put forward on behalf of my Party, for discussion and consideration, proposals which related to these conditions and I prefaced these proposals by the following:—

"National effort," I said, "in the economic sphere has now to be concentrated on the task of preventing further deterioration of existing conditions and of devising measures which will restore with minimum delay a situation in which the plans published in 1955 will again become relevant."

A number of proposals were put forward then which have, in a large measure, inspired the policy of the Government since and indeed most of these proposals have already been implemented or are in the process of being implemented by legislation before the Oireachtas.

I should like to ask the Minister what he has been quoting from?

I was quoting from a report of a speech made by me to an organisation called "An Comhchomhairle Fianna Fáil" in October, 1956.

And which has been quoted from that side of the House very often.

The Minister was preaching to the converted.

And to the intelligent.

What was the Minister reading from?

A summary published in a newspaper. What does it matter? I shall send the Deputy a copy.

That is the Deputy's punishment.

What were these proposals made in that year? They were, as I have said, directly related to the serious deterioration in the national economy which had taken place in 1956 under the Coalition Government and were designed to bring about a rectification of that situation. I said that we must start out by avoiding unnecessary imports and expanding the production of all goods that we could produce but were then importing. The most obvious feature of the worsening of our economic conditions was the growth in our adverse balance of trade, the widening gap between the value of our imports and the value of our exports.

I said that our import statistics clearly revealed commodities that we did not have to import but we were nevertheless importing them in considerable quantities and that there were other commodities that we could organise ourselves to produce internally rather than import. I said we should aim, for example, to cut down by two-thirds imports of feed grain, of barley and maize. It has been done. In the year 1956 we imported maize to the value of £2,745,000: in the year 1957 imports of maize had been reduced to £408,000.

I said we should try to expand the output from our own factories or establish new factories to produce such things as textile yarns and fabrics, clothing, floor coverings, furniture, cardboard, fertilisers, newsprint and plywood. All that is being done. There are at the present time taking shape in many parts of Ireland either extensions of existing factories for the production of additional quantities of these goods or new factories being built for that purpose.

We are not near the end of the process of eliminating these items on the import list and placing them on the export list instead. I urged the view— it was the view which the Fianna Fáil Party had been advocating up and down the country—that, while we could to some extent help to remedy the situation by elimination of imports, the main aim must be to bring about an expansion of exports.

The desirability of overhauling our agricultural marketing arrangements was one of the matters to which I referred. As the House knows, a committee, representative of farming interests, is now sitting upon that task. The policy of the Government will be guided by the recommendations of that committee. As the Minister for Agriculture informed the House this week, the first of its reports is expected soon.

The importance of securing an intensification of the campaign for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis was also stressed. Every Deputy knows that in the light of the circumstances which are now developing in the market in which we sell our cattle, it is very important that that campaign should be pushed ahead, otherwise we could easily find the most important of our export trades in jeopardy. In this year's Budget the provision for the bovine tuberculosis eradication campaign has been much more than doubled. Whereas in the Estimates of last year, prepared by the Coalition Government, the amount provided was £704,000, this year it is £1,820,000—an increased provision for that purpose of £1,116,000.

Naturally, I, perhaps, because of my personal interest and training, spoke more fully upon the efforts that could be made to expand our industrial organisation and particularly to increase the exports of industrial products. I urged on that occasion that consideration should be given to the desirability of inducing a greater effort amongst manufacturers to export their products by giving tax concessions in respect of profits earned in the export trade. That is being done. Last year the tax concessions, already available to exporters, were extended considerably. This year they are being extended further still because the evidence is there to show that the idea is a good one and that the extension of the idea will help to get us the results we require.

I urged the establishment of a State commercial export marketing corporation. That step had been recommended by the Commission on Emigration and, on consideration of the recommendation, the committee of the Fianna Fáil Party decided to adopt the recommendation and said so at the time but, upon re-examining the proposals since I resumed office as Minister for Industry and Commerce, I decided not to proceed with it at the present. I found little enthusiasm for the idea among exporting manufacturers. Instead of that, we have reorganised the Government's export promoting organisation, Córas Tráchtála. We have given it more funds and additional activities and I hope this year, by producing to the Dáil proposals for legislation, to put that organisation on a more satisfactory statutory basis. It represents the adaptation to the circumstances as I now find them of the idea which was advocated in 1956 based on the recommendation of the Committee on Emigration.

I urged that the resources and the powers of the Industrial Credit Company should be increased. A Bill has just passed the Dáil for that purpose and it is now law. I urged that the import levies then in force should be revised so as to secure their effective abolition where they operated to inflate manufacturing costs. That was done within a few weeks of the Government assuming office. A number of those levies was removed where they appeared to have no purpose except to inflate manufacturing costs. In all cases, power was taken to permit of the import of materials and equipment free of levy where they were required for manufacturing purposes. In some instances, where these levies have now been transformed into permanent taxes, the power is retained to permit the remission of the tax where the goods are needed for the purposes of manufacturing.

I urged that the Control of Manufactures Acts should be modified so as to facilitate and encourage the utilisation of foreign capital in manufacturing enterprises which added to our industrial organisation or gave us prospects in the export trade that we might not otherwise achieve. A Bill for that purpose is at present before the Dáil. It can be said, therefore, that with two exceptions to which I will refer later, the proposals which were put forward in 1956 for the purpose of remedying the deteriorating economic situation which was then worrying the country have in the main been fulfilled or are in process of being fulfilled.

I was very much concerned with the need for associating the trade unions with any programme of economic recovery. I said I could not see how a policy of economic recovery could be effectively fulfilled in the time available to us without the active co-operation of the trade unions of the country. I do not know that it is yet practicable to put forward the proposal for the establishment of industrial councils which I then advocated. There are Deputies in this House who know that I had before the Dáil proposals for legislation to establish industrial councils ten years ago and that these proposals met with a very mixed reception. I have as yet some doubts as to whether the time is ripe to revive them in any form.

Deputies will have seen in the newspapers that the representatives of trade unions are meeting, to-day I believe, to discuss our unemployment problem and put forward views regarding that problem. May I say that in my view there is not much to be gained now by talking in general terms? The organisation of increased employment must be done, if it is to be done effectively, on an industry basis. It means, as I see it, that both parties in industry, workers and managements, through their representatives, should get down together to examine what can de done to increase output and create opportunities for expansion. It means subordinating to that aim of expanding output and increasing employment every other consideration for the time being.

That is a view which I urged strongly upon the leaders of the trade union movement during the conferences which I had with them last year preliminary to the negotiation of the national wage agreement. They, therefore, know my views and many of them, as individuals, have expressed their concurrence with them. If the trade union movement, through the Provisional United Trade Union Organisation or either of the separate congresses, are willing to try to deal with this problem of expanding employment in productive industry in this country along these lines, then I should like very much to have the opportunity of translating that willingness into consideration of the ways and means of doing so. I do not know whether, in fact, that is likely to be possible.

During the course of a statement which I made last year upon the pending transport legislation, I indicated a view regarding the need for a general reorganisation of our transport system in order to make its future secure and particularly to remove the uncertainty of employment from all those who would in future be engaged in rail operation. I put forward the offer of what I called a "package deal"—that, if the trade unions concerned and the management of C.I.E. were able to get together and work out an agreed arrangement for the reorganisation of the methods of working of the transport system which would help towards the elimination of losses on railway working, I would propose to the Government that it should undertake the financial obligation of providing compensation for any workers who might, in consequence of that reorganisation, become redundant.

Discussions have taken place between the management of C.I.E. and trade union representatives in that regard, but without result. I do not believe that is due to the absence of a desire to produce results. It is due partly to the rather disorganised condition prevailing amongst unions who cater for railway workers—there is a multitude of these unions and they are not, I think, willing to surrender any part of their independence to a small negotiating committee such as would be required—and partly, perhaps, to the traditional reluctance of trade unions to take responsibility for positive recommendations which could in possible circumstances result in the disemployment of their members. That is, perhaps, the most immediate test of the practicability of devising any consultation, between industrial managements and trade union representatives, on ways and means of expanding employment and of getting our economy put right again and of improving conditions by methods which the Government could support.

Although I put forward these proposals for industrial councils and for a regular mechanism of consultation upon these problems, in the speech which I made in 1956, these proposals have not been implemented; but they still are, in my view, a constructive approach to our problems, problems which still exist, which are still worth exploring.

I spoke, on one of these occasions to which I referred, about the important part which the banking system plays and must always play in our economic development. Deputy Costello asked why the bank rate has not been reduced. Does he expect that there should be an answer to that question from the Government? When he addresses that question to the Government, has he fully considered the implication of doing so? The banks have issued an explanation of their decision to effect the recent reduction in their lending rates. Whether that explanation is a good explanation or a bad explanation is a matter for individual judgment. Nobody believes, not even the directors of the banks, that their public relations arrangements are perfect. There has been for a long time a rather foolish idea amongst banking directors that banking is an operation about which the less said the better and that any time they inform the public of their policies it only leads to misunderstanding about them.

I believe fully myself, and I have often said this, that we cannot hope to expand industry at the rate we want to expand it or particularly get increased export trade, without the very positive and active support of the banking system. I do not think that can be secured by legislation. Any attempt to secure it by coercive action by the Government could defeat itself. It is something which must be produced by the understanding developing, among those who have the powers of decision in these matters, of the need for all the effective help they can give.

Did it not take Government action in Britain?

I do not intend to enter into any discussion now of the difference between our circumstances and those of Britain. We have got to plan our policy in relation to our circumstances and there are very few Deputies in this House who do not understand the dangers which would be associated with any Government action in that field.

I must say I have been perturbed to find that some bank managers dealing with firms engaged in export trade developments are inclined to look upon export trade as exceptionally risky and therefore less entitled to support than developments behind a protective tariff solely for the purpose of supplying the home market. That mentality is understandable on the part of a bank manager, but it is not helpful to the country's development. If it persists, we may have to consider what arrangements we can make here to supplement those already in force by which we guarantee and insure firms against the risks involved in export trade developments. We have, as you know, instituted an arrangement by which the Government have provided insurance facilities against what are known as "political risks," such as Government action preventing the delivery of goods, or payment for goods, or any other risks that have their origin in political developments. That arrangement is linked in with an arrangement operated by the insurance companies under which firms can insure themselves against commercial risks. It could be that these arrangements are not effective enough in our circumstances, having regard to our lack of experience in export trade and the hesitancy of some of our industrial firms to enter into it; but if that is so they can be strengthened and extended.

Far more important than Government arrangements of that kind would be the active support of the commercial banks of this country for sound, enterprising, well-managed firms, who have the opportunity of expanding their export trade but who require to be supported in so doing by extended banking accommodation.

I have recounted measures taken by the Government already for the express purpose of achieving the aim I have mentioned, that of creating a climate favourable to the expansion of private investment in production activities. To what extent are we succeeding in getting this expansion in private investment outlay? We cartainly have not succeeded to the extent which would enable me to say that the investment programme I outlined in 1955 is as yet likely to be realised, but it is, nevertheless, true to say that there has been a quite considerable extension in private investment in industrial opportunities. The prospects are that there will be a still further extension of investment of that kind in the course of the coming year.

Investment, whether it comes from outside the country or inside, depends more than anything else upon the growth of confidence—confidence with a capital "C"—confidence, amongst other things, in the soundness of the financial management of the Government's affairs, confidence in the country's currency, confidence in its ability to meet its international commitments. In regard to economic recovery this growth of investment in agriculture and industry that will lead to more employment and less emigration depends more than anything else upon having not merely a balanced Budget but a Budget that the people will feel is genuinely balanced without any tricks or devices, without relying on appearance which deceives.

Deputy Sweetman described the Budget as unimaginative. I will say this for Deputy Sweetman; when he was preparing his estimate of expenditure in 1957—the Book of Estimates that we had to accept when we took office in March of that year—he gave his imagination full range. He imagined economies that were unrealisable and reductions in expenditure that only a very foolish person would have thought possible. Can any Deputy conceive a Government sitting down in March of last year to decide that the C.I.E. organisation would be so completely reorganised by August of last year that it would no longer be in need of subsidy and that consequently the Government of the day could avoid the obligation of making provision for that subsidy in the Estimates? That is the kind of imagination Deputy Sweetman brought to bear on the preparation of the Estimates for last year. By comparison with that, I will accept his definition of this Budget.

It is clear that if we are going to build up that confidence which will give us the expansion in investment that we require we must be determined to keep the national Budget continuously balanced, determined to keep our international payments in balance also and determined to avoid any course of action which might conceivably put an undue strain upon the national currency. Now investment also depends upon the level of savings and, as the House knows, there has been an improvement recorded in that regard in the past year. Savings depend to a large extent, in my view, upon the prospect of price stability. The one factor more than any other which has tended to discourage savings during the years since the war has been the continuous deterioration in the value of money, and the fear that money saved would buy less when it was called upon by those who had saved it than it would have bought at the time it was put aside. There is nothing more likely to encourage an expansion of savings than the restoration of price stability, the emergence of a situation in which upward movements in prices need no longer be feared or, as I described it yesterday, a period of more honest money.

I believe that we are now facing the prospect of the emergence of such a period of price stability. I believe that the inflationary forces which have bedevilled the world since the end of the war are now dying out and we can hope that the trend of international events will be such as to create for us the prospect of stability of prices here, provided our internal policy is effective to the same end. I said that, so far as I can see, nothing has been operating in recent months to cause prices to rise here except the need in some cases to adjust prices because of wage increases granted under the national agreement.

Even that adjustment of prices has in some measure been offset by the fall in the import prices of some commodities due to the decline in the basic price of those commodities or the sharp drop in ocean freights recorded in recent months. When all prices have been adjusted, where necessary, to offset the effect of higher wages, and the only outstanding case I know of is public transport where C.I.E. has not yet altered its fares so as to pass on to the public the £850,000 increase in its wages bill which the alteration of wage rates has caused for it, when that has been done we will have a situation which will tend to promote or give us a fair prospect of price stability for a while. That being so, assuming that international conditions are turning favourable to price stability and assuming that all the other internal factors which could affect prices are also likely to be favourable to the maintenance of price stability in the future, then it is important that the Government should not disrupt that prospect by imposing any additional taxation if it can be avoided.

It is essential that we should, if necessary, trim our expenditure to fit the tax revenue as we estimate it rather than that we should try to expand tax revenue by new impositions in order to cover additional expenditures we might want to undertake. That is another consideration which led the Government to the decision that in this year in this Budget they should, if at all possible, tend to try to avoid any course of action which might tend to delay the emergence of that situation of price stability, which will be of immense benefit to this country in the promotion of its future economic progress.

I do not know what Deputy Costello means by incentives to production. In the case of agriculture the Estimate this year provides for £2,500,000 more than the Estimate for last year provided for incentives to agricultural production. That is a substantial contribution and I would like the House to remember that that considerable increase in the provision for the agricultural industry was effected within the confines of this "no change" Budget just as increased provision was made for capital grants to industry, increased provision for tourist trade development, as well as provision to meet the normal annual expansion in interest on borrowings—for the Central Fund Services.

Certain new proposals have also been made in this Budget but, before turning to these new proposals, I think it is necessary that the House should remember that last year the Minister for Finance announced a number of tax incentives to industrial expansion, the effect of which on the Exchequer will only be felt this year. The announcements which the Minister made last year regarding the remission of tax upon export profits and other alterations in the system of taxing industry were of a character which meant that they cost the Exchequer nothing last year but they will cost the Exchequer £600,000 in this financial year. That is another factor to be taken into account when considering the magnitude of the Government's achievement in bringing in this year an unchanged Budget notwithstanding these increased incentives, direct and indirect, to the expansion of production in agriculture and industry.

Deputies will have seen an announcement of the intention to promote legislation here to establish Shannon airport as a tax-free as well as a customs-free airport. The situation at Shannon has naturally been the cause of a great deal of concern. The airport there, which employs 1,600 or 1,700 people, and which is the largest single centre of employment in the West of Ireland, has been very largely dependent heretofore upon the revenue secured from transit traffic, charges paid on aeroplanes which fly into Shannon and from Shannon fly on again to some ultimate destination. The prospect is that with the development of jet aircraft on transatlantic routes these transit revenues will tend to diminish. We think now is the time to start preparing for other developments there which will help us to ensure that the revenues of the airport will be maintained and that employment in the airport area will also be maintained.

For various reasons the potentialities of the customs-free airport have never been properly exploited. Legislation for that purpose was enacted in 1947. The Government that came into office in 1948 had a sort of general prejudice against air development, one way or the other, and nothing was done during their period in office. There were other factors also operating which meant that the drive to secure the development we had in mind in 1947 was not forthcoming. It is forthcoming now.

We have established an airport development authority. We have given it resources with which to exploit and advertise the potentialities of the airport. We have given it a fairly free hand in its methods of operation. Now we will give it this further additional incentive that, not merely can traders in the airport enter and leave it without customs examination in respect of their products, but that even in respect of merchandising operations, no Irish tax will be payable. That legislation has to be produced. I cannot say when it will be ready. It will be a complicated piece of legislation. Safeguards against abuses will have to be devised and persons resident in Ireland and working in the airport area will not be exempted from their personal incometax by that arrangement.

Deputy Costello referred to tourist trade development. That links in with the question of the development of Shannon and the extension of our air services and other facilities and arrangements for getting tourists into this country. There has been a very welcome growth of understanding amongst the Parties in the House of the economic importance of the tourist industry, the tremendous contribution it is making even now to the national resources and to the employment of our people and of the much greater contribution which it can make in the future.

The bottleneck has been the inadequacy of our hotel accommodation, the insufficiency in the number of hotel bedrooms in the country. Arrangements have now been made through Bord Fáilte, details of which will be announced in the near future, by which additional financial facilities will be made available to hotels in holiday resorts in respect of new bedrooms adding to their accommodation, either hotels or motels. That, together with the loan scheme and other facilities already available, should, we hope, bring about this expansion in the scale of hotel accommodation for tourists and, incidentally, in the doing of it give quite extensive and widespread employment to workers in the building trade.

