From the course of this discussion, as well as comments throughout the country, I believe there is a general lack of confidence in the Government, but whatever the actual outcome of this motion may be when it is voted on later, the viewpoint of many people is that the Government have no plan or policy to deal with the problems which confront the country and that matters are drifting along from day to day without any guidance or direction. No matter what statistics or figures are examined or, even basing a conclusion on observation of trends in the country, there has been no progress in any sphere of economic activity. Here and there, there has been a small increase in the numbers employed in certain categories, but this has been accompanied by a reduction in the numbers employed in other cases. While the unemployed figures, as published, show a small reduction, this is probably due to emigration as much as to any other cause, more especially when account is taken of the changes in the numbers of persons in insurable employment.
These figures, which are generally reckoned as giving an indication of the average numbers engaged, show that, in 1957, the number of persons employed, on the average weekly number of insurance stamps sold, decreased for that year compared with 1956 and 1955. Last year, 463,100 stamps were sold compared with 498,500 in 1956 and 496,300 in 1955. These figures were given in reply to a parliamentary question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach on the 16th July of this year. At the same time the quarterly industrial inquiry for the June quarter of 1958 gives figures for those engaged in manufacturing industries and as shown in that June quarterly report an average of 141,671 persons were engaged compared with 143,801 in June, 1956.
There was no very great change there one way or another but it confirms what I said that, taking into account especially the average number of insurance stamps sold weekly, there is a substantial drop of 35,000 persons compared with 1956. These figures show clearly that, whatever policy or programme the Government have operated over the last 18 months, they have not brought about the improved conditions which were promised during the last election and after the Government had been elected to office.
A few days ago the Government announced that they proposed to embark upon a five-year plan to deal with the requirements of the country in order to provide employment. That plan is supposed to follow up the programme announced before the last election, and it was estimated that it would cost £100,000,000 and provide 100,000 jobs. I believe that nothing has contributed so much to the disillusionment and to the general feeling of apathy prevailing throughout the country and created the sense of insecurity which exists for a great number of people than the fact that people were misled by that announcement of a plan which would provide for a period of five years a solution or, if not a solution, at any rate a great increase in the number of jobs which were to be made available.
Now the Government announces a further programme. I believe that people are not merely cynical about those plans but that the only effect of further announcements is to cause further disquiet and disillusionment. This Government has announced and is proposing to publish in the near future a White Paper setting out over a period of five years the capital expenditure programme and the targets which it is expected that State and semi-State bodies will achieve and the likely employment content of that expenditure. If we take the capital expenditure described as capital services in the Book of Estimates for this year it amounts to £11,700,000. Last year it was slightly more—£12,200,000 in round figures. Added to that we include the expenditure which semi-State bodies or undertakings like the E.S.B., Bord na Móna, C.I.E., Irish Shipping and so on, spend each year. Then it is likely that you can get in round figures a capital expenditure of a total of anything between £35,000,000 and £40,000,000.
Each of these bodies spends a certain sum of money each year or plans to spend it. In addition, you have the direct expenditure under Government Departments, such as Public Works and Buildings, Agriculture, Forestry, Local Government, Industry and Commerce, and so on. If we take these various undertakings and segregate the amounts into annual rates of expenditure, the total expenditure will, on the basis of recent years' experience, amount to approximately for a five-year period, £200,000,000.
Undoubtedly taking individual State undertakings or taking the expenditure of individual Departments, some expenditures may not be completed as planned at the beginning of the year or even over a two or three-year period. Everyone is familiar with the factors which intervene and which cause, say, a lack of attainment in spending at the planned rate. In the case of Public Works and Buildings, schools that are planned may not for a variety of reasons be undertaken or the money may not be spent entirely within that financial year and a backlog may accrue.
Over the last seven or eight years public expenditure has increased but let us allow for the increase which has taken place, for individual variations which at times in respect of certain categories of public expenditure can amount to a considerable sum, and for the changes which are inherent, as some schemes are completed and others come to maturity. For the past number of years in relation to total capital expenditure, as distinct from expenditure on capital development programmes but including both capital development and capital expenditure, the total figure will run out somewhere between £35,000,000 and £40,000,000 and it is therefore illusory and will not achieve any worthwhile confidence to add all this up, put it into a White Paper itemised under the various headings and present it as a five-year programme.
It may look more attractive. It may cause a number of people to imagine that we have, or shall have, a plan that has not been available up to the present. But the net effect of all these plans and programmes is to confuse the people. We have had all these expenses up to the present and one of the criticisms made of the previous Government was that we had not solved, or had not provided, a remedy for the unemployment problem. Despite that large-scale expenditure, both by State and semi-State bodies, it was not possible to absorb sufficient numbers available for work into employment.