All these activities which the Government are sponsoring are directed towards the development of processes which have a high employment content. Indeed, in the preparation of the Estimates of expenditure for this year, the Government were striving all the time to shift expenditure to the most productive activities; and they have been able to do so to a considerable extent while keeping the overall level of Government expenditure within the limit which made it possible to come here with a Budget which did not necessitate any increase in taxation.

There is, of course, no guarantee— there can be no guarantee—that we will get, even as a result of all these measures and proposals, the rate of expansion which we desire to see and need to get. Possibly this year and next year will be the crucial period in the whole campaign of economic recovery. If we get the rate of recovery accelerated during that period, then we can hope that the acceleration will continue of its own momentum. It is, of course, desirable not merely that these incentives and inducements to expansion should be widely known to be available, but that all Deputies should emphasise their significance and importance and the magnitude of the purpose they are designed to serve.

We know there have been reports of recessions in the United States, to some extent in Britain and Germany, and in other highly developed countries. We have naturally been worried whether these downturns in trade and activity could possibly have adverse repercussions on us. They have had some adverse effects already. We know that the slump in the price of lead and zinc caused the suspension of production in the two mines of that character we had operating in this country. We have seen the need for some lay-offs of workers in the steel industry in Cork, consequent on the fall in steel prices and other factors. In one or two other cases, we have seen some adverse consequences. But by and large it can be said we have not suffered seriously as a result of these adverse international conditions.

Our experience in 1952 suggests that our economy is always likely to be less affected by international developments of that kind than other countries who are more dependent for their prosperity than we are upon the level of their industrial exports. No doubt that is a situation which will change if we succeed in our efforts to expand industrial exports. Just now, we do not have reason to be apprehensive of the possible effect of these international conditions. Up to date, at any rate, no firm that was planning to expand its activities or establish a new factory has withdrawn its proposals by reason of that situation. Indeed, when one examines it objectively, one could even consider that these changes in international conditions could help rather than hinder our plans to promote a higher level of industrial activity.

In times of recession, the consideration of costs carries much greater weight with the industrial planner than in times of boom. There are advantages in low taxation and a favourable labour situation. It should be remembered that, by comparison with most other countries in Europe, our tax rates are low. They may be higher in their total burden in relation to our national income, but in their application to an individual concern situated here, as contrasted with a similar concern somewhere else, the tax on that concern is lower here than in most countries in Europe, even leaving out of account the tax aids and inducements which the Minister for Finance has announced. Over and above these advantages, arising perhaps from our still under-developed situation, we have all this apparatus of Government aids available to those who want to engage in industry, including the possibility of capital grants tailored to the requirements of individual firms.

Expanding trade and expanding employment mean, of course, the prospect of an expanding yield from existing taxes, as well as holding out prospects that at some future time it may be possible to lower tax rates without adding to the level of expenditure. Certainly the aim of the Government will be to try to avoid any situation which might require a further raising of tax rates. We believe that would be seriously detrimental to the prospects of recovery which we are trying to promote.

There is one other aspect of this situation to which I wish to refer. As Deputies know, the Budget is presented to the Dáil in two parts: the Current Budget and the Capital Budget. There is this essential difference between the two. In the case of the ordinary Current Budget, the Minister for Finance makes proposals for the raising of taxes to meet the estimated expenditure of the year. These proposals are embodied in the Finance Act and, as soon as they are fixed, cannot be altered, except by the very exceptional device of introducing a second Budget and a second Finance Bill. Therefore, the Government, in relation to the Current Budget, is in the position that at this time every year it has to decide how much it will spend on the various services of Government and make the arrangements which will ensure it will have revenue to cover that level of expenditure.

These considerations do not apply at all in connection with the Capital Budget. The Minister for Finance has put before the House certain proposals for capital expenditure likely to mature during the year, as he now sees them, but there is no similar rigidity in regard to the Capital Budget as there is in regard to the ordinary Budget and if, during the course of the year, any additional opportunity of productive investment should present itself to the Government there is no reason why it should not be availed of at once and there is no legislative impediment to doing so. It is, in fact, the intention of the Government and of the Minister for Finance, as he said in his Budget statement, that no prospect of development of that kind should be retarded by difficulty in finding the necessary capital.

A change has taken place in recent years in relation to the financing of certain types of industrial expansion which are undertaken by State or semi-State companies or large commercial undertakings who have associations or affiliations with the State. In the past, it was the normal device of the Minister for Finance to seek to find through the Exchequer the capital required by these concerns, but nowadays the utilisation of the Government guarantee device has enabled the actual money required for the development of the operations of these concerns to be found from sources other than the Exchequer.

The outstanding examples in the past year were the provision of £1,250,000 for the completion of the development of the Avoca mines and of the initial £500,000 for the Dundalk Engineering Works. In each case, by the process of scheduling these undertakings to the State Guarantees Act, they were enabled to find the money they needed from sources other than the Exchequer, and there are at the present time a number of similar or somewhat similar projects under consideration where substantial finance will be required and where it is contemplated that it will be procured in that way. Indeed, the aim of the legislation which extended the resources and altered the powers of the Industrial Credit Company was to facilitate that operation, although the Industrial Credit Company is not the only source of finance for these projects.

Deputy Costello asked about the report of the Capital Investment Committee. One report from that committee has already been published and Deputies are aware of it. They also are aware that the Government did not accept some of the recommendations in that report. Their wisdom or otherwise in not accepting these recommendations is a matter which can be debated, if Deputies want to debate it. There were, however, some proposals there which we did not think could usefully be adopted now or perhaps at all. There is another report coming along which, as Deputy Costello surmised, deals with housing and that report will be available to Deputies, when printed, and it will also contain recommendations which must not be regarded as anything more than that.

The fact that this committee make recommendations to the Government does not mean that the Government must automatically accept the recommendations. Indeed, as the publication of the first report showed, it can mean quite the reverse.

In regard to housing, we are naturally very much concerned at the disruption of the employment market by reason of the curtailment of private housing activity. That is partly due, in fact largely due, to the saturation of the market for the purchase type house in many parts of the country and also to the completion of the local authority housing programme in many counties, although not in the cities as yet. For years past, we always had to visualise the day when the immediate housing needs of the country would have been met and the labour force which had been utilised in providing these needs would be available and would have to be utilised for some other purpose.

The primary difficulty in effecting a smooth change-over from housing operations to other activities is the planning of other activities, the making available on a sufficient scale at the right times and in the right places of the activities upon which that labour could be employed and that is often a matter of difficulty because, amongst other reasons, of trade union regulations. For that reason, we would wish to see, if possible, employment in housing tapering off more slowly, even though there is this saturation in the market in some instances and complete satisfaction of needs in some districts. The concern of the Government will be to make such arrangements as will smooth the transition from activity in meeting the immediate housing needs of the community to operations which will meet other needs, some of them perhaps just as urgent and just as important from a social point of view.

The result of the theoretical examination of the possibilities in that regard which the Capital Investment Committee have undertaken may not commend itself to practical work-a-day politicians such as we are. We have to consider not merely what is theoretically desirable in the long term but what is immediately practicable, having regard to the social consequences and, while the recommendations of the committee and the report, when available, will be carefully considered, it should be clear that the Government are bound only by their own decisions and will make known their decisions in due course.

Nobody blamed the Coalition Government, as Deputy Costello assumed, for having taken action in 1956 to try to check the worsening balance of payments situation of that year but, if there is to be blame, it is to rest on the shoulders of those who created the situation in which those dangers and difficulties could have emerged, and I think Deputy Costello cannot excuse himself from responsibility in that connection. However, there is nothing to be gained now by apportioning blame for past events. We are concerned with what will happen in the future and we have already, in one year, succeeded in creating the conditions, as Deputy Costello himself conceded, in which progress in the future becomes possible, but only provided that our plans are sound and provided the national effort is adequate. All I can say on behalf of the Government is that their efforts will be adequate and, in so far as people are prepared to come along with it, will be only too glad to work for the realisation of those aims which we all wish to see realised.

There is no doubt, the Minister is one hard man. He hunted four members of the front bench of the Opposition and even three of his own ministerial colleagues. That was not bad going in one attempt.

The Chief is leaving the House now.

I think I can claim that. Probably, they will all go now. I should like to draw attention to the brazenness of the Minister in speaking of his £100,000,000 plan. Comparison could be made between his approach to this subject and the famous Yankee in the Court of King Arthur who faded back into the past and created wonders, but came back to realise that it was all a dream. Does the Tánaiste realise that despite the wonder of the document he concentrated on here this evening, despite all the wonderful things supposed to have happened during the past 12 months under the guidance of the present Government, the figures of unemployment this year show an increase of 9,000 over those for 1956? Whether Deputies speak in favour of this Budget or not, we must be sincere about it. I hope the Tánaiste, when he next speaks about his £100,000,000 plan, will remember that a member of his own Party, the Minister for Lands, said it was a blueprint and not a plan at all. If we compare the policy of the Government with this plan we must realise that a huge joke was perpetrated by the Tánaiste.

I note that when the Tánaiste spoke he made no reference to any of the advantages that might have accrued, or been passed on, to his Government when they took office. There are a few items well worth mentioning, and which have been mentioned already by Deputy Costello and Deputy Norton. Included among them are the special import levies which have proved to be a nice little nest egg for the present Government. There have also been the Prize Bonds, while the Hospitals Fund has been increased through growing sales of sweepstakes tickets. Every little increase in the sales of sweepstakes tickets naturally brings in more money to the Government, and the Minister for Finance is gaining all the time.

Some few months ago a national loan was floated in circumstances good enough to secure its success, and the Minister for Finance, in his Budget speech, could also make reference to the improvement brought about in relation to Exchequer Bills. He also had to admit that, due to the aftermath of the Suez Canal crisis, there was an increase in receipts to the Road Fund, and the Government were able to reap the benefit of that inflow of money. On the other side of the picture, the Government have saved money through the abolition of schemes under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, and that, too, was a tidy nest egg in savings for them last year. The fact that the E.S.B. were able to float a successful loan last year was a help to the Minister and placed him in a happier position when the Budget came around. Another big help to the Minister for Finance when he was balancing his books was the removal of the food subsidies last year. It has also been admitted that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs paid its way during the year and that has been to some small degree a help to the Minister.

Another great help to the Minister was the amount of money realised by cattle exports last year. Those cattle did not appear on the scene just after the last election. While, prior to the last election, the members of the inter-Party Government had been accused of squandering the country's resources I, among others, was able to point out that, though the cash might not have been there, the value of it was there. Due to favourable prices on the export market for such a huge quantity of cattle the present Government were able to gain the reward, the foundations of which were laid in the few years before they came into office. Thus, when we come to examine Government policy in all its essentials, instead of having had to face great problems left to them by the last Government, they were, in fact, left in a very favourable position in many respects through the income provided by these items.

I realise it is essential to segregate particular items relating to each Department's Vote, but there is one point on which I wish to touch briefly. We must consider the attitude of the present Government now in relation to agricultural prices, as against what their attitude was 15 or 16 months ago. Are they right about the price of various cereals now? Are they right about the price of milk now? If they are right about these things now, will they admit they were wrong about them 15 months ago? If they were right 15 months ago, will they admit that they have gone completely against the policy which they advocated at that time? The Government should have carried out a policy in accordance with their election propaganda and election promises. If they have not done that, we must take it that they were determined to fool the people, in any way they could, in order to achieve political power.

I was amused to hear the Tánaiste speak on the question of housing. Deputy MacCarthy is a member of the Government Party. He represents South Cork and he knows as well as I do that it is all humbug to suggest that the housing problem is being solved. The circulars which local authorities get from the Department are holding us up in our efforts to provide houses. It is wrong to say that housing needs in all the various areas have been completely met. The circulars sent to local authorities from various Departments, particularly from the Department of Local Government and from the Department of Health, have stifled local initiative as far as local authority work is concerned. They have brought about a complete hold-up of various schemes operated by local authorities during the past 12 months, and have affected the unemployment position in various parts of the country. We know that, yet we are told by the Tánaiste that everything is going to work out in accordance with his £100,000,000 plan.

As Deputy Blowick mentioned yesterday, there are many of us who want to know the policy of this Government, even in relation to afforestation. We want to know if there will be an expansion or a contraction in forestry work. We believe there will be a contraction. All these matters lead to the one problem. It is just the same as all the little streams flowing into the river. They are all flowing to meet at a given point. The trouble is that a lot of our problems are creating more unemployment.

In his speech yesterday, the Minister said that, while unemployment was at a high figure, it was several thousands lower than it was last year. Such a statement is hardly to be expected from a responsible Minister, as 4,600 could hardly be classified as "several thousands".

He is not a responsible Minister.

The Minister indicated that his only hope was that the coming year would be as good as the last one. If the coming year does not prove to be better than the last one, then it will be a tragedy for our people. If there is not an improvement in our unemployment figures and in our emigration figures, then the Minister, the Tánaiste and the other members of the Government must admit their abject failure to implement a policy which they claimed they would implement to remedy the evils our country suffers from.

"As good as last year." I wonder if the coming year will prove as good as last year in relation to the cost of living? The Tánaiste stated he believes we have reached a stage when we may expect a stabilisation in prices—particularly import prices—and that the cost of living may be held from rising further. Is the Minister for Finance satisfied that the cost of living is fair to the old age pensioner? The inter-Party Government had their shortcomings and we never claimed otherwise, but we do claim that whenever the opportunity arose, we did not forget the widow, the orphan or the old age pensioner. Some Government speakers may claim that Fianna Fáil introduced some of these relief measures. I would remind them that they had to depend for support on the Labour Party when they introduced those measures.

In 1932, the late Deputy T.J. Murphy was the first man who showed any interest in this House in the cases of the widows and orphans. That man was accused by the present Minister for Health at a later stage of being the Red Minister from Moscow. I know to whom I am speaking and I know of whom I am speaking.

"Cost of living". Does the present Minister remember the gibes of his colleagues—the present Minister for Health, the Tánaiste and, indeed, the Taoiseach—in the years 1954, 1955, 1956 and up to 1957? Does the Minister remember the worries they had then over the cost of living? Does the Minister remember when Deputy Corry, speaking from Opposition Benches on the introduction of the special import levy, referred in a tragic way to the fact that an import levy had been imposed even on razor blades? While Fianna Fáil were in opposition, they were shocked at the cost of living.

On the occasion of the last general election, circulars were sent out in South Cork by members of the Fianna Fáil Party. I will say in their favour that these people believed they were telling the truth. I would ask these people now to read their circulars and to compare what they believed at election time in 1954 and in 1957, when they stated they believed certain things and hoped that certain proposals would be put into operation, with the present situation under a Fianna Fáil Government, and then they will realise what is happening.

The Minister and, indeed, every one of his colleagues told us that increased production is required. That is an old cry now. Production in itself is a headache, because it is not guaranteed by any long-term policy. One must go with the other. If the Minister tells us to produce more, can he at the same time guarantee that we will receive a higher standard of living? The Minister glided over the money spent last year in subsidies. He did not say anything about the subsidy which is paid on butter exported to Britain. Would it not be far more in keeping with our circumstances if, instead of subsidising the British householder to purchase Irish butter at 1/11 per lb., we were able to make our butter available to our own people at a lower price than that which they must pay for it now? The Minister mentioned nothing about that problem. While it affects only one item of food, it could at the same time affect every item, so far as the position of the old age pensioner is concerned. The Minister said that most deserving cases would have to be passed over. Surely the old age pensioner, the widow and the orphan are most deserving cases. Why must they be passed over at a time when the British householder is being enabled, by subsidy, to purchase Irish butter at 1/11 per lb.?

I come now to the subject of income-tax. While I consider that the Government have done nothing in this regard, it must be said that the inter-Party Government did nothing, either. A commission is sitting and the matter may be sub judice. It is going a bit too far when, in County Cork, road workers earning £5 a week, some of whom are not even on a full year's pay, are now receiving income-tax forms and have to pay up income-tax. I do not think it was ever intended that a rural worker working on the roads or a man working on the land would be expected to pay income-tax at a time when certain professional classes are making thousands of pounds which they do not ever return for income-tax purposes. The payment is made to them in cash. There are no cheques. The cash is put into the pocket and there is very little done in the way of accounts. The Minister probably knows these sections of the community as well as the rest of us. I am not blaming the present Government alone for this position. It is high time the problem of the income-tax code were tackled in a proper manner.

The inter-Party Government to some extent raised the earning level of workers generally, but they did not raise it to the level at which the workers could afford to pay income-tax out of their earnings. It is unfair to the ordinary worker, manual or clerical, to have to pay income-tax on a wage now which, if its purchasing value were compared with the purchasing value of his wages in 1939, means he is worse off now than he was in 1939. Nevertheless he has now to pay income-tax. The sooner that position is rectified, the better. Many workers, after a couple of years, receive an income-tax bill which means that they are required to pay £30, £40 or £50. They have not a penny to meet the bill and the only thing they can do is to take the boat and clear off to England.

In relation to emigration, of which the Minister made so little on this Budget, year after year we heard Fianna Fáil Deputies, then in opposition, drawing attention to the problems of unemployment and emigration. I made it clear then, as I do now, that it is no credit to any Party that we have such huge unemployment and such huge emigration. The present Minister was prone to take the same line and we have been told that for the past few years emigration has been at peak level. Let us examine the position, taking the number of exits and entries by sea and air. The ex-Taoiseach gave the figures a while ago. They show definitely a deficit of 50,000 last year. That is conservative, and the figure may be 60,000. It means that over 50,000 emigrated. It can be proved by the same statistics that that was the highest year since 1952, which was the year of the vicious Budget. Last year the figure was higher even than that of 1956. Figures for emigration by sea, which is more natural than by air, show that after 1952, 1957 was the worst year. In 1956, it was 44,268 and last year it was 46,712. Now where is the question of emigration and the election programmes?

I am sorry that in 1956 44,268 emigrated by sea. Many of them had to sail out of Cork harbour, known to all of us. That was in the time of the inter-Party Government. It was no pleasure to us, but it is forgotten now that last year showed a higher figure. It is time we examined these problems in a sensible manner, instead of the cheap stuff we have been hearing for a long time here. Even when in Government, we were prepared, as the records will show, to admit our own mistakes. The Labour Party were never satisfied, nor could we be satisfied, with saying that everything is going well.

We have listened this evening for an hour and a half to the Tánaiste telling us that in spite of the high emigration figure, everything is going grand, his £100,000,000 plan is in operation, there is nothing to worry about and industrialists may sleep happily. He mentioned the Avoca mines, but did not tell us that he and the present Minister for Finance and their colleagues, when in opposition, kicked up a rumpus and said we were selling out the country to the Canadians and should not have invited them in. That was at the time when so many unemployed were emigrating to England and elsewhere. It is about time those opposite understood that they cannot have it both ways.

There is one item which showed its effects, before the coming into power of the present Government—an item I did not agree with—namely, the credit squeeze. The present Government may ask why the Labour Party did not oppose it. We know quite well now, as we did then, that we could never look to Fianna Fáil to oppose it, as they would not oppose the banks. The Minister for Industry and Commerce makes rattling good speeches outside the House as to what the bankers should do, but when he comes in here with the Taoiseach on his right and the Minister for Finance on his left, with the Minister for Lands further to his left, he forgets about the problems we are facing under the banking system we have here.

The credit squeeze of 1956-57 was a misfortune and brought tremendous hardships on the people, through underemployment and through unemployment, and then through emigration. That is still in operation. The Minister for Industry and Commerce admitted an hour ago that it is still in operation, when he deplored the fact that certain bank managers were not favourable towards helping industrialists in regard to financial coverage for export. We can still see that we have a credit squeeze. The question arises again, which has been asked for so many years here and outside the House: who is in control, is it the Government or the financial interests?

The Minister drew attention to the importance of holding to the present level the wage and salary structure. As long as the workers have the protection of the unions, they will be anxious to see that no increase in the cost of living will be imposed on them. They will be anxious to protect themselves. It is only right and proper that tribute be paid to the leaders of the various trade unions who in the last 12 months handled a difficult situation in that way, when they could have made it very difficult for the present Government if they wished to do so. There was less agitation amongst the rank and file among the ordinary trade unionists, in the last 12 months, a lot less than there was between 1954 and 1957. I leave it to Deputies to wonder why. I know why myself.

We had the Minister drawing attention to the problem of the wage structure, but we remember the statement that a ministerial colleague of his made a couple of years ago, when in opposition, that all our ills at that time were based on the question of the high wage structure. That is on the records of the House, that the high wage structure was one of the ills. He went further and coupled with it a suggestion that the Government of the time were out to rob the banks. He encouraged investors to withdraw their savings from the banks. That can never be forgotten by anyone anxious to see things going well.

The Minister for Health to-day gloated over certain proposals which in themselves in no way conform with any true democratic or economic advancement. They were happy to do that; they were happy yesterday when there was no one there to clap the Budget. They were lucky to get away with it to-day; they are happy now, when they have got a few members of the Opposition away from the Chamber.

There is another matter which I think needs particular attention. Mention has been made here of the reports of the famous Central Bank, which the Minister has mentioned in the Budget. I will quote from an article in the Cork Examiner for April 21st, 1958, and draw attention to some of the summing up of the policy of the Central Bank, from which so much is expected. They have been very wise in telling us the “basic elements” and what I am complaining about is that the Minister is such a loyal follower of the policy which has been revealed to us in this document. The article states:—

"The basic elements seem to be as follows—firstly, though there are signs that savings are beginning to recover, the recovery is not enough to enable us to undertake all the capital expenditure desired, though not necessarily desirable in the economic sense."

We can discuss that later on. The article continues:—

"Unless savings continue to rise a cut in total outlays will become unavoidable."

More about that. The third point is:—

"The economy is very vulnerable to the pressure for higher monetary incomes which carry the ever-present danger of a relapse of those external payments deficits and the loss of external markets."

The gloom created by reading the Report of the Central Bank is like the gloom one feels in a morgue. Year after year, each Government—and I am speaking now of Governments which have come both from my right and from my left—seem to consider that God Himself could not give advice as good as the advice given in the annual reports of the wizards in the Central Bank.

Let us leave that document and go on to a statement made by the Minister on October 30th last year. I do not intend to quote the article in full. The Minister was speaking at Dundalk and had mentioned that a new National Loan was to be issued. The Minister said:—

"The purpose of the loan is to continue the work of national development."

Having studied and perused his speech and all the documents relevant to the Budget and the Government figures for the coming year, we know now what the Minister means by national development.

The article continues:—

"It will provide, the Minister added, an attractive opportunity both for firms and private individuals."

That meant, of course, that such liberal terms were being given by the Government that the profits which would accrue to firms and individuals would be such that they should jump to invest in it. A few days later he saw that the Australian Government were able to float a loan of 4¾ per cent. but, of course, we had to go higher. Those remarks, I might add, again apply both to those on my left and on my right.

I think the gem, however, was published on Tuesday in the Irish Press. I am not picking out this paper particularly—the same item was probably in other newspapers—but I happened to see it in this one. On Tuesday, April 22nd last, there was a big heading on the very front of the paper which read—“British Bank Rate Cut Soon,” and there was a question mark after it. The anxiety was over whether there was to be a reduction soon in the British bank rate. The article stated:—

"Money rates in the rest of the world are going down and Britain is out of step."

Will the Minister tell us are we out of step? I think we are not marching in step with Britain, never mind the rest of the world.

We are lower than Britain.

The article goes on to say:—

"There is a big movement of what is technically called ‘hot money' to London."

When we got this "hot money," by way of Canadian enterprise, the Opposition strenuously objected to it.

The article also states:—

"Internally the 6 per cent. rate is having bad effects. It is slowing down the rate of capital investment in industry on which Britain's economic future largely depends. So all the signs suggest a reduction, if not on Thursday next week, very soon."

That newspaper's worry—and that was this week—was the internal condition in Britain, but there was not one word about our Twenty-Six Counties and there has not been a word about them except for what we heard from the Tánaiste to-day. I do not know if the Minister for Finance was present when he spoke, but the Tánaiste made it quite clear that we are very lucky to be getting what we are getting, whether it is investments by the banks or whether it is accommodation, at such a high rate of interest. But we are still fretting our lives away about Britain.

Let us go further. To show that I am not interested in quoting one organ or another, I will refer to the Sunday national newspapers. It amuses me every Sunday to open the Sunday Press and Sunday Independent and to see that each of them provides its readers with an excellent service which tells them how to interest themselves in investing their money in Britain and in every other part of the world—even in the black heart of Africa—except in Ireland. They have special correspondents giving the advantages of one investing corporation or organisation over another. To-day we hear the Tánaiste stressing the importance—as the Minister for Finance has also done —of home investment; yet our own national newspapers on Sundays and on every day of the week——

The Minister is not responsible for what appears in the newspapers.

No, Sir. I merely want to draw attention to the fact that the Government cannot have it both ways. If they are giving advice to the workers for increasing production, they may in their own way be able to pass on information to the investors in relation to what they should invest in.

The Minister is not responsible for their actions.

The plain truth is, whether we like it or not, that we are encouraging investment in foreign countries by Irish nationals and the Minister is aware of that, and the Government are paying contributions, by way of advertisements, to newspapers which are giving this encouragement.

Finally, let me say this much. The Labour Party—which is a constituent Party and was part of the last Government—made certain proposals on what I still consider to be of national importance, that is, the financial aspect, the Capital Budget. It is not a question of cutting expenditure or of patching the side of the boat in the hope that the patch will keep us afloat for a year, but it is a long-term effort. I am anxious to know where is all this getting us, hoping for the best out of the Prize Bonds, switching the money, as the Minister has done, from the special import levies from capital to current account? Is it not time for us to realise, whether we speak of industry or agriculture, that we shall not succeed in our aims unless we are prepared to have a long-term programme and that this must be kept in mind when referring to reports of the Central Bank and these other reports I have mentioned?

There are too many critics outside this House who point the finger of scorn at every Government and say: "The Government is wrong; they are robbing the country; they do not care about the country." We hear miserable charges about the benefits that the relatives and friends of the Government are getting, but while all that is going on we must realise that unless we are prepared to introduce some programme based on long-term credit, which is not being provided at present to any great extent, we cannot succeed.

We all believe in true democracy and it is about time we gave up throwing slogans at one another. We in the Labour Party believe in our own programme and one of the strong points in that is the securing of a new system of financial control. The necessity for that has been shown in the Minister's White Paper this year which shows that the service of the national debt involves the payment of a colossal amount of money by way of bank interest. As long as that dead weight rests on the country we shall be faced with difficult problems. Even though a dead weight of national or local debt plus interest charges creates this situation, it may be to the benefit of the people concerned in the rural areas or in the cities because it means the country is better off by having so many new houses. We are better off, if we spend money and even have to pay interest on it because, whether it is spent in industry or in agriculture, such expenditure provides assets for the country. We are accused outside of not doing that but we must remember that the important factor in relation to all debt is the present value of money as against what it was in 1939.

I say to the Minister that he should not heed the criticisms of people outside who try to draw attention to the cost of Government to-day as compared with pre-war days. Then £1 was worth at least three times what it is worth to-day. We in the Labour Party are prepared to pull our weight in solving our problems and we are prepared to help the Government. That is the difference between us and people outside who object to the provision of money for important measures. But we cannot agree—we never could agree—with the policy of the present Government in regard to finding money and financing schemes under the present system.

The Minister was worried about the high wages structure. I would ask him to compare the wage and salary rates of workers and the value of money before the war and at the present time. We know there is a vast difference, but when we compare the rates of interest charged now on money of lower value with the interest rates of pre-war days, we find that while the workers during the intervening years had to struggle to hold their position and while the country was faced with the problem of decreasing money values, the one section that lost nothing, and in fact gained during that period, was the section which during the past 12 months, according to their own balance sheets, increased their deposits, their investments and their overall returns. That is the problem with which we are faced. I believe if we continue with the present system we cannot succeed because we are paying too dearly for money.

I would suggest to the Minister that between now and the introduction of the next Budget he should have a heart-to-heart talk with his colleagues in the Government; that they should realise there is a Central Bank and that if it has shortcomings in relation to the powers given to it, these shortcomings can be remedied if the Government so desire, and if they wish to embark on a policy which can be of immense benefit to the people of the country. They will have the full support of the Labour Party in taking any steps necessary to achieve that purpose.

As in every other aspect of human life, it appears there may be two angles from which to approach the Budget. In this House there are Government members who seemingly are expected to, and do, support the Budget, and Opposition members who oppose everything and see nothing good in it. Outside the House are those who hope to get reliefs, who sometimes do and rejoice in them, and also those who condemn these reliefs because they have to pay for them.

Since I came to the House little more than 12 months ago, I am asked to believe that Fianna Fáil were entrusted with the Government 15 months ago and that the people changed the Government they had principally because they found they had been deceived by slogans issued by the Fianna Fáil publicity team. The two slogans that seem to have had most effect were: "Let us get cracking" and "Wives, send your husbands back to work".

That may be very flattering to the people in charge of Fianna Fáil publicity but I think it is little more than an insult to the intelligence of the people of the country who, I believe, are as publicity-conscious as any other people. I feel they are not deceived by slogans or promises to any great extent. By and large, one finds they judge by results. There are times when they could be forgiven for thinking that the Party in power had been in long enough and that they might do better by changing. They made the change and hoped for better times. Again, I think they judged on results. I think that is the essence of democracy and it is right that it should be so.

We hear a lot about Fianna Fáil austerity Budgets which seem to have become a tradition of the Party. We hear from the Fianna Fáil Benches that austerity Budgets were necessary following in the wake of a Government that did not manage the affairs of the country properly. Therefore, austerity Budgets were necessary. Now we have a Budget which cannot be termed an austerity Budget by any means; yet it will be attacked as vigorously and as eagerly as any Budget in the past. That seems to be the pattern of our institution here.

We are all trying to solve the problems facing the country. We all deplore emigration and unemployment. I think that the members of all Parties are sincere in regard to those problems. They differ only in the means they advocate to solve them. Emigration is nothing new in this country. To hear some people talking one would imagine that emigration was caused by some attitude of Fianna Fáil or the Coalition Governments. People deplore emigration, while, in the next breath, they talk about the flower of our youth and manhood leaving the country. I certainly could not agree with that contention. I am perfectly convinced that as good young men stay in the country as leave it. I am also convinced, of course, that all who leave do not do so because of economic necessity.

This country is no longer an isolated island outpost of Europe. As a result of modern conditions, travel, wireless, newspapers, transport and everything else, this country has become part of a very small world. Education has given the growing boy and girl an insight and a knowledge of conditions elsewhere. It seems reasonable to expect that people living in certain parts of the West coast who cannot hammer out an existence should be ambitious and seek to enjoy the standard of living they can command elsewhere.

It is quite a problem, and I do not think any useful purpose can be served by any Party blaming another Party for that condition of affairs. It is up to each and every one of us to do the best we can for the country so that people will be inclined to stay and realise that material things are not everything but that a secure life here with a more modest way of living materially might be a happier existence. The Minister is criticised about transferring the import levies to help to balance the Budget. If he did not do that and had to seek the money elsewhere, it cannot be doubted that we would have just as severe criticism from the section of the community who would have to bear the extra taxation.

Deputy Desmond referred to criticism of this institution by people outside the Chamber who should know better. Sometimes it is inferred that the State has done little during the 35 years of its existence. Sometimes it is well to remind the members of this House that, when the State came into being about 35 years ago, it had to face a legacy in the shape of bad housing conditions, sanitary conditions, hospitalisation and so forth—all major problems. We had a slum problem comparable with the worst in Europe and millions of pounds of the people's money were utilised in an endeavour to solve the problem. At the present time, the solution of those problems is in sight, or at least of some of them. As much money will not be required in the future as was spent on those problems in the past and the millions of pounds utilised to solve those problems can now be diverted to spheres which need encouragement and relief in industry and agriculture.

Therefore, the people outside welcome this Budget perhaps because it is colourless. I think there is too much striving after sensationalism. The Minister could rather spectacularly relieve some section of the community by imposing taxation on another section, but he would have achieved the same result from a monetary point of view. I think he is wise in giving the people a breather. I think Deputy Costello and the others who spoke since the Budget was introduced were right in saying that the people's feeling was one of relief. It is relief because people feel the Government realise that taxation has reached its limit, that the people must live and that we must not let the cost of living soar any higher. Therefore, the Budget will have a stabilising effect on the country and can do nothing but good.

It should be realised that it is our duty on all sides of the House to strike a note of confidence in the future. Things have improved in the past 12 months. I will not claim that Fianna Fáil deserve all the credit for that improvement. All I am saying is that conditions have improved and I hope they may still further improve in the next 12 months. If that happens, we shall be able to go from improvement to improvement as the years go by. That will go a long way towards restoring confidence in the country, especially among our youth. To restore such confidence will be the best contribution we can make to solving the problem of emigration and eventually unemployment.

I want to make an impartial appeal to the members of my own Party and to all the other members to do something more than be satisfied to criticise what has been done. We all learn by mistakes and we will never build a future by dwelling on those mistakes. As the Tánaiste has said, it is the present and the future we are concerned with and not with blaming each other for the mistakes made in the past.

A great deal has been said about the reaction to the Budget. I suppose the reaction to any Budget is that people tend to consider it from the point of view of what effect it has on them as individuals. In that way, a Budget that imposes burdens is regarded as a Budget which causes hardship to all or some sections, and a Budget which grants relief is welcome. On the other hand, a Budget such as was introduced this year is received probably with mixed feelings, with satisfaction by those who feared there might be further imposts and with regret by those who expected relief. I believe, however, that it is not right to consider a Budget in isolation and certainly this Budget cannot be considered in isolation but must be taken in conjunction with the Budget introduced last year. The Budget introduced last year was framed on the basis that conditions, according to Fianna Fáil at the time, were bad and that the hardship which the people were obliged to bear was attributable to the record of the previous Government. We must not merely consider this matter on that basis but must throw our minds back a little further to conditions which prevailed and try to get the problems we are discussing into their proper perspective.

Up to 1955, the economy had been running reasonably satisfactorily. Exports were increasing; output was increasing probably slowly, too slowly for those who wished to see progress made more quickly; and at the same time the number in employment showed an increase. In 1955, a change occurred. That change was caused by heavy imports which were made possible by reason of the fact that substantial new money had been injected into the economy. Without going into the reasons for that, without criticising whether the causes were just or otherwise, or going into the circumstances which resulted in wages and salaries being increased not merely to meet the increase in prices and in the cost of living but over and above it, the statistical computation which has been made indicates that an increase in purchasing power of approximately £25,000,000 was injected into the economic system of the country. As I say, imports rose very rapidly and exports failed to meet that rapid expansion in imports. The result was that in that year the adverse trade balance assumed dimensions, at the end of 1955 and in the early part of 1956, that prompted the then Government to take action to remedy the situation.

Whether the particular remedy that we applied was the one which everyone would have applied or not— because not merely was there a difference of opinion in this country on the steps taken, but other remedies had been applied elsewhere—when these indices of economic difficulties manifested themselves, we decided at that time, as the best means of dealing with the situation, that levies should be imposed on a number of commodities. In other countries, in Australia, for example, fiscal controls were adopted. I think it is generally accepted that there are only two methods of dealing with the problem from this country's point of view: either the method adopted of imposing levies or, alternatively, the monetary one, or heavy rates of taxation. It is generally accepted that fiscal controls would be almost impossible to implement because of our close trading proximity to Britain and the Six Counties.

Whether that method was generally accepted or not, it was accepted that some action would have to be taken to remedy the situation. We recognised at the time that the remedy applied would cause not merely difficulty, but probably, in some cases, hardship. It was expressly stated then that these measures were taken with the twofold objective of, first, correcting the balance of payments problem which had arisen, the adverse trade balance, and, secondly, putting the money thereby raised into a special fund to be used exclusively to supplement the inadequate resources from which we had to draw capital in order to finance the capital development programme.