This Government, when elected, undertook—it was expressly stated in the first plan announced—that money would not be provided either through the medium of direct taxation or by borrowing. Now we are informed that it is to be secured partially by direct taxation and partially by borrowing either from home investment in Government loans or in loans to semi-State bodies; or, if that fails to provide sufficient funds, resort will be had to the new bodies, either the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund, of which we have become members in the last 12 months.
On another occasion, when we availed of the loan which was provided in the Marshall Aid programme, criticism was made throughout the country by the present Government, then in opposition, that we were placing the country in pawn. We rejected that allegation because we recognised that the work that was being carried out under the moneys provided by the Marshall Aid loan was work of national development. Projects like land reclamation, land drainage, afforestation and so on were projects of long-term development which would repay investment in them both in the short- and the long-term. If it is now necessary to avail of facilities provided by these international monetary organisations, I have no doubt that wisdom will ensure that the moneys will be used for development programmes, such as those already initiated, or on new schemes, such as an expansion of the eradication of bovine tuberculosis scheme, a scheme which requires considerable expansion.
One of the greatest deterrents to progress over the last 18 months has been the high rate of direct and indirect taxation. When this Government was elected they changed the rates of taxation in relation to food, petrol and oil. The result of these changes is manifested in the incomes as well as in the experience of every household in the land. During the period in office of the last Government the rise in the cost of living was far less steep over a three-year period than it has been since March, 1957. The consumer price index was 124 in May, 1954. It had risen by 11 points to 135 in February, 1957. It increased by a further 11 points to 146 in August, 1958. Food alone has increased from 102.1 in February, 1957, to 119.2 in August, 1958.
That particular increase was due directly to Government action. The cost of essential foods—flour, bread and butter—has increased because of direct Government action. It was alleged that these changes were necessary because the Government had to find money to meet current expenses. This year the current rate of expenditure shows no substantial change compared with previous years. The effect of Government action is that every section of the community is obliged to pay heavily in income-tax and rates and, in addition, is obliged at the same time to meet these increases in the cost of essential foodstuffs.
Simultaneously with these changes, we have the extraordinary situation in which wholesale prices for imports over the same period show a continuous drop. The index of wholesale prices as published in the Quarterly Bulletin of the Central Bank, Table XII, shows that import prices were 114.6 in March, 1957, and had dropped to 111.0 in June, 1958. At the same time, materials used in industry dropped from 107.3 in March, 1957, to 104.4 in June, 1958. Imports for personal consumption were 125.2 in March, 1957 and in June, 1958, 121.1. Can anyone explain why it is that the cost of living, the cost of essential foods, the cost of commodities in normal use by families and individuals, has continued to rise at a time when there has been a continuous drop in import prices and when the world tendency in relation to these commodities over the last 18 months has shown a marked downward trend? But the cost of living here has increased from 135 in February, 1957, to 146 in August, 1958. In relation to food alone it has increased from 102.1 in February, 1957, to 119.2 in August, 1958.
It is true that over the past year or so we have had the extraordinary experience, the impact of which will be felt acutely this year in the coming months, that, while paying less for home produced wheat, our consumers of bread and flour are and will be compelled to pay more for these commodities. We have the extraordinary phenomenon of national economic policy operating to give less to our own farmers for wheat on the one hand and for creamery milk on the other, and, at the same time, the price of flour, bread and butter is higher than it was 18 months ago and substantially higher than for the same butter sold on the English market. These changes have been followed by other consequential changes. Those employed in public undertakings received compensation for the substantial increase in the cost of living by way of the national wage agreement and these public undertakings, such as C.I.E., in turn have passed on those wage increases, or the greater part of them, as they had of necessity, to the travelling public. The effect of that has been an increase in bus and train fares. Those who are affected by the increase in the cost of essentials have to pay more for transport. Another substantial consequential increase has been in respect of the charge for accommodation in hospitals—from 6/- to 10/- per day.
If we compare the record over the past 18 months with the programme carried out by the previous Government, I believe that the results which had accrued or were in course of development indicated that we were proceeding on the right lines. During the period of office of the previous Government we had a capital expenditure programme which, up to the present, has not been substantially altered by the present Government. If anything, one of the criticisms expressed was that in some cases, if not entirely, the programme was somewhat too ambitious for the capacity of the country to raise the necessary finance and that, if anything, too much was being attempted together. That programme envisaged, directly by the State and by semi-State bodies, an expenditure of between £35,000,000 and £40,000,000 per annum, in round figures. It provided for development work under land reclamation, drainage, afforestation, housing, hospitals, schools, electricity supply, Bord na Móna, Irish Shipping, and so on.