That policy proved effective during the second half of 1956 and up to and after the change of Government in 1957. It so happened that, because of the unpopularity associated with it and the fact that we had to face in a short time a general election, naturally the people—it is an understandable reaction—reacted against the measures that had been taken. They were told by a number of people that these measures were not necessary and that if a change of Government occurred, conditions would improve. I think we are entitled to say that, looking at the steps that were taken and examining them by any test which can be applied by anyone, what was done achieved what it was set out to do, and that despite some minor modifications that were made after the change of Government last year, whatever improvement has occurred in the balance of trade is attributable directly to the restrictions imposed by means of the levies on the commodities which were being imported and to the expansion in exports as a result of the policy which was implemented by the inter-Party Government of encouraging and expanding agricultural and industrial production.

It is true that because of the difficulties caused by the imposition of these levies in 1956, there was a drop in production. We anticipated that and said so, but it is equally true that at the same time there was a substantial rise which continued right through last year in the exportable surplus of agricultural products. It is notable that for the first time for a number of years we had an exportable surplus of bacon and butter, two commodities traditionally associated with agricultural production and agricultural trade from this country. At the same time, we had increased numbers of cattle for sale and, in addition, we had the advantage of the increased prices paid during last year. I need not here repeat the figures I quoted during the debate on the Vote on Account. They will be found at column 324 of Volume 166 of the Official Report. These figures indicate the very remarkable expansion which occurred in agricultural production and, more important, the availability of supplies of exportable commodities.

An election took place and the present Government assumed office in March of last year. They made some changes, as I said, in the levies. They implemented part of a recommendation made by the Capital Investment Advisory Committee, but only part of it. The second part has not alone not been implemented, but, in this year's Budget, there has been no comment as to what fate has attended that recommendation. Food subsidies were abolished and people were obliged to bear increased costs in respect of a number of essential foodstuffs. Some compensatory benefits were given to the most needy sections, such as old age pensioners, widows and orphans and others. The total saving by the abolition of the food subsidies was of the order of £9,000,000 which was offset by a sum of £2,500,000 in respect of the compensatory benefits given to certain specified categories of social welfare recipients.

One of the declared objectives of the present Government was that they would put the finances of the country in order and balance the Budget. Despite a net saving on food subsidies of £6,500,000, there was a deficit in the Supply Services on those items labelled as "capital" of £5.8 million last year. Because of an improvement in trade generally, there has been a slight reduction in the numbers unemployed. But, according to the figures, there were fewer people employed in manufacturing industry in 1957 than in 1956. The numbers were some 2,500 less in 1957 as compared with 1956. The slight reduction, therefore, in the numbers unemployed is in the main attributable—this is the only assumption that can be properly made —to continuing, if not increasing, numbers emigrating.

We had a policy which, given time to implement, would have proved sound, and that despite the temporary dislocation which occurred and which not merely affected State finances but caused inconvenience to a number of persons in 1955 and 1956. In the main, the policy we implemented was a sound one; the steps we took to expand the national economy were the right steps; what has happened since has not merely vindicated the approach we made but has proved that that approach was the right one, because the various changes that have occurred have occurred because of the action taken by the inter-Party Government rather than because of any action taken during the past 12 months. The Government have so mismanaged the finances of the country that in the recent quarterly report of the Central Bank Bulletin under the heading “Public Finance” comment is made and regret is expressed that, despite the saving due to the abolition of the food subsidies, there was a deficit of £5.8 million. The article goes on to say that the “Minister for Finance referred last year in the course of his Budget statement to the Government's belief that ‘taxation on incomes and profits is too high’.” Having quoted that from the Minister's speech, the article states: “There is little hope in the figures above quoted or in those so far available for the current financial year that the Minister will be able to afford any worthwhile reliefs in his coming Budget and yet the need for reliefs was never so great as at present with an economic recession under way in varying degrees in different countries.”

Earlier this evening, the Minister for Industry and Commerce referred to the fact that a sum of £2,500,000 extra was being provided this year for assistance to agriculture and he claimed that that was an achievement for which they might take credit. It is significant that, although he claimed credit for the increased provision, until the Government in 1954 started the eradication of bovine tuberculosis scheme, no provision whatever was made for that work. This scheme is like any other scheme which starts in a particular year. Each successive year makes greater demands on it. The Minister for Industry and Commerce omitted to mention that, while increased provision is being made, it is also anticipated that there will be an increased return from the sale of animals. Therefore, the actual increase provided is not as great as it might appear to be from a first glance at the Book of Estimates.

During the course of his speech, the Minister for Industry and Commerce also referred, somewhat skilfully, to the speech he made in Clery's Restaurant in 1955 which was reported in a special supplement in the Irish Press on October 15th of that year. Having referred to a number of matters on that occasion, he contrived to create the impression that a number of decisions which had been implemented followed on the policy enshrined in that speech. He referred to the number of commodities being manufactured here, such as textiles, cardboard and so on. He referred to the reduction in maize imports and said these could be replaced by home grown cereals. He then contrived, wittingly or unwittingly, to give the impression that the production of all these commodities had been initiated and brought to fruition within the past 12 months and that even the replacement of imported maize by home grown barely was attributable to the decisions taken by the Government since they assumed office.

I thought the Tánaiste showed some skill in dragging that speech into this discussion and in endeavouring to create the impression that it represented Fianna Fáil policy, particularly when a colleague of his said it was only a blueprint for discussion; and, secondly, he showed not merely skill but a great degree of brazenness in attempting to suggest that these commodities are being manufactured as a result of some steps taken in the past 12 months.

Whatever commodities he referred to as being manufactured here, their manufacture has been going on over a number of years. I believe we are entitled to say that the expansion in the acreage of home grown feeding barley was due entirely to the floor price provided by the previous Government. It resulted in a substantial expansion which found a market in the increase in the number of pigs which were kept and in the worth while trade in bacon which was secured last year.

This is hardly the place for differences within the Fianna Fáil Party to be settled, but what the Tánaiste did not say in the course of his speech was what happened to the proposal which was included under the heading of "100,000 new jobs after five years." He admitted this evening that changes in prices, wages, and money values might cause some alteration in that plan, if it were to be implemented now. We all admit that allowances must be made for these changes. But in the course of that speech, he said:

"It will be noted that in the first year of the proposed programme it is contemplated that public investment outlay will be expanded by £13,000,000, raising national expenditure by £20,000,000 and creating 20,000 new jobs. No contribution from the private sector is reckoned in this year."

I do not propose to delay the House by reading the whole of that speech or even following the embarrassing calculations which were then made and which prompted the following statement at a trade union meeting which was held to-day at the O'Lehane Hall, Cavendish Row, Dublin:

"Mr. Walter Beirne said it should go forward from the conference the disappointment the trade unions felt at the failure of the Government to implement the promises it gave before the election and their disappointment at the Budget, which did not put forward any solution of the unemployment problem."

I am satisfied that a great many people were misled by much of the propaganda which was expressed against the steps we took in 1956 and in the early part of 1957. We recognised that, while these measures were necessary, in the long run, they would make the economy sound and provide the basis on which further expansion would be possible.

There is no evidence that any action that has been taken during the past 12 or 14 months has expanded the economy. The expansion of exports was due entirely to circumstances over which the Government had no control and which had occurred prior to their advent to office, or were due to price fluctuations outside the control of any Government. There is no evidence that any measures they have taken during that period have resulted in an expansion or an increase in employment. Some trifling variations and alterations in the levies which were imposed may have affected a small number of workers, but the fact is that statistics prove that the overall pattern of our economy was set by the decisions of policy implemented by the previous Government. Whatever improvement has occurred—and remember whether it is good or bad, we at the time were criticised that it was not sufficient or adequate and that it caused too many difficulties—the present Government have merely increased the burden and put additional imposts on the various sections of the community without achieving their objective of balancing the Budget.

Last year, the abolition of the food subsidies meant a substantial increase in the cost of essential foods, such as bread and butter, and an increase in the price of drink and tobacco—items not normally regarded as essential, but nevertheless used widely by many people and considered by some as almost essential. At the same time as that added burden was put on the people, we find that the Government themselves, although enabled to achieve the saving of £6.5 million, had a deficit on the current Budget of £5.8 million. That is hardly the way to set our finances in order, and that was the declared objective of the Government before they were elected.

During the past year, a number of wage earners in the country have been able to benefit by the national wage formula which allows a maximum of 10/- per week to those who negotiate agreements under it. A wide range of employees have secured increases under that arrangement. That arrangement has worked satisfactorily for those who have benefited by it—people in private employment, more recently certain categories of State employees and in general a large section of people throughout the community. It has to some extent compensated for the rise in the cost of living which occurred as a result of the decision taken by this Government last year.

At the time that decision was taken a compensatory allowance was granted to social welfare recipients, but I want to refer this evening to a section of the community who have received no relief and whose position, already bad, has been considerably worsened as a result of the policy of the Government and who expected and anticipated that some relief might be forthcoming this year. I refer to the category of pensioners not included in the allowances granted last year and in the small increase granted to old age pensioners. They are pensioners who live on fixed incomes, who draw their income either from a pension previously fixed or from investments made at a time when money values were different from what they are to-day.

In the recent Budget introduced by the British Chancellor, increased allowances were granted to that category of pensioners. Formerly, the relief there was given in respect of a husband and wife, either of whom is over the age of 65 years. At the beginning of the financial year, the income limit was raised from £700 to £800 per annum. The last time that relief was granted here was in 1950. The income limit was then £500 a year. At the same time, the British income limit was £600 a year, but, allowing for change in values here and there and the fact that they are not exactly comparable, it is obvious that an increase is merited now. Subsequently, in Britain, the limit was increased to £700 a year and this year it has been raised to £800.

This is a matter which, probably, could be more appropriately dealt with during the discussion on the Finance Bill, but I believe that Deputies on all sides recognise that the most hard-pressed section in any community, certainly in this community, are retired people who have to live on fixed incomes based on pensions, fixed when money values were very different or, alternatively, on investments made when the yield seemed reasonable at the price levels then prevailing. The Minister should certainly consider sympathetically the position of that particularly hard-pressed section of the community.

During the course of this debate and quite recently in other debates we have considered the necessity of attracting foreign investment for the purpose of providing new industries or expanding existing industries. During this discussion, reference has been made to the need for courage, for a progressive expanding policy rather than a continuation of the stagnation which is likely to result from the proposals introduced last year and continued by this Budget. In this matter, courage is essential. We ought to approach it quite freely, in the knowledge that while there may be risks involved, we should be prepared to take those risks. If abuses arise or some action has to be taken in future, at least, we will have made the effort to attract foreign investment and foreign capital.

All Parties in the House subscribe to the need for increased industrialisation. All Parties have expressed themselves in favour of attracting, from wherever it may be secured, capital to develop industry here to supplement whatever provision is being made directly by the State, by private investors or by State concerns who seek to secure finances through public loans in order to develop their undertakings.

Recently we discussed here an amendment of the Control of Manufactures Act. I believe, and I have said before, that the Act should be repealed in its entirety, that any measure, whether legislative, financial or administrative, which restricts the inflow of capital, which prevents industrialists from investing here, who would do so if these restrictions were out of the way, should be abolished.

During the term of office of the previous Government, we succeeded in getting two worthwhile investments from outside sources—the combined effort of the oil companies to establish the oil refinery at Whitegate and the investment in St. Patrick's Copper-mines in Avoca. These are two worthwhile projects. No matter what Government does it, it should be the national policy to attract capital from outside. If a Government succeed in that, give them the credit for it. We should not, by any action here, prevent people who are prepared to come in from investing in this country. No matter how this problem is looked at, no matter how we approach the need for further industrial development, the need for further employment, is it not obvious that, if any outside undertaking is prepared to find the capital or prepared to provide the capital from their own resources, has the technical skill and "know-how", is prepared to start a new industry or expand an existing undertaking that will provide employment, no legislative restriction, no financial burdens, in the sense of tax, and no administrative restrictions should be allowed to interfere?

If employment is provided, the country at once benefits from a number of angles. The people who are employed become consumers in this country, taxpayers in this country. They consume commodities provided by employees in other undertakings. They, in turn, will generate development by manufacturing a commodity that is not already manufactured here. They will pay tax to the Irish Government on their salaries or wages and not to a Government in Britain or wherever else they may emigrate.

It is, therefore, reasonable to ask what incentive is there in this Budget for greater production, what inducements have been offered for investment here? It is true that there is a small extension of the relief which was initially introduced by the previous Government to encourage industrial investment here and which last year was increased by this Government by a tax-free allowance for five years which has now been extended to ten years. But, at the same time, we persist in maintaining here a completely out-of-date— if it was ever justified—inappropriate legislative provision which prevents and which will hinder people who wish to come in to develop industries.

We had a discussion recently on the proposal to amend the Control of Manufactures Act. Anybody outside this country reading that discussion and who is prepared to invest in, or who was looking for a country in Europe in which to establish an industry, would either be perplexed or dismayed by the discussion which took place. He would be perplexed if he believed we were sincere and if he believed we approached it with any degree of sanity, or dismayed if he really thought we anticipated, by the mass of restrictions, provisions or qualifications and so on, enshrined in the amending Bill, that people would come here.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

As I was saying, I do not believe that the discussion which took place here, or the amendments which were proposed, offer any worthwhile inducement. If we are serious about our desire to attract foreign capital here, we should abolish completely all restrictions of whatever kind. One of the deterrents which influence foreign investors in any country is a fear of Government restrictions, Government control and Government interference, and that applies particularly to the country from which we seek to secure the investment. It has been generally recognised that, with a few exceptions from certain European countries, in the main any investment which is likely to come here from abroad will come from either the United States or Canada.

The United States is pre-eminently a country in which private enterprise has developed and expanded with remarkable success. The people there, the businessmen, have a horror of Government interference and bureaucratic control of any kind, and the mere fact that no matter how liberal a Minister may be in administering the Acts which control these matters, no matter how liberal a Government may be in its approach, if there is legislative provision which involves restriction of any kind, industrialists, particularly from the United States who enjoy comparative freedom from restrictions of this kind, will be less likely, if not reluctant, to come here.

Over a number of years, we have endeavoured to provide incentives for tourist development. It is recognised by most people who consider this matter that not merely does it provide a quick and easy means of increasing our trade, not merely does it provide a means whereby we can sell commodities here to people who come as tourists and visitors, but that for a comparatively small outlay it gives probably one of the greatest returns to the community as a whole. Some facilities have been provided over a number of years by Bord Fáilte. Grants of one kind or another are made available for the provision of better accommodation, such as increased bedrooms and better facilities for visitors to hotels and guest houses. Probably the greatest deterrent to those who are prepared, or who contemplate, increasing the facilities offered is the knowledge that a revaluation of their premises will take place if they provide them, if they make some alteration or some improvement.

It is generally agreed that our whole valuation law is out of date, but, if we are to provide an incentive greater than the one which has already been provided by means of the grants which Bord Fáilte are enabled to give, that problem will have to be tackled, and some change made which will ensure that, if people are prepared to invest in improvements, drastic increases in valuations will not follow.

During the course of his speech this afternoon, the Tánaiste mentioned that one of the matters which had been decided upon, and which was provided for in the Bill recently circulated, was a reorganisation of the transport system. Certainly, there has been no speed attached to the Government policy in this matter. There has been considerable delay since the report of the committee established by the previous Government was made on that matter.

The Tánaiste should have told us this evening in the House of the decision announced to-day by C.I.E. under which all rural bus and rail fares have been increased by 5 per cent., that in the city the 2d. minimum fare is abolished and is being replaced by a 3d. minimum, and that the special bus facilities for children at lunch time have been abolished. The whole transport position has caused concern and anxiety not merely to the Government but to the community. Certainly at a time when a radical reorganisation is promised by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and is, in fact, foreshadowed by the legislation at present before the House, it will come as a rude shock that in addition to the burdens people have been obliged to bear during the past year in respect of food, drink and tobacco, transport has now been added.

We have repeatedly said and I think it is now generally recognised that the economy is sound. That position was secured by the policy operated by the previous Government in which agricultural production was expanded and exports increased. We laid firm foundations and the country was in a position to implement a progressive policy of development and expansion rather than a negative approach which appears to be the best that can be said for this Budget. It offers no encouragement or incentive to eradicate the pessimism and gloom which pervade so many sections of the community.

This Budget gives the impression that it is a tired Budget introduced by a tired Ministry and that the Government is complacent about the conditions which prevail in the country. We recognised, and said so, that it would take not merely hard work but the implementation of a policy which must be based on the recognition that unless we have a prosperous agriculture as the foundation, whatever other expansion was expected could not result unless that foundation were first laid.

Recently, the Minister for Industry and Commerce appears to hold the view, which we have repeatedly expressed from this side of the House, that our tariff structure is too high; that it has meant a high-cost system of production; that it has provided very little employment compared with the employment provided in other spheres and that, at the same time, it is now facing conditions in which there is a general movement to reduce tariffs and quotas and in which the manufacturers in this country as well as elsewhere will have to face the blast of foreign competition or else overcome it by getting themselves into export markets.

It is equally true to say that once tariffs or quotas are provided at a particular level, once people are established in employment, once industries are created and jobs provided in these factories and industries, the position must be considered both carefully and with due regard to the factors involved before any radical alteration is made. The pattern of the economy of any country takes time to develop. It is easy to jerk it into dislocation by precipitate action. It is far more difficult to secure that which we believe we secured by the implementation of a sound policy and in particular by the measures taken to put not merely the finances but the trade of the country on a sound basis. That was done at the cost not merely of popular support but of office at well. It was done none the less in the knowledge that it would provide a sound economy as the basis for further expansion.

So far, this Government has given no indication that it has either a policy or a plan that will provide the expansion which is necessary or provide the means of implementing the undertakings given by this Government prior to its election to office. This Budget is merely a continuation of the heavy imposts applied last year and offers little, if any, incentive to that expansion which is necessary if we are to provide not merely increased employment but maintain the economy on the sound basis which we recognise as essential for future progress.

In the course of his speech to-day on the Budget, Deputy J.A. Costello said there was sleeping-sickness in this Budget. He went on to say it is a safe Budget and that there is not the slightest indication of courage in its provisions. While he was speaking, I cast my mind back over the past ten years and wondered what Deputy J.A. Costello means by courage in Budget-making and what he conceives to be the opposite to sleeping-sickness in Budget-making.

I think the country is glad to be spared the lack of direction, the lack of control and the lack of clear thinking which characterised two Coalition Governments and which has bedevilled the first ten years of our history since the war. If we look back on their first period of Government we shall see that Government expenditure increased by some 37 per cent. while the national income increased by only 14 per cent. We had the first of the many garrulous phrases which were a substitute for a sound policy.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

I was saying that, during the first period of office of the Coalition Government, a number of ideas were paraded around this country which have done damage to our economy ever since and which have prevented us from thinking on realistic lines. We had a lot of wordy nonsense from the Coalition Government about the repatriation of external assets, as though the mere selling of foreign capital would bring a heaven on earth to this country regardless of how the capital was used. We had all the inflationary effects of £45,000,000 borrowed from the American Government and not designated specifically to greater production but simply used to inflate the economy as a whole. Every kind of gimmick was used by various Coalition Ministers as a substitute for facing the real facts of the country's position. We lived during that period, and from then onwards, on the easy assumption that, because agricultural prices were going to go ever and ever higher and because we could sell out our war-time savings, no one need think fundamentally about the future of the country.

I wonder whether it was what Deputy Costello calls "Coalition courage" to have got rid of £61,000,000 of our savings in 1951, in a single year, leaving the country in an entirely unjustifiable way with the beginning of a balance of payments problem. I wonder whether we would not have been much luckier on the occasion of the present Budget, if even half of that £61,000,000 had been available to enable us to get over the difficulties more rapidly, and to avoid the restrictions in trade which have arisen through the imposition of the levies. I wonder whether it was courage on the part of Deputy Costello to leave us in 1951 with a deficit of £8,000,000 on the Budget.

Every time we inherit government from the Coalition, we inherit Budget deficits. The first one was in the case of the 1951-52 Budget, when the amount was £8,000,000, which meant we had to face initially the same kind of financial difficulties as we faced when we took office again. We got the position corrected in 1952. By 1953 and 1954, production was advancing; the people's savings were increasing; and there was quite evidently an atmosphere of confidence. Then the Coalition Government got in again and, just as it took us about two years to get the country right from their excesses in the previous period, it took them about two years to wreck all our efforts and to produce and be mainly the cause of, the crisis of 1956.

During our previous period of office Government expenditure did increase, but the national income went up very nearly as much as Government and local authority expenditure. We very nearly corrected the position and ensured that if Government expenditure went up the people's income was going up to meet it. Then, when the Coalition Government took office again in 1954, we had the astonishing spectacle of a Government which promised to reduce expenditure by £10,000,000 increasing it in two years by £12,000,000. We had the equally astonishing spectacle of Government expenditure continuously increasing, while the national income and production were completely stagnant, leaving us with further difficulties to overcome when we took office.

Deputy Costello spoke of the "corrosive disease of gloom and pessimism" which he feels exists in the country at the present time. It will take some time to dispel corrosive gloom and pessimism after a period during which all Government expenditure went up and production remained completely stagnant, during which the national income actually decreased by about £20,000,000 in one year. It will take some time to dispel that sort of gloom and pessimism. No doubt, it will be done. There is an improvement in the economic position at present, but we cannot correct the effects of two periods of Coalition Government in 12 months. No Government on earth could do it. It will take time and patience and a great deal of hard work and a great deal of co-operation by the whole community, quite apart from the Government.

As I have said already, last year, we inherited a second Coalition deficit, again adding to our difficulties; and we inherited the position that all the wartime savings that could be used easily to cushion us against a trade recession were gone. No spare margin was left anywhere by which we could inject immediately fresh emergency capital of a large order, to improve the economy. All the easily got capital was dispersed already and had been spent by the Coalition Government. There was no opportunity to find ways and means of increasing current Government expenditure by increasing taxation to the degree that would yield sums large enough for that. We found last year that taxation had almost reached its limit and therefore there was no possibility of manoeuvring within the Budget. We had to move carefully. We had to ensure that the country reached a sound financial position before we could move ahead.

I wonder whether Deputy Costello thinks there was any courage in increasing Government expenditure by 10 per cent. in two years, when the following shows the results of Coalition policy, in the form of the changes which took place in the national income of the whole people. In 1954, the national income was £446,000,000; in 1955, the national income was £462,000,000; in 1956, it fell to £449,000,000. This year, even the provisional figures go to show that it has recovered to just above the 1955 figure. A much greater increase will be required, naturally, before we would be satisfied with the position.

I may add that, far from being prudent in the use of external assets, as late as 1954, in the course of the general election, a number of Coalition speakers suggested that still more of them should be sold and no regard should be had to the possibility of a trade recession, or the result that there would be no spare capital which we could use to cover a situation in which quite suddenly exports fell for some special reason and the value of imports went up. By the time we took office, there was absolutely no margin left to enable us to get over our difficulties more rapidly. No step was taken by the Coalition Government to deal with excessive Government expenditure. No step was taken by them to provide sufficient tax remissions to stimulate exports. The bovine tuberculosis eradication programme was totally insufficient. Their arrangements for enabling export organisations to do their work effectively were inadequate. The industrial allowances they made available to industry were found to be inadequate; the resources of the Industrial Credit Company to provide capital for industry were found to be inadequate. We found no proper detailed examination of the problem of agricultural marketing. With the exception of cattle, practically every product that we sell abroad was reaching a stage when prices were competitive, but no steps whatever had been taken to investigate the complex marketing factors which would enable us to expand those exports.

All that difficult, patient work has to be undertaken now by the present Government. As I have said, we found a situation in which the Coalition Government had left the country without any external reserves worth talking about for immediate use, with an inflated Budget, with a deficit on the Budget, and without any fundamental steps having been taken to encourage new investment. It takes more than one year to overcome the economic effects of Coalition policies. People wonder why Deputy Costello says there has been a recession in business. I find that a great many people in trade are not aware of the fundamental reason for the signs of recession in business that were the case in the last two or three years. The fundamental reason is that we have been spending £20,000,000 more than we earn, for 10 years, in the form of wartime savings. When we suddenly have to pay for everything we buy from foreign countries, the result inevitably is a temporary recession, a temporary lack of purchasing power.

Members of the Coalition failed to realise one of the things we are facing now, that before we can really expand our productive income, we must replace the purchasing power lost to the community because the wartime savings were finally dispersed. It amounts to providing, on an average, about £37 to every single household in this country, every single year. When we have produced that amount of purchasing power from increased production then we can begin to anticipate that that would be the beginning of the real financial revival.

I suppose Deputy Costello would call it courageous to promise, over Radio Eireann, that expenditure would be brought down by £10,000,000 or by £20,000,000 and then increase it by £12,000,000. If Deputy Costello calls that courageous I think the people would prefer a different kind of Budget. Deputy Costello says there is an air of sleeping sickness about our Budget. Perhaps the people might prefer that, to a promise to reduce expenditure by a certain amount and then to increase it eventually by the same amount in the course of office. What he might term courageous would be for us to repeat the ridiculous and nauseating promises made by the Coalition Government, in which they promised to reduce the price of everything and to take the tax off everything and let the people enjoy themselves for no effort on their part. If that is what Deputy Costello calls courage in Budget-making we can assure him that the people are heartily sick and tired of this kind of courage, if it be so called.

The people were not in any definite manner told by the Coalition Government during their two periods of office that the day of competition was coming; that the day would arrive when we would have to save sufficiently to invest for the future; when everything sold would be subject to competition from abroad and when we would face the end of the post-war boom. While the post-war boom was continuing on to its inevitable end all we heard from the Coalition Government was that the people were entitled to a good life. We had long wordy speeches from Deputy Norton advising everybody to spend as fast as possible, that everybody was entitled to a good life. No regard was had to the future or to the fact that the post-war boom was bound to end some time. While the going was good it was delightful for the members of the Coalition Government to parade around the country saying how prosperous the country was, talking about the numbers employed, about the amount of goods being purchased in the shops with war-time savings, but with no emphasis on greater permanent employment, new industries and new forms of agricultural production.

It will take some time before we can get away from the miasmic atmosphere from which we have suffered during the last ten years. Deputy Cosgrave referred to the crises of 1955 and 1956 as a period of dislocation. Deputy Costello referred to it as an "economic blizzard". Members of the House can choose whichever description they like, Deputy Costello's or Deputy Cosgrave's. One of the features of Coalition propaganda, and of Fine Gael propaganda, is that they were not in any way responsible for the "economic blizzard"; that it was something entirely apart from Government policy; that the country could not have escaped it and that it was the inevitable result of a sudden collapse in cattle prices, followed by a sudden increase in import prices; and their levies and restrictions and increased taxes were inevitable measures designed to cure a disease for which they were in no way responsible.

If the Coalition Government had managed to save even half of the external assets they lost in 1951, and if those external assets were available during the period of recession there would have been no occasion to dissipate our accumulated savings and they would have got over the difficulty of an adverse balance of trade. It may be remembered that when we started— too late in 1952, because it should have been done earlier—to restrict the excessive drain on our reserves, the effect in regard to increasing production was totally inadequate. They were not building up our factories or our production. When we started to restrict that expenditure we were called hair-shirt economists. There were tens of thousands of workers who in 1955 and 1956 would have given anything to have a few more of those savings available that were dispersed at that time.

Deputy Costello implies that the "economic blizzard" was not of the Coalition's making. We were the only country in Europe, thanks to the Coalition policy and mentality, getting rid of foreign savings. Most countries lost their savings during the war due to devastation and so on, and the few that had savings spent them wisely. Thanks to the propaganda of Deputy Norton and Deputy McGilligan and others, we were the only country in Europe that, without necessity, dispersed its war savings. This left us unable to get over what in reality was not a serious trade recession but only a recession of a temporary character, for which we should have had reserves available.

Perhaps that is what Deputy Costello calls courage. Perhaps the people would prefer a little of the sleeping sickness Budget if in the coming years we will have some reserves at last; if we can, after this ten years' dissipation, have reserves with which to face temporary difficulties which may come on us as a result of external circumstances. Deputy Costello had almost the insolence to accuse us of being responsible for the Budget deficit that occurred again at the end of this year. The Minister for Finance made it quite clear that the deficit arose through the disposal of butter, bacon and wheat. There was no provision made by the Coalition Government to deal with the situation, they made no effort to correct it and they did not foresee it. They made no effort to deal with it or to provide any up-to-date wheat, or butter or pig marketing policy. They made no effort to warn the farmers, in any way, of the eventualities that would result from a great increase in wheat production. Yet Deputy Costello has the nerve to blame us because we inherited that situation. When we got into office we found that not only was Deputy Sweetman's idea of a balanced Budget completely illusory but no provision had been made to meet any further eventualities that might occur.

The Agricultural Committee set up by the present Government is now doing the sort of work that should have been begun in 1947—investigating the export potential of all the agricultural products we can produce. That committee will make, I hope, a very vital contribution to the future economy of the country, but, of course, as with everything we do in the future, the work of the committee is only the beginning. It is the consecutive cooperation by many individuals and organisations that will bring success to a great part of our industrial and agricultural development.

As the Minister for Finance said earlier the future lies in the establishment of confidence and we can make up our minds to get rid of silly shibboleths and gimmicks. Then I think we can instil confidence in those who would like to invest money in this country.

Deputy Costello referred to the pessimism occasioned by high emigration. We must look at the serious problem of emigration resolutely and calmly. We must realise it is a problem that is not simply the result of permanent weaknesses in our economy; it is something which has affected every rural community in Europe. We have only to examine the position in the Six Counties, and to read the report of the Isles Committee on the difficulties facing the Six Counties, where they had a greater volume of industrial output——

Surely the Minister is not describing the Six Counties as "another country".

I was not. I was speaking of the Six Counties as part of this country.

The Minister described it as another European country.

Order! The Deputy should not interrupt.

I said rural communities in Europe. I said that in the Six Counties, even with the greater volume of established industrial production, the Isles Committee, a report of which was published in the last few months and upon which the Minister for Industry and Commerce made a very excellent comment, showed that they face some difficulties we face down here in this part of the country, namely, small home market, high freight costs and lack of capital investment.

If we examine the economic life of Scotland, we find that in spite of the tremendous central industrial belt in Scotland, the steel works, collieries, textile resources and the traditional ship-building industry, the population of Scotland remained stable from 1947 to 1957. Emigration has been between 25,000 and 40,000 per year ever since the war; although the Scots have had all the privileges of British investment for many years and although they had, before this country became a nation, a tremendous amount of established industry and raw materials in the soil for industry which we lack here. In spite of that, they have had to face the serious difficulties of emigration ever since the war.

It is quite obvious that we shall have to make a terrific effort to establish industries, to establish a good tourist industry, and to improve our agricultural marketing, if we are to overcome this problem which to some degree is universal in rural communities. It can be found even in America, the richest country in the world. There are parts of America larger than this country from which there has been colossal emigration in the past few years. Even though there are industries in those regions, they are insufficient to provide everyone with employment. I am only illustrating the difficulties attending the solution of emigration to show that we must look at it resolutely and there is no use in having a sense of desperate pessimism about it. We must have new industries; we must attract capital here and we must not imagine that we are unique in having the problem of emigration from a country where there were few industries worth speaking of, when we gained our independence. It will be a long-term job to solve the problem of emigration.

I might add that the Coalition policy of dissipating war-time savings and boasting about the amount of money the Government was spending through public works had no effect on emigration. Many of the public works which were very useful to the country were inevitably of a transient character and must come to an end, leaving us the necessity of finding workers new and permanent employment in industries. What we are determined to do so far as we can is to direct capital into industries giving permanent employment and not so much into public services where work becomes completed and where workers cannot look forward to permanent employment in the future.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce made it very clear earlier to-day that we will progress if we make up our minds to keep our costs down and to give a conception to the people who would like to invest in this country that this is a stable financial community, that we will direct the national finances so that as far as possible we shall have no unnecessary trade crisis, so that when people come here they can be certain that the Government will not increase their costs and will not provide heavier burdens for them and will not make their estimates of production costs completely illusory.

We must have a community in which everyone recognises in advance that our economy is permanently limited by some factors which we have to overcome by permanent features in our economic life. Every industrialist who wants to come here must have it made clear to him that additional freight rates for his goods and raw materials —if they are not produced in this country—the small home market and the remoteness from markets abroad will be more than compensated for by Government incentives in regard to taxation and by the general costs of production which he can anticipate if he starts a factory here.

Against all that sort of thing, Coalition shibboleths are useless. It is useless to talk about repatriating external assets and promising better times. We must continue to keep this country fruitful for the investor, economic conditions must tempt investors to come here rather than go to Great Britain, France, Belgium or Holland, because they believe Ireland is the place where profits are secure and where income will be greater. If we can do that, we can make progress in the future.

We should be able to attract investment from the high-cost countries. There are many countries in Europe where costs are enormously high, where every expense attendant upon industrial exploitation has swollen and swollen. It is interesting to note that O.E.E.C., whose information is usually very accurate on this type of problem has said that there should be a flow of capital into countries relatively undeveloped, provided they make their terms and conditions as attractive as possible for new investors.

I might add that we face in the future a great deal of difficulty in discussing economic policy in a manner which is likely to attract public attention. Most of the easy jobs have been done; most of the easy tasks in establishing production here and in encouraging industry have been completed. Nearly all the new tasks involve marketing problems, market research, highly technical processes. In nearly all the new tasks facing us, the work of Córas Tráchtála, Teoranta, becomes of far more importance than it ever was in the past.

If we are to start factories, it is no use now merely imposing protection: we must have the assistance of investigators who will help the private individual to discover a market, to know how much of his product he can sell, and to ascertain his costs. This is work of far greater difficulty now than before and when people ask what is Fianna Fáil policy, it is impossible to describe the policy dramatically in so far as it relates to all the assistance we can give in a series of endlessly complex marketing investigations into every known form of industrial and agricultural production. We cannot announce policy as a political gesture of the easy kind we used to have between the wars. It is a matter requiring the detailed work of the officers of the Department of Industry and Commerce and other Departments encouraged by the Minister. At all times the very greatest care in conserving our costs and keeping them as low as possible is implicit if this difficult work is to be done.

Do I understand is Minister to say that it is impossible to state policy?

The Deputy is definitely just like the rest of the Coalition Party. He loves to try to talk shibboleths. I said that in regard to many incentives to production you cannot shriek from the lamp-posts the kind of nonsense shrieked by the Coalition Parties during their term of office.

The Minister is doing the shrieking himself.

It is far more complicated than that.

I am sorry if I misunderstood the Minister.

A great deal has been said about the Fianna Fáil plan for improving life in this country. The Minister for Industry and Commerce made the position very clear to-day. He gave a clear picture of the manner in which we investigated all the possibilities for expanding production. Deputy Liam Cosgrave again raised the question whether we were sincere in the statements we made. I should like to reiterate what the Minister for Industry and Commerce said to-day because the Coalition speakers are only capable of reading whatever suits them in relation to the proposals that were studied in advance of the general election.

In 1956 we became aware of the fact that the economic situation of the country was deteriorating. We re-examined the blueprints of a policy some of which, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce made clear, have already been put into operation within 12 months. Such economic studies had to be very carefully regarded in the light of the prevailing economic circumstances. We made it very clear that the very first complete examination of the economic policy was a matter for consideration by the Party and in so far as any promises were introduced as a specific programme having a specific object. In October, 1956, realising that the affairs of the country were being hopelessly mishandled by the Coalition Government, the policy was very carefully restated. It was made very clear that much of it was under consideration and that some of it could be put into operation immediately. In the edition published in October, 1956, we made our position absolutely clear to the electorate. This was before the general election—six months before. The Minister for Industry and Commerce said:—

"It will be asked whether the ideas which I will put forward reveal firm and final decisions of the Fianna Fáil Party, a plan of campaign to be implemented by a Fianna Fáil Government after a general election.