While that was carried on, either directly by the State or indirectly by semi-State bodies, it was supplemented by the encouragement of development by private enterprise. Tax concessions were given to exporters. Grants were provided for the establishment of new factories. The fact that since the change of Government some of the facilities which were introduced by the previous Government have been continued or in some cases extended by this Government is an indication that there is general agreement on the aims and objects in regard to economic development.
The previous Government had endeavoured to secure, and were successful in securing, considerable investment from private sources. In fact, one of the most heartening indications in that sphere of activity was the decision of Messrs. Guinness to invest £500,000 in the two new briquetting factories and that investment has since been increased.
Reference has been made to other spheres of activity where development has taken place—the oil refinery, the development at Avoca, and so on. All these proposals, despite their value economically, have not so far achieved any worthwhile diminution in the substantial numbers seeking work and unless the programme announced is capable of providing additional employment over and above what would be normal under the programmes already in operation or planned, there appears to be little positive advantage in dressing it up and presenting it in a White Paper merely to indicate that the Government have some scheme which was not thought of in the past.
Some views have been expressed here to-day about the need for improvement in marketing methods. It is not sufficient to talk about an improvement in marketing methods and to suggest, as was implied, that the previous Government did nothing about it. We negotiated a number of trade agreements, especially the 1948 Trade Agreement with Britain, which was modified and extended as occasion demanded, and other trade agreements with European countries which, in nearly every case, provided substantially increased markets, substantially increased prices for Irish producers and exporters and worthwhile guaranteed markets which absorbed output from both farm and factory.
This Government stated that they had a plan for improved marketing methods. What has been the result of that plan? During the last year or so, farmers have received less for wheat, less for barley and in respect to the guaranteed price arrangement which was provided by the previous Government for pigs, which has contributed substantially to the maintenance of increased supplies as well as providing a measure of stability, one of the acts of the present Government last year was to alter that by a reduction of 5/- a cwt. That was subsequently restored but the reduction caused considerable dislocation, uncertainty and dismay to those engaged in the industry. I do not believe that it is sound marketing policy to pay less to Irish farmers for their wheat while at the same time charging Irish consumers more for bread and flour.
Under the policy initiated by the last Government we had increased exports of cattle and increased numbers to sell. If the cattle had not been there, they could not have been sold. We recognised that one of the long-term benefits of the land reclamation scheme would be to provide increased numbers, that, in addition, improved veterinary services would reduce losses due to disease and would result in increased numbers being reared to maturity and, further, that better feeding and so forth would increase the volume which, on the basis of then existing prices, would mean an improved return for those engaged in the business.
This Government alleged that costs would have to be kept down. I do not think that anybody, in any sphere of activity, a farmer, an industrialist, a manufacturer or a shopkeeper, can say that over the last 18 months costs have been any lower. Rates are at about the same level. In some cases they are slightly up; in other cases they may be slightly down. The cost of living, the cost of transport, the cost of ordinary day-to-day activities is as high and in some cases higher than it was at any time previously. In addition, we have had the experience I have mentioned of lower prices being paid to our own producers and higher prices being charged to our own consumers.
While prices of imported raw materials for industry, and of various other commodities, have been falling steadily, we have had this experience of continuous rising costs at home, both direct and indirect. If the announcements made recently indicate that the Government have a better plan, then it will be welcomed, but one of the causes of the present apathy and disillusionment, and the present feeling of insecurity, is this idea which has been spread throughout the country that Government plans can provide solutions.
In the main, quite a large volume of the employment provided, if not the greater proportion of it, has been due entirely to private enterprise, private individuals, individual businesses, individual shopkeepers and individual traders, and where individuals could not provide the services, the schemes or the facilities required, as in the case of reclamation, drainage, shipping and electricity development, it is only where these had to be undertaken by the State that the State stepped in, either directly under departmental aegis, or indirectly through semi-State bodies. In fact, the opportunities in future for further State intervention may not be as great because quite a number of schemes have already been completed, and, unless it is possible to develop them further along new lines, no further expansion can take place. Indeed, a number of them are no longer capable of expansion and some of them are in course of completion. In the main, much of the development work in the future will continue to depend, as it did in the past, on private investment, private enterprise and private initiative.
The present position in the country has been very largely created by the belief that the Government are complacent about conditions, that they are content to act merely on a day-to-day basis in the hope that something will turn up. They have given no positive direction or programme to enable the country to surmount the difficulties which at present confront it. Therefore, we believe that it is in the public interest that the motion and the amendment which we have tabled should be carried. On the basis of the present composition of this House, it is unlikely that they will be carried, but we hope by this debate to focus public attention on the problems, and thus stimulate the Government to effective action to deal with the many serious problems which confront various sections of the community, problems which have not been minimised by Government policy or Government action during the past 18 months.