The answer to that question must to some extent be hypothetical. Our understanding of the causes and character of the country's economic difficulties is derived from the information available to us, and we cannot be quite sure of its adequacy."

What is the Minister quoting from?

From the second edition of the Fianna Fáil study.

The £100,000,000 plan?

That is right.

The statement goes on:—

"There may be factors of which we are not aware: a Party in Opposition can never be certain that it knows the whole story. Ministerial statements are becoming increasingly evasive and their forecasts are proving to be invariably unreliable.

Furthermore, circumstances may change. We do not know for certain when a general election may take place, or what may happen before then.

The rapid and extensive deterioration of conditions since 1955 has rendered out of date some of the plans which were publicised then.

As Fianna Fáil has no intention of making commitments or giving pledges which it is not certain can be honoured, proposals put forward now under its auspices must be regarded as indicating the ideas at present being discussed within the Party—a revelation of its outlook on the present national problems— rather than as a finalised programme.

It may be assumed that the plan of action which a Fianna Fáil Government will adopt will be based on these ideas subject to such adjustments as may be necessitated by the circumstances then prevailing, by the revelation of additional facts, and by the practical criticisms of them which may be made."

That was a definite enough declaration.

The people were not told that.

That statement was given full publicity in the newspapers. The greatest care was taken to ensure that any proposals extracted from the plan were those not likely to be practicable on taking office. If the Fianna Fáil general election pamphlet proposals are examined it will be found that the greater majority of them have already been implemented by the Government.

I hope the Minister will wait to hear some of my quotations in a minute.

The Minister is entitled to make his own speech without interruption.

Even if the amended plan, with the careful revision taken in the light of the economic difficulties which we knew we would have to face, is examined, it will be found that a great many of the proposals made in that document have been put into operation.

There are 9,000 more people unemployed since the statement was made.

As I have said to the Deputy, you cannot cure a situation by election talk. We made it clear that it would have to be a long-term programme and that all the conditions would have to be suitable for its implementation. It will take us some time to get over the effects of two periods of Coalition Government barely interrupted by us for a few years. It will take some time to get over the effects and deal with the many problems involved in regard to marketing and production which we now face.

The people will not wait for that.

On re-election to office we had to face two economic problems at once, the dissipation of our war-time savings as a source of capital and the beginning of intense competition in many fields. It is quite obvious that in future a very great deal of what is done will have to be through the co-operation of the people and new investors The Government cannot create prosperity by itself. It can help to find capital and provide incentives but a great deal of the work will have to be performed by the people of this country. I want to make that position clear beyond doubt. When we look back at the results of Coalition Government, perhaps, the people of this country will have a different definition of what constitutes a courageous Budget from that of Deputy Costello.

I should like to make a few comments on the Budget and some factors arising out of it. As an independent member, I should like to say straight away that I do not think wild statements, as suggested by the last speaker, the Minister for Lands, will be solely attributed to what he describes as the Coalition groups. If one analyses the statements made preceding and during the last election campaign, one will find sufficient wild statements made by the Party who now constitute the Government to qualify even for the harshest terms used by the Minister for Lands a few minutes ago. No useful purpose is served by going back to 1951 as the Minister for Lands did. He complained that when the Government came in after the 1951 election they inherited a deficit of £8,000,000 but he did not go on to mention that during the next three years there were deficits on current account of £17,000,000, £11,000,000 and £18,000,000, respectively.

He also referred to the question of unemployment during the year 1951 which was 7.3 per cent. of the insured population. In fairness, he might have gone on to the three succeeding years when the percentage of insured persons unemployed reached 9.1 in 1952, 9.6 in 1953 and 8.1 in 1954. I did not intend to mention these facts originally, but I do think that, when responsible speakers such as Ministers of State stand up in order to put matters in their proper perspective, they should at least deal with the two sides of the story.

As a new member of the House, I am not concerned with apportioning blame between one Government and another for what happened for the past ten years—the ten years since the war. The Minister for Lands is quite correct in his statement that over £200,000,000 of deficit budgeting occurred during that ten years, but that deficit budgeting can be shared between the Parties that formed the Government during those ten years. I do not know what the reaction of the public will be from reading the speeches made to-day on the Budget of yesterday and the speeches that will undoubtedly follow in, I presume, the weeks to come. The Budget which the Minister for Finance presented to the House last year showed a deficit of £6,000,000. At that time his speech drew attention—and rightly so, in my opinion—to the fact that such a state of affairs could not possibly be allowed to continue, and that if this country was to go forward, and be as prosperous as we all wanted it to be, it would have to base its policy on sound financial and economic principles. I certainly subscribe to those sentiments enunciated by the Minister just a year ago.

This year the House is again presented with another set of figures showing a deficit of an almost identical sum. We have had a series of Supplementary Estimates again carrying on the tradition, a bad tradition, in my opinion, of the previous Government which also brought in Supplementary Estimates. I wonder will the public really believe in the figures it now sees, on which the Minister for Finance has based his Budget, or is the public becoming as cynical about the presentation of our financial affairs as it has certainly become about the efforts of successive Governments to solve the problem of unemployment and emigration?

I saw that at a meeting to-day of the Provisional United Trade Union Congress, the secretary described the Minister's Budget this year as insipid. I do not think it was an unfair criticism. The expression was not used in this House and it is original to that degree. I know the Minister, with the condition of affairs as he saw them, could not give any great reliefs in taxation and, indeed, I doubt if the reliefs he did give will greatly help the section to which he gave them.

I am aware, as are most members of this House, that strong representations were made to the Minister in regard to the cinema industry. The Minister has lifted the tax on the importation of films, thereby relieving the owners of cinemas from the payment of £50,000 or £60,000. However, that relief will go directly to the big cinema owners. It will not relieve the small provincial cinema owners to any degree and will be of practically no benefit to the small secondary houses which need help more than these gigantic organisations backed by millions of pounds of outside capital. If he had left the import tax on the films and given some relief particularly in respect of the lower-priced cinema seats it would have been a more diversified help to the smaller houses throughout the country.

We must admit that part of our problem over the years in regard to unemployment has arisen from the fact that a very big proportion of our capital expenditure each year has gone into what I should call social capital expenditure rather than productive capital expenditure. I appreciate that when the new Government took over the State in 1921-22 there was a tremendous deficiency to be made up in the building of hospitals, schools, factories, roads and so on, and the same position existed after 1932 when the first Fianna Fáil Government came into power. The Government then decided that these social requirements would have to be provided and each year a very substantial proportion of the annual capital outlay went on providing social amenities such as those I have mentioned.

Whether, as the Minister for Lands has suggested in several speeches, we would ultimately have got a better return from the point of view of productive employment if we had spent less on social capital outlay and more on productive capital outlay is a subject on which I do not feel competent to argue. I am rather inclined to think that an economist would argue that point better than I, but the fact remains that, if we did want to keep our people at home, we had to spend money on these things.

A great deal of that expenditure is now drawing to a close. Our hospital building programme is largely completed. Indeed, recently the Minister for Health pointed out that we were closing down hospitals. The housing position in the rural areas is to a large extent dealt with but, against that, the housing position in the cities, certainly in Dublin, Cork and my own city, Limerick, is still very acute and it will be probably five or six years before we can see our housing problem settled once and for all.

In the Estimates this year I notice that the capital grant to C.I.E. has been reduced from £2,000,000 to £1.2 million. I do not know if the Minister really believes that C.I.E. will get through this year with the assistance of the reduced grant. I do not think they will and I am afraid that once again before the financial year is out the Minister will be coming to the House to seek sanction for further Supplementary Estimates to help out C.I.E. and possibly some other State or semi-State undertakings. In present circumstances I do not think we can get away from these Supplementary Estimates.

It is unwise, to say the least of it, to take credit for overestimation as the Minister has done this year to the extent of £1,500,000 in order to enable him to balance his Budget. I am not a financier, but I can see no sense in underestimating, as we did, to the tune of £8,000,000 last year and £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 the year before that, and at the same time taking credit for overestimation when the Budget is under review to the tune of £3,000,000 last year and £1,500,000 this year. That seems to me entirely incorrect book-keeping.

There has been a good deal of talk about the levies. As Deputy Sweetman pointed out, the levies were introduced for a particular purpose. Part of those levies have now become permanent duties and another part has been transferred to current account to help balance the Budget. The trouble about all these additions to import duties is that, every time one puts an increased tax on something, the cost of the commodity goes up. The Minister for Industry and Commerce stated on more than one occasion, and I am sure the Minister for Finance agrees with him, that our economy is sufficiently high cost as it is to endanger our chances of getting into the export market. If we cannot produce efficiently and cheaply enough to get into that market, then I take a very gloomy view of the future employment potential here.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce very rightly said that the only future for employment on any large scale is employment in industry. Agriculture must of necessity have a limit to the number of persons it can employ and the figures over the last ten years, and even longer, show that there has been a steady decrease in agricultural employment. Eventually, we shall probably reach the stage in which about one-third of the population will be employed in agriculture, one-third in industry and the rest in the various professions and services. We are a long way from that at the moment. If we are to reach the ideal of having one-third employed in industry we must have regard to the fact that we can do that only if we are industrially efficient and if our costs are such as to permit us to enter external markets with our exports.

I thought that the Minister might have had something to say in his Budget statement about the European Free Trade Area. Perhaps that is not a matter which properly arises for discussion on a Budget, but we cannot ignore the fact that each year Budgets in every country have come to be regarded as an economic barometer, indicating Governments' financial and fiscal policy and, in general, indicating what economic policy will be in the current and future years. The Minister, in framing his Budget, should have borne in mind the fact that over the next few years we will be called upon to play our part in the European Free Trade Area. Our protected industries will have to stand up against competition from far bigger and more heavily capitalised industries. That may not prove a bad thing at all. Over the past 25 years we have built up some very efficient industries behind a policy of protection. Any honest person must admit, however, that there are a number of inefficient manufacturers who are now endeavouring to ensure that the tariffs behind which they shelter will not be interfered with and will certainly not be reduced in the foreseeable future.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce in his speech this afternoon referred to the fact that one of the undertakings given was an undertaking to reorganise or alter substantially the Control of Manufactures Acts. This may not be the appropriate time to discuss these Acts or the new Bill which is going through the House at the moment, but I share the views expressed by Deputy Cosgrave. I do not think the new Bill will achieve what the Minister desires. It is far too complicated. It is too lengthy. It is a compromise. Instead of being a clarion call to outside capitalists to invest their money here, it is a long, unnecessarily complicated measure which will not achieve its purpose.

I would give completely free entry to any outside manufacturer prepared to come in here, provided he exports. I would lay down no conditions as to quantity but I would endeavour to ensure that his maximum production would be exported. Beyond that, I would place no restraints on him. Looking back over the years and thinking of the original policy of Sinn Féin, I would prefer that we, as a small country, out of our own resources and through the sacrifices of our own people, had accumulated enough capital to ensure that Irish manufacturers with Irish labour and Irish techniques could stand on their own two feet, thereby obviating the necessity for our going cap-in-hand to the Americans, the Canadians and the Europeans, begging them to come in here and offering them tax inducements that we are not prepared to give our own nationals to get us out of our unemployment and emigration difficulties. I do not see any hope of doing that now. What does strike me is that if we do not provide employment— decent, well-paid permanent employment—the present trend in emigration will continue. If we must have outside capital and outside technical know-how, then we must make conditions as attractive as possible for outsiders.

I am glad the Minister has under consideration the introduction of legislation to grant 25 years' tax remission to manufacturers prepared to establish industries within the free airport area of Shannon Airport. This will be limited to articles that can be carried by air freight. That will impose a certain limitation, but it is a step in the right direction. As the Minister said to-day, Shannon may well be bypassed with the development of jet aircraft. Anything we can do to make the area in and around Shannon more attractive from the point of view of industrialists and tourists should be done. Any steps taken in that direction will have my wholehearted support.

It is no exaggeration to say at this juncture that the country has reached a very critical stage. The Minister and the Government have been twitted about the lack of imagination shown in the Budget. Personally, I am prepared to accept that. It is a difficult period. It is not a period in which we can afford taxation reliefs. As against that, the Minister has decided we have reached the point of "no return" and no new impositions can be introduced. If, however, there ever is a time to bring in the imaginative plan which the Minister for Industry and Commerce outlined 15 or 18 months ago, now is the time to do it. I was greatly attracted by that plan when it was produced. I thought it was something to fire the imagination, particularly of the younger people. I took the view that if ever the Fianna Fáil Party came back to power with an adequate majority, they would have an opportunity to put this plan into effect. The Minister for Finance is taking credit now for putting the country's finances back into balance. He has imposed no new taxation and given no new reliefs. That was the crucial moment to bring in this plan of the Tánaiste, or a development of it, to fire the imagination of the country and give the young people something to look forward to.

There is hardly a subject more discussed in the House than the twin questions of unemployment and emigration. I am sure other Deputies will agree with me that the desire to emigrate is not confined to those who have no employment. All of them know of cases where young married people have given up what appears to be a good secure future and have left with their families because of a lack of confidence in the future of the country. That is a psychological problem, not an economic one. The only way of getting over that is for the Government of the day to give a clear lead to these people, particularly the younger people —the future breadwinners and makers of the nation—and to show that the Government are in earnest in their task of creating prosperous conditions in the country.

In that regard, the Minister for Finance and the Government have failed. This was the time to bring forward something that would appeal to the younger men and take them out of their present mood of frustration, apathy, indifference and lack of hope in the future of the country. Our people have still the same courage and tenacity as they ever had. All they want is a lead from the Government and the present Government have the biggest majority since the State was set up. Considerable play was made with the question of marketing. It is a serious reflection on the present Government, who provided in last year's accounts £250,000 for marketing, that not a penny of that, with the exception of a few hundred pounds, has been spent during the past 12 months. It seems to me that when that £250,000 was provided, there must have been some intention to spend the money. The Government must have had certain ideas as to how it should be spent. Yet, here we are a year later and practically none of it has been spent. It does not seem to tie up with the statements made here by the Tánaiste and other Front Bench members that the first task of the Government when they came back would be to get on with the job of getting people back into work, finding new markets, stemming emigration and stopping the gap in our marketing arrangements. It is a grave reflection either on the Government's honesty of purpose or their ability to get on with the job.

I share the Government's view that private enterprise will have to carry the bulk of economic expansion in this country. If you want private enterprise to operate, you must allow it to operate. You must give it a clear field. In this country, the State, of necessity, had to take a very big part in economic development. Those conditions have now passed to a large extent, and more freedom and encouragement should be given to private business and to the private industrialist to get on with the job. It should be made easier for him to deal with Government Departments. Ministers and heads of Departments should see to it that when decisions are made and when there are plans and ideas for possible projects, every possible encouragement will be given and that they will be speedily carried cut. If the private businessman or industrialist has a worth-while project, there should be no delay in giving decisions which, I know from experience, sometimes take a long time. That is not intended as a reflection on any of the civil servants concerned—they have a job to do—it is mainly in regard to the Minister.

The Tánaiste said we have now reached a period of price stability. I hope we have. We are living in abnormal circumstances. There has been a shipping slump for the last 12 months. If it is corrected and shipping rates go up again, we, who are so dependent on shipping and whose exports cover only about two-thirds of our imports, must be faced with increased import costs again. I cannot see how any Government can plan on a basis of price stability, unless they intend to introduce physical controls to see that import prices are not allowed to rise.

The constituents that make for prosperity in any country, are of course, capital, labour and the necessary raw materials; but possibly more important than anything else to-day is the requisite scientific and technical knowledge. We have a tremendous leeway to make up in that regard. I should have thought that, having regard to the Budget as a general economic statement, the Minister might have made some reference to our lack of scientific and technical knowledge and the great necessity to encourage it here. It is no good talking about establishing industry here, unless we can provide the trained personnel to work in these industries and unless we can provide the necessary skill without which modern industry will not work. Whereas that subject may be closer to the Estimate for education, I feel it is all part of what I should like to see as one comprehensive plan from the Government to show how serious this whole question of the economic development of the country is.

I should like to conclude by saying as I said a few minutes ago, that the future of the country depends on the Government in power creating a climate of optimism. References have been made to prophets of gloom going around and saying the country is in a bad way, that it is "broke" and there is no future for it. The only way to offset that is to start at the top, with the Government. The Government should show how serious they are and how anxious they are to get on with the job of providing conditions that will ensure prosperity and happiness for our people.

So far, the Government have not done that. Whether Ministers realise it or not, they were put back into office by the Irish people because the Irish people believed that the Government had a plan, had the ideas and the personnel to provide us with prosperous conditions here. They gave them an overwhelming majority. If they fail the Irish people on this occasion, they will have only themselves to blame. Certainly, any steps the Government take to provide these conditions and follow a clear-cut plan to advance the country's interest will have my support in every possible way; but if they intend just to sit down and let things drift on, in the hope that the play of economic circumstances inside and outside the country will bring the situation back to their favour, certainly they will have no more severe critic in the Dáil than myself.

Introducing his Budget yesterday, the Minister described the present situation as being as critical as it was 12 months ago. He is in a position to know better than anybody else the financial situation of the country at the present and for some time past. Deputies, when they meet their constituents, the householder, the farmer, the worker in the city and others, find that there is very little use in talking about £4.5 million or £2.6 million or any such sums. Their constituents do not understand millions, and, in fact, do not like millions. We have to explain why it is that 12 months ago the Government decided to abolish the food subsidies to the extent of £9,000,000. It is true that the Government gave back £2,500,000 in reliefs to various sections of the community out of that £9,000,000. The balance, as has been explained, went towards subsidies on butter and bacon. It is not quite clear that the whole of the balance was accounted for in that way. It is not easy to explain the position to people whose lives are made more difficult. It is not easy to explain it to the housewife, whether she is the wife of a factory worker, an agricultural labourer or a salaried person. There is one thing that we are all quite clear about, that is, that conditions are made more difficult for her.

We know that many fathers and mothers, in order to give their children the education and the standard of living they wish to provide for them, have to sacrifice many little luxuries to which they would be rightly entitled. There is no hope in this Budget for that type of person. The blisters that were imposed on them in 1957 remain. It is no satisfaction to be able to say to them that there is no increased taxation in this year. The increases are there already and it is not possible to increase taxation in many directions because taxation has reached saturation point.

That, unfortunately, is the position we are placed in at the present time. I should like to be as hopeful as anybody else. Living in a city, I have the opportunity of meeting business people and workers and I know that there is an air of pessimism about the whole set-up. Traders are wondering why trade is so bad. Manufacturers are wondering what is coming next. Traders from country towns tell one that ten and 12 people left their district last week and went to England. Naturally, the emigration of these people represents a loss to the trade of the country.

Some of our emigrants are people who have received a good education and I know that emigrants from Limerick have got into good-class employment in England and America. On the other hand, there are others who have gone to England, not, perhaps, having the necessary education for certain employment there, and they are hewers of wood and drawers of water and some of them have had to return to this country during periods of unemployment in England.

While things were very good in England 12 months ago, conditions have not been quite so good in some industries more recently. The result is that many Irish people who had to emigrate have not been successful in getting the type of employment they sought. It is very good to know that they did get some employment and that they will, perhaps, be able to get more suitable employment when it offers. One could talk here about these cases at length.

One must consider the effect of the Budget on the family. It is the family income that educates the citizens of to-morrow. We would all like to see a good pay packet going into every household. That is not possible and I do not think anyone can blame any Government for it. However, the conditions of the working-class people should be eased as far as possible. The present Government panicked in withdrawing the subsidies. They have withdrawn the subsidies on two occasions, first, in 1951, in part, and, in full, in 1957. I was very glad to hear Deputy Costello saying to-day that if we had continued in office, we would not have removed the subsidies.

The Budget in 1952 followed the first term of office of the inter-Party Government, which ended in 1951. The Minister for Lands to-night referred to the difficult financial position that the Fianna Fáil Government had to face in 1951 and again in 1954. He was very careful and made no mention whatever of world conditions in 1949-50. He knew as well as I did that, in 1949-50, the Korean War started. The war did not extend outside Korea, but a world war was threatened. Was it not good housekeeping on the part of traders in this country, on the part of manufacturers and many others, with the experience of the Second World War, which created scarcities of many commodities for which we have to depend on outside sources, to bring in millions of pounds' worth of goods? In the building trade alone, millions of pounds' worth of goods were imported in 1949 and 1950 and, when the threat of a world war arising from the Korean war had passed away, there were in this country, in March, 1951, very substantial stocks. That affected the balance of payments.

The imbalance was largely accounted for by the fact that our manufacturers, traders and those people who understood the difficulties of the 1939-1946 war in procuring many classes of goods, knew what was facing them. If they brought goods into the country in considerable quantities in those years I have no hesitation in saying that they did a good national service. If the much-criticised banks provided them with capital and overdrafts to do that they did a good service to the country. The benefits of that service could not have been seen were it not for the fact that war was averted. Had it taken place, it could be placed on record that the manufacturers and merchants were right. Particularly is that true of building trade providers. I know one firm in Limerick which had two or three years' supply of timber on hands in 1951. After 1951, when the war in Korea had ceased, they were confronted with very heavy overdrafts.

Is anything wrong in a country which has external assets disposing of some of them? If they have incurred a trading balance of £61,000,000 they have in the country goods to that value or to half that value, or whatever the amount may be. I have no figure but I know it must be a very substantial part of that £61,000,000 of adverse trade. It was good economics and good national policy on the part of both the firms and the bankers who gave them the money to import the goods that would be otherwise unobtainable if a war had taken place.

The Minister for Lands also referred to the fact that in 1956 our imports exceeded our exports by a figure of £35,000,000 or £40,000,000. Surely, he was not quite fair once more? I do not want to be unfair to anyone. No matter what side of the House we are on we have got to face facts when facts have to be faced. In 1956 it was well known to everybody that, due to circumstances in the Argentine, meat and beef were imported into England in huge quantities. Not alone were cattle prices depressed here but they were also depressed in England, so much so that the British Government in the following year gave an assurance to British farmers that they would not allow such a thing to occur again. Before 1956 we had a substantial trade in turkeys, but, owing to over production in England and on the Continent in that year we were left with no market in England for our turkeys. These were problems to which the Minister for Lands might have referred when he spoke of the adverse trade in that particular year.

Is it not well known that in 1956 we had the Suez trouble? Some of those talking about mismanagement of affairs here are people who will tell you about the gallant colonel and the gallant captain in the British Army. If the gallant colonel or captain had been able to keep control of the canal we would not have had this problem. I have no confidence in some of these people because they are not national assets. It is unfortunate that people who are not prepared to take their part in public life—it does not matter whether they go into a Party or stand as Independents—are criticising us to-day. There are too many people prepared to throw stones at us, but they are the people who often look for concessions for their own selfish motives.

Unemployment and emigration have been referred to. We all deplore them. It is true to say that emigration is at a very high level, and so is unemployment. It is regrettable that so much capital is made out of them. I feel that while emigration is the choice of some, it is certainly not the choice of everybody. A few days ago a man told me that he was emigrating with his wife and three children to Australia. He said it was against his own wish, but, having three sons, he felt that some of his friends over there could do better for them than he could do at home. While a man may let, his children go abroad it is often much better that the parents go with them, because some people are not so able to meet the many difficulties and pitfalls which face them overseas without the support of their own family.

Very many people came to me and criticised the Government in regard to the import levies which were imposed in 1956. They criticised the Government for daring to tell them that they should not import goods without paying substantial tariffs. Many of the goods upon which levies were placed were of a luxury character and others were not of a type urgently required. At the same time the Government were confronted with a situation in which the countries from which we were importing these goods were buying very little from us. We had very little option in the matter.

Practically everything in the line of household electric fittings is imported. We have been anxious for a number of years past to bring the amenities of electrification into rural areas. We know the advantages it has brought to farmers to have electric light in their homes, cowsheds and barns in the winter months, and the advantages which they have derived from the use of milking machines and other electrical gadgets of that kind, both inside and outside their farmhouses. We know how necessary it was to do that. Because we speeded-up the electrification of the country, which is now almost complete, much of the goods we imported lent in a large way to this adverse trade balance. It was necessary to impose the levies. I was very glad at the time to see agreement with that step from all sides of the House. Now, however, when the necessity for these levies is not pressing or they are not to any great extent needed, it is a pity the Government did not see to it—as the inter-Party Government promised— that they would be discontinued as soon as the balance of payments position had righted itself.

We are all glad that the balance of payments position has righted itself. Some of the levies which were imposed are now customs duties. They are not being applied, as was agreed at the time to a capital account for capital development purposes, but are being put in as ordinary revenue. I hope that at some future date something will be done in that regard. This is a very strong Government. There is no reason why they cannot stay in office for the next three and a half to four years and there is no reason why they should impose taxes on the people beyond what is necessary.

As has been mentioned by practically every speaker, the collection of money for a capital purpose and its subsequent application for revenue purposes is not good policy. We who live in the cities and towns know only too well what, as individuals, we have to pay for everything we want in our homes. As ratepayers and traders, we have to contribute to the increased cost of running our businesses. Our workers got increases in pay, to which they were justly entitled. I may say to the general credit of the trade unions and the Minister for Industry and Commerce that it was very wise to avoid wrangling as to the amount which should be given by having some agreement in relation to the 10/- basis. I understand that it has been implemented to a large extent, but, if it has, it has weighed heavily on some traders. It may fall quite lightly on others. It has weighed heavily on people whose businesses may not be quite as good to-day as they would like them to be. That is the position in every city and it is the position in Limerick City.

As a member of the corporation, I meet people each year, particularly in the months of February and March, who ask me to approach the manager in order to keep the rate collector from their doors and to give them time to pay their rates. Various causes contribute to such a position. For instance, a change in the character of a business often means that a man who was doing good business years ago might find that his business has slipped away for one reason or another. In many of the old trades in Limerick and elsewhere, many substantial changes have come about. Many of these people have to come and complain to the city council that they are unable to meet their commitments in respect of rates. We know that, all down through the years, these people have honoured their obligations and have been proud to do so. They now feel they are carrying a very heavy burden, both in local and national taxation.

I do not know about rates in other cities, but this year in Limerick our rates went up by 2/- in the £. They are going up everywhere. In a large number of cases, the people who are paying rates do not get any State benefit or social services. They feel there is something wrong. They have to pay so much year after year. At the same time, a Budget imposes certain obligations on them in respect of meeting their commitments in the line of foodstuffs. In addition, wages are increased, as they are increased to the city council staff and to our institutions which means about £2,500 extra this year. They feel that, in addition to having to bear the burden of their own household budget, they have to pay their share of this imposition on them as a result of the increased rates.

I was very glad to hear the Minister for Industry and Commerce mention Shannon Airport. We in Limerick are very proud of it. Shannon Airport started a number of years ago. We got a few shocks then, but we have got over them. In all fairness to the Minister for Industry and Commerce I would say that we are very pleased with and proud of the manner in which he has handled that situation. We are very grateful to him for the assurances he has given us because, while we in Limerick are benefiting to a great extent from that airport, it is also of general benefit to the nation. I believe that, in Shannon Airport, we have the best centre for a national airport.

With regard to a customs-free department, I am very glad that when one goes out there, one sees the number of people going on the planes and bringing with them not alone whiskey but many other commodities which they can obtain in our shops there. It is good to see them bringing the whiskey from all our distillers and advertising it the world over. That is worth while and it has given our Irish distillers advertisement in foreign lands without any great cost.

I am also glad to learn that the Minister has suggested a tax-free airport. Industries can come in there and, provided they engage in the export trade, they can be assured that they will not have to bear taxes. While many people might complain in that direction, I am confident the Minister will keep a watchful eye so that some of these industries do not come in to undermine our existing industries, whether they be located in Dublin, Cork, Limerick or elsewhere.

I was amused to hear the Minister for Industry and Commerce mention this afternoon that a sum of £2,500,000 would be provided as an incentive to farmers, because, quite recently, a dairy farmer in County Limerick asked me why it was that we could not get sale for our butter. I pointed out that there is over-production in the world. He asked why it was that something could not be done. This conversation took place at the time the Tea Bill was passing through this House. He said to me:"Why could the Government not come to some agreement with the British Government to purchase tea with our butter?" I do not know what value that suggestion might have, but according to the trade statistics, we are buying more from the British market than they are buying from us. The time has come when an approach might be made—if it is not, in fact, being made—to have some free and friendly exchange of views in that direction. Our Ministers would be going over not on a begging expedition but rather with a business proposition to what we refer to as our nearest neighbour in an endeavour to do something for our dairy farmers. They unfortunately find themselves in a very difficult position and something should be done to relieve them from the anxiety which is now very prevalent amongst them. They are wondering what is going to happen the dairying industry. They know there is an assured market for a certain part of that trade at home. They have been asked to produce more but there is no use in producing more, unless we have a market for it.

Many people complain that we are paying too much in levies. I appreciate the Government's position there and I think the Government are right, and that any Government here will be right in trying to help the farmers and to help any industrial manuafcturer who is producing goods to be sold on a foreign market—even though it costs money to do so. Many countries indulge in the dumping of goods. That applies more in the industrial world, perhaps, than in the agricultural world. They dump goods at prices which do not cover the cost of the raw materials. It may be that, with us, this is only a temporary situation. We hope it is.

Our bacon industry and our mik industry are very much knit together, especially in the city and county that I have the honour to represent. Bacon has been associated with Limerick for a long number of years. Many years ago, Limerick bacon held pride of place in the London market. I was very glad to hear from some of our bacon factories in Limerick, quite recently, that they were unable to procure sufficient of the Grade A bacon, for which they could find a market in England. That did not obtain some months ago, but that is a fluctuation which goes on and I am sure the Minister for Agriculture is kept very well informed about it. The bacon trade is something very near and dear to us in Limerick, because it has given a livelihood to large numbers of our people.

In the matter of new industries and old industries, I feel that, while they may be quite correct, any of our old industrialists think that too many incentives are given to some of the newer elements developing here. Whatever truth may be in that, our old industries, which carried on for years, some of them without protection, are entitled to very serious consideration from the Government. If new industries can be established here—and we sadly need them, and the past Government did all they possibly could to encourage them—at the same time, our old industries should get some consideration. Many of them are not housed in modern buildings. In some cases, because of excessive taxation for many years past, they have not been able to carry out all the replacements they would desire, which they should have done and which they thought of earlier. They should get very earnest consideration.

In every city, there are many old family industries which have been carried on, not in a big way but in a substantial way, and which have given service and employment to the people all down the years. I say, in all sincerity, that I appreciate the difficulties of Government. I appreciate them because I am a businessman in the City of Limerick. I am a director of a factory and have to take responsibilities. I suppose that what happens in a Government is the same as what happens even in a small shop. Even the shopkeeper has to keep a balance; he has to take trade as it comes; he has to look at things from many different angles. When one has been in close touch with the management of a city, especially as a member of the corporation, in close touch each year with the various institutions managed by or under the control of the city manager and corporation, one can readily appreciate the difficulties there are even in Government.

I do not want to say anything which would be wrong, but I have a feeling that the Government should have tried to do something, or promised something at least, in this Budget that would relieve to some extent certain classes of people who are not catered for by wage increases. There are certain people all over the country who have incomes, perhaps from investments willed down or handed down to them, or incomes of one kind or another. We know that the money received from those investments is not worth half what it was ten or 15 years ago. Such people should get some relief, if at all possible. Some attention should be paid also to the position of people living on incomes which, while they may be called salaries, are often not as great as the wages given to the ordinary working man.

I do not wish to delay the House any longer, but I am glad I have had the opportunity of putting my views before the people. I feel that there will be disappointment amongst many people over this Budget, when it is explained to them more fully than it has been explained so far.

Ba mhaith liom labhairt ar feadh tamaillín ar thairscint airgeadais an Aire Airgeadais. Bhí áthas orm inné chloisint ón Aire go raibh £25,000 curtha i leathtaoibh le haghaidh Córas Tráchtála Teoranta, chun uisce beatha Gaelach do chur thar sáile, ar an margadh in Americe agus tíortha iasachta eile.

I was delighted yesterday, listening to the Minister for Finance's Budget speech. I considered some of the items contained therein as a great boon to industry, particularly to those engaged in export trade, who will be free of income-tax for 25 years. It would be very difficult to assess the monetary value of that. We are largely seeking external trade. The Government succeeded to some extent in the last year in cutting down imports and increasing exports, thus bringing about a favourable balance of trade. During two different periods of inter-Party Government, we experienced adverse trade; our external assets were going haywire and we had a succession of unbalanced Budgets. Now our Budget has been balanced for two successive years. External assets have been created and the balance of trade is in our favour.

Turning next to exports, we find that after 20 years of an adverse export trade, we are now in a very impressive position in world trade. We are exporting considerably more than we are importing. There are items, however, such as tourism which I consider are not yet fully developed or exploited. I understand that between £30,000,000 to £35,000,000 were the earnings from tourism last year. I think a lot more could be done to increase those earnings. That, of course, is a matter for An Bord Fáilte. Perhaps we could do a little more by way of advertising, either by films or otherwise, to induce people to come to this country.

Places around the east coast are largely dependent on tourism and even if the board only concentrated on England, Scotland and Wales, we would get sufficient people from those places to earn many millions more for the hoteliers and guest houses on that coast. Some years ago, the tourist organisation was very anxious to start enterprises of a profit-earning nature, to provide amusements for seaside places all over Ireland. Arklow, Bray and many other places in Wicklow and elsewhere, sought to avail of these guarantees and grants for improving their areas. It appears that schemes were shelved somewhat about 1954 and I trust that in the very near future the Government will try to expedite the development of these enterprises. It is a matter of a number of people coming together and subscribing moneys to start a scheme that would be profitable to their district and an amenity for tourism.

I hope that in future when the board makes recommendations to the Department of Industry and Commerce—and of course a lot depends on the Department of Finance—they will get a favourable reception and obtain a guarantee by way of loan to improve the various areas along the east coast. There have been additional sums allocated for tourism this year, but I think there should be a little more allocated. I suppose that under the circumstances it is as much as can be allocated at present.

Forestry gives a great amount of employment in County Wicklow. I suppose it is one of the largest forestry counties in Ireland and they would like to have a little more done in the way of afforestation. I trust that my area—I am speaking for Wicklow —will get a fair share of the moneys allocated under this heading. Then we come to the fishing industry and harbour improvement.

I feel that these matters are for the Estimate rather than for discussion on the Financial Motion.

I should like to see the development of our markets under Córas Tráchtála. There are plenty of foreign markets which are not yet exploited and Córas Tráchtála should try to sell a lot of our wares to countries like the Middle East, Canada and America—I believe there are many things which they require and they would buy from us rather than from other countries. I was glad to hear Deputy Carew mention the improvements at Shannon Airport. I see that he does not hold the same views as his colleagues in that respect and I hope he will be able to get them to realise that these improvements will benefit the country.

The Budget introduced yesterday is a most suitable one in the circumstances and it is, to my mind, a matter of financial wizardry to balance the Budget as the Minister did, without additional taxation. I contact many people in the course of business and most of those with whom I come in contact were expecting something on the pet subjects for taxation. That has not occurred and I think the Minister took the right lines and I congratulate him for what he has done.

Whatever may be said about the Budget as presented to us yesterday, and whatever difference of opinion there may be between speakers on different sides, all of us must have got at least one common impression of Budget day, 1958. It was forcibly brought home to us yesterday that something unusual was happening in this House. Those of us who have had experience of Budget day in Dáil Éireann in previous years either as Deputies or as spectators, noted at all times that there was an air of interest, indeed more often than not, an air of enthusiasm, in and about the House. Therefore, we could not fail to be impressed—perhaps disappointedly so— by the fact that yesterday there was no such atmosphere. The atmosphere that prevailed in this House yesterday was indicative of the atmosphere that prevails, and has prevailed for the past ten years or so over the whole country.

Looking up at the public galleries yesterday, we could see vacant seats on all sides and we are all aware that in former years members of this House were taxed to meet the requirements of their friends and supporters who wished to come along to hear the Minister for Finance make his Budget statement. I have heard members on all sides say privately that the atmosphere prevailing yesterday was simply indicative of the despair and gloom and the lack of hope which prevails in the whole country. I do not want to display myself as a Jeremiah in that respect. The Minister for Finance came in and he made his Budget statement and I think it was what the people expected. There was no encouragement, no enthusiasm— even when the Minister sat down. Deputies behind him, supporting him, could not muster even the minimum degree of enthusiasm that is usually displayed on these occasions.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

The Minister for Finance, who has just arrived again, may be interested to note that I was endeavouring to point out that the air of despondency, despair and gloom which apparently pervades the whole atmosphere of the House seems to me to be an indication of the feeling that exists in the whole country. Not alone is there an apparent lack of interest in the proceedings of the House during a very important occasion such as Budget day but there also seems to be a lack of interest on the part of Deputies generally, even Deputies supporting the Government. I am sure it has not passed unnoticed that during the past two hours on at least five occasions we have had to call a House, on three occasions at the instance of Deputy McQuillan and at the instance of somebody else on the other occasions. They have had to ask the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to have the bells rung to get a sufficient number of Deputies to come in and sit behind the Minister to take an interest in this Budget. I do not blame the Deputies——

There is only one Labour Deputy here.

The Deputy has appeared here suddenly, called by the bell.

Where is the Labour Party?

They can look after themselves without assistance from anyone. The fact of the matter is that it is only in response to the ringing of bells on numerous occasions that we have a small handful of Deputies sitting behind the Minister. I think with the exception of the last speaker, we have had no offers from Deputies supporting the Government to tell us what they think are the merits of the policy—if it can be so described—in this Budget.

What about the Tánaiste and the Minister for Lands?

(Interruptions.)

If there could be some kind of organisation by which interruptions would come one at a time, I could deal with them.

I should like to raise a point of order. The Deputy now speaking said that no Deputy on this side of the House except Deputy O'Toole intervened in the debate on behalf of our Party. Might I say that as the Ceann Comhairle calls Deputies in turn from various sides we were allowed only three speakers who have already spoken from our side, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Minister for Lands and Deputy O'Toole?

That is not a point of order.

(Interruptions.)

A Deputy

It is a point of fact.

I am sorry if I annoy anybody unduly but we sympathise with members sitting behind the Government that has produced this Budget. As a back-bencher myself I am quite well aware of the difficulties involved in going back to a constituency and defending any particular policy but when one is asked to go back to a constituency and defend a non-existent policy my sympathy is doubled.

Do not worry.

I am not unduly worried but I am pointing out that I appreciate the difficulties and I realise why there is that lack of enthusiasm so evident on other occasions when Ministers make pronouncements from the Front Benches.

Having said all that, I think that the attitude of Deputies here, without even going back to their constituencies, was quite indicative during yesterday and to-day of the manner in which this Budget will be received. We are told— I think it was in the Irish Press this morning in a banner headline—that this is an “As-you-were Budget”. Possibly that sounds better than calling it a “Do-nothing Budget”, but I shall not quibble in that regard. I shall stick to the Irish Press description of it as an “As-you-were Budget”.

In itself there is nothing wrong in an "As-you-were Budget". One can imagine circumstances in which such a Budget—a "Do-nothing Budget" if you like—would be quite a good thing for the country; it is not without precedent. Several other countries have decided in the past, in pursuing certain policies, that for a year or two they would interfere to the minimum with taxation or reliefs of one kind or another.

Under certain circumstances that would be quite understandable but in the main it is applicable only to a country where you have a definite, progressive policy. It would apply to a country where, perhaps, you had a shortage of hands to fill the jobs available or a country where there was at least full employment, if not over-employment, but I think everyone will agree that it is in no way applicable to a country such as ours in its present economic condition where, on all sides, there is evidence of under-employment and not alone that but of chronic unemployment, evidence that chronic unemployment is being eased only by very grave emigration year after year.

I think all of us realise that under such circumstances no Government should say to itself, or endeavour to say to the people: "We think everything is all right. We shall not tighten things up because things are not so bad. Something may turn up between now and this time next year. We shall put no productive policy before the people, no goal or no ideal." That in effect is what the Minister has said. In his Budget this year, he says: "I think we shall let well alone." It is all right to let well alone if everything is well but I do think nobody will suggest that everything is well at the moment.

The Budget introduced yesterday is simply an endorsement of the Government's view that last year's Budget was the right and proper one for the country. It was simply an endorsement that they still feel, even after years of experience, the measures they took in last year's Budget were designed for and proved themselves to be capable of righting the economic evils from which we suffer. I do not think that even the majority of the Deputies now supporting the Government believe, no matter what they thought last year, a year afterwards, that the measures which were taken in the Budget last year and the policy that was pursued arising out of that Budget was the right one for the country.

I can well understand their dismay and frustration in endeavouring to explain it to their people down the country. This Budget is a restatement by the Government that they feel the actions they took last year were the best that could be taken for the country. Because it is an as-you-were Budget and because it brings us back to this time last year, it would, perhaps, be no harm to endeavour to recapitulate and recreate the climate and atmosphere under which the Government came into power.

From 1954 to 1957, there had been an inter-Party Government. I grant freely that when we faced the last general election there were many things happening and many situations existed, particularly in regard to unemployment and emigration, which many of us felt should not exist. Deputy Ó Briain can laugh, but the fact of the matter is that Deputy Ó Briain's Party went out on that occasion and blazoned forth brazenly that not alone was the situation such as it should not be, but that they had the cure.

The people were told that all that was necessary to end not alone unemployment but emigration was to return a strong Fianna Fáil Government. I do not wish to make wild or wide allegations such as that. I do not wish to lay myself open to the charge of misquoting anybody, so, for the record and for the benefit of certain people who appear to doubt my word on what promises were made, I will very briefly quote from a leaflet that was issued by the Fianna Fáil organisation on behalf of my friends, Deputies Healy and Galvin and the Minister for Education, seeking the support of the people of my constituency during the last election. They were quite entitled to go around and point out that unemployment was higher than it should be—I think I was saying the same thing myself—but they made specific promises that all that was needed was to return a strong Fianna Fáil Government to power. While they were entitled to make that promise, I think we have really reached the stage now when we are entitled to call them to order in that regard.

This is what they had to say:

"In Fianna Fáil we have set a state of full employment as our goal. We believe that it can be achieved."

I sincerely hope they still believe that.

They went on to say:

"We are working out the details of a dynamic programme of investment which, in an expanding economy, will bring the nation to that goal."

The three Fianna Fáil Deputies, who were elected in my constituency on that programme, are entitled, in self-protection even, to ask their Minister now: "What progress has been made? What hope is there that we are proceeding towards that goal?" I do not think that any has been shown so far. I genuinely regret to say that the Budget statement of the Minister for Finance yesterday does not give me even a glimmer of hope that anything will be done in that regard.

The leaflet continues:

"We are eagerly awaiting the opportunity of putting that programme before the people."

I can assure all concerned that the people are most eagerly awaiting the Government to put that programme before them now, over a year since the election.

Much has been made here of the apathy, the indifference and even the hostility of the younger generation towards our democratic institution, but listen to the special appeal that was made on that occasion:

"I would appeal particularly to the younger generation to rally behind Fianna Fáil. Fianna Fáil is young in its ideas, its enthusiasm and its Nationalism. Young people can look forward to the future in confidence with Fianna Fáil."

That is fighting talk. Of all the sections of the community, it is the younger people who have lost confidence, not alone in Fianna Fáil but, unfortunately, in the various political Parties. I have had private conversations with members supporting the Government and they share my view that there are influences working in this country which appear to be determined to undermine the confidence of the people in this House and in our democratic institutions.

That is not relevant to the Financial Motion before the House.

I was endeavouring to point out the apparent neglect of the Government in carrying out the programme they appeared to place before the electorate during the last general election. I do not want to transgress the rules of order one way or the other. The position is that quite definitely the programme that was put before the people appears to have been forgotten. Speaker after speaker from the Government Benches tell us of our difficulties. None of us on this side of the House will say they have not difficulties. We all appreciate that. Anybody sitting at breakfast table this morning, taking up the newspaper and reading the 31-page speech of the Minister for Finance on his Budget yesterday will see it gives very little hope to the country. How barren sounded his words in his Budget speech yesterday. How barren they sounded compared with this election address in which they said:—

"There is no reason why, given the right leadership by Government and the right response by the people, this country cannot go ahead as vigorously as other European countries are now doing.

We have unused resources, physical, human and financial which can be organised and made productive. Fiánna Fáil is planning so to use them.

The time is ripe for another great national campaign for economic and social progress, ..."

I hope that the people who drafted that election manifesto only a short time ago on behalf of the Party believed in what they were saying at that time. I have no reason to believe otherwise but it is opportune that somebody should stand up in this House and say to the spokesman of the Party that drafted that: "Where now are our unused resources, physical, human and financial to which you drew the attention of the electorate only a little over a year ago?" They are still there and you promised on that occasion that you were planning to make full use of them.

Can it not be regarded as eminently fair that we should say, having heard the anæmic, pedestrian speech of the Minister yesterday, that the people are entitled to ask: "What about the ‘get cracking' programme?" I have no doubt in my own mind that there are Deputies sitting behind the Front Bench of Fianna Fáil at this moment, who genuinely went into the last election in the belief that the Fianna Fáil Party might show some of the progressive attitude which characterised it for very many years, seeing that we are again facing a situation in which that vitality could be shown. I have no doubt that they are more disappointed than I am on this occasion.

However, these Deputies are entitled to say—and I hope that in their conclave or wherever else it might be effective they will say—to those who appear to be misleading, not only the people but misleading these Deputies: "It is about time you came back on the rails. It is about time you examined the real problems." Is it not about time we desisted from academic examinations and discussions on the matter, such as those in which the Minister for Lands apparently revels, that we got down to plain speaking and that we endeavoured, even at this stage, to try to restore some confidence in democratic government, by saying to the people that the statements made up and down the country were not just promises which we had no intention of fulfilling in order to seek the support of the electorate but that we intend in some measure at least to carry out that programme?

I was greatly interested, as I always am, in the contribution of the Tánaiste to this debate. What most interested me was the part of his speech where he tried to make an apologia for his statement regarding the programme for £100,000,000 and 100,000 jobs. We all know that he has been criticised freely both in this House and outside it in relation to that programme which he outlined in 1956 and that the Minister for Lands, Deputy Childers, has got into quite a tailspin about it. He tried to explain away that statement in 1956 by the Tánaiste by saying it was not a statement of policy which they intended to implement but was simply a point of discussion which was thrown into the cockpit of some Fianna Fáil debating society.

We had the spectacle to-day of the Tánaiste speaking in an apparent endeavour to placate the Minister for Lands by explaining that what the people took out of his statement was not the truth at all and that what he meant to say was so-and-so and so-and-so. Those who were listening to him here will observe that he said that what he recommended came under seven or eight points and that, in fact, the promises they gave have been carried out and that there were only two points outstanding.

This plan was supposed to create 100,000 new jobs over a period of five years, which would be approximately 20,000 jobs per year. Whether the Tánaiste says that six-eighths of that programme has been carried out, we all know through the statistics supplied by the Central Statistics Office that there are unfortunately 9,000 more people unemployed now than when the Tánaiste made that statement in 1956.

A Deputy

The Deputy is wrong.

It is quite simple for someone to say "wrong" but the fact is that there are approximately 9,000 people more unemployed now than when he made the statement that if his Party got back into power they would create a situation whereby 100,000 jobs would be created over the next five years.

I do not know exactly what the Tánaiste said when he expounded that policy. I was not there listening to him. He quoted from some document to-day. I would not purport to have read that in the past, but he did go to some pains to explain to us that the interpretation freely given, particularly by this side of the House, to his statement on that occasion was not a correct one. I do not know whether or not that is true but when I am seeking verification for such a statement I can depend on this document—I am sorry if I am embarrassing Deputy Healy by referring to it two or three times.

Not in the slightest.

This document was issued on behalf of Deputy Healy, Deputy Galvin and the Minister for Education in my constituency. This is not my interpretation of what the Tánaiste said on that famous occasion in 1956. This is the version supplied to me as an elector in Cork City during the last general election. This is what they have to say:—

"The present spate of emigration is the most serious problem now facing the nation ...

In contrast to the inaction of the present Coalition, Fianna Fáil has been preparing plans for the day when the Party will again take up the reins of government.

The full employment proposals recently announced by Fianna Fáil show how the Party intends to deal with the problem of emigration by providing work for our own people at home."

Then in extra big letters:—

"The Fianna Fáil plan proposes an increase over five years in the number of new jobs by 100,000."

After over a year, I think we are entitled to ask anybody who understands plain English: Would you mind telling us where the first instalment of the 20,000 jobs is? I hope that during the course of this debate, my friend, Deputy Healy, or one of his colleagues on the Government Benches, will answer that question. I may be a bit dim, but there does not appear to me to be any sign of the 20,000 jobs. Maybe, Deputy Healy or Deputy MacCarthy, who represents the adjoining constituency and who, no doubt, reaped the benefit of this literature, too, will explain the position to us. Perhaps they will give the people of Cork the benefit of their information as to whether or not something went wrong in relation to this promise to create so many new jobs in such a short time.

The fact of the matter is, of course, that there are now fewer jobs. Let me repeat that: there are now fewer jobs. The Government did not even maintain the position. There are fewer jobs available now than there were at that time.

There is a little tailpiece here which is quite interesting.

The position is not as bad now as when we took over.

"This would result in full employment and the end of ... emigration." If any Party could produce a plan to end unemployment and emigration, it would certainly deserve the support of everybody in the country. There is the literature; there is the policy; and there is the plan that was put before the electorate at the last general election. Are we not now entitled to ask: What has become of that plan? What has become of that programme?

The Budget statement has been regarded for many years now as the medium through which the Minister for Finance gives an account of his stewardship for the previous year and outlines Government policy for the coming 12 months. Yesterday we listened to a long and dreary speech covering 31 foolscap pages.

Most people thought it was the shortest speech on record.

I may be mistaken in that. I am usually mistaken, in Deputy Healy's opinion.

Perhaps if Deputy Casey would address the Chair, there would be fewer interruptions.

He likes talking to his colleagues in Cork.

Whether it was a long speech or a short speech, it was a dreary speech. I am sure even Deputy Healy will agree with me in that. What was needed yesterday was a speech which would instil some kind of enthusiasm into all sections of our people, a speech which would give them a goal towards which to aim, even if the shopkeeper, the farmer and the worker and the unemployed person had to be told: "It is going to be tough. There will be tough going for a year, but there is your goal and we shall be all the better off at the end of it." But not at all! No goal was put before the people.

I have particular sympathy, and so, I am sure, has every Deputy, with the less well-off sections of our community, particularly those in receipt of old age pensions, blind pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions, unemployment assistance, unemployment benefit, disability benefit, and what-have-you. Since the Budget of last year, the position of these people has progressively worsened down through the months, over the past 12 months. That cannot be denied. Because of the total abolition of the food subsidies in the Budget of last year, we had dearer bread, dearer butter and dearer flour. It may be said that that affected everybody. All of us will agree that the imposition placed on the people generally then fell more severely on the wage and salary earners, and particularly severely on those who are dependent on social welfare benefits of one kind or another.

Somebody may reply that they were given 1/- per week to offset those increases. We did not give all of them 1/- per week. We gave 1/- per week to certain categories to meet those increases. We did not give a farthing to the man drawing sickness benefit, the man with the wife and three children. The man drawing unemployment benefit did not get a halfpenny. The widow with a couple of children, drawing a contributory widow's pension, did not get a farthing but she had to meet the additional costs imposed by the withdrawal of the food subsidies. She had to pay more for bread, more for butter, more for flour and more for what-have-you.

Fortunately, the trade union organisations have taken the necessary steps to ensure that their members will get some compensation to offset that increase in the cost of living as a result of last year's Budget. It was estimated that they would require something in the region of 18/6 per week to meet the increases. They got 10/-. Their standard of living was depressed, but they were at least cushioned to the extent of 10/- per week. Recently, we have been told that the Government have decided to give this 10/- per week increase to civil servants, to the Garda, to the Army and to teachers. The Minister stated that he had changed his mind. Some months ago, he believed that these sections of our community should get no increase; but they are to get it now. The fact of the matter is that the Dublin Corporation worker made sure that the civil servants, the Garda, the Army and the teachers and every local authority employee throughout the country would get this increase of 10/- per week. That situation was brought about by the Dublin Corporation workers downing tools and walking up and down outside the City Hall. These people, through their organisational strength, were enabled in some way to get compensation partially to offset the increase in the cost of living. More power to them!

What is to happen to the recipient of sickness benefit, unemployment benefit and to the widows in receipt of contributory pensions? They are unorganised. They can take up this 31-page Budget statement and see what is in it for them. They are not even mentioned. Not once during the whole course of his speech did the Minister mention the categories to which I have referred.

He did not mention the farmers, either.

There was another reason for that. Certain sections were excluded, and each section was excluded for a different reason. Is it the position now that we are adopting the attitude that, because the underprivileged sections of the community are unorganised, have no political importance, and no organisational strength, they are not worthy of consideration and that we are saying to them that we do not care, as far as they are concerned, how much the cost of living rises; that the Government in power at the moment will not consider them; that they will get no increase whatsoever to meet the increase in the cost of living?

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 29th April, 1958.
Barr
Roinn