The Vote on Account affords the House an opportunity of surveying the general economic picture of the country, and of examining the situation in general. This Book of Estimates shows that expenditure for the current year, on both capital services and other services, totals £115.5 millions. Last year, it was £109.9 millions and in 1957-58, during the term of office of the previous Government, £112.5 millions. When the previous Government were spending that amount of money on capital and current services, they were criticised on the ground that they were squandering the nation's resources, and depleting the availability of capital for various capital schemes.
When this Government were elected, they withdrew the subsidies on bread, flour and butter and, as a result of those reductions, saved £6.9 millions on bread and flour, and £2.5 millions on butter, making a total of £9.4 millions. Allowing for compensatory benefits, which amounted to about £2,000,000, there was a net saving of £7,000,000. Now we find, less than two years after that money was saved, that the Estimates presented to this House are higher than they were during the term of office of the previous Government, when a total of £9.4 millions was provided for subsidising bread, flour and butter.
We are entitled to ask what is the justification for this increased expenditure? What improvements have been effected and what has happened to the money saved from the subsidies. It appears to have been spent. We find that as a result of the decision to withdraw these subsidies, the cost of essentials increased and the Government recognised that at the time, and granted an increase of 1/- a week to old age pensioners, widows and orphans and blind pensioners.
The Government at that time also expressed the view that other sections of the community should not ask compensation for the increased cost of living. It was stated that if it was in the national interest to save this money, the other sections, except the very weakest, should accept it as a contribution towards the financial requirements of the State. However, in a few months, various claims were submitted by different categories of workers, employees of public undertakings such as C.I.E., the E.S.B. and so forth, as well as those employed by private firms. A little later increases were granted to civil servants, the Guards, the Army and other State personnel, and the general pattern which was subsequently negotiated by representatives of trade unions and the Federated Union of Employers provided for a wage increase of 10/- a week to meet the increased cost of living, the increased cost of food, which was a result of the decision to withdraw the subsidies.
Now the effect of all that is being felt by the national Exchequer. Quite recently, the Minister had to introduce a Supplementary Estimate for portion of the year in respect of remuneration for public employees, and quite rightly their interests were safeguarded by granting them an increase in wages and salaries. Similarly, employees in public undertakings got compensation, but C.I.E. were unable to meet that commitment from their own revenue and they had to pass it on to the public who were obliged to pay increased bus fares in order to meet that increased demand.
Similarly in the case of different local authorities, especially health authorities who, faced with the increased cost of food and the increased cost of maintenance, had to charge more. The result is that there is not only a direct increase in the health charges from 6/- a day to 10/-, but, in addition, as a result of the increased health charges and the increased outgoings by the public health authorities, this in turn meant that rates must be increased as a result of those transferred burdens.
While that is true of those categories which were catered for directly by the State, or who were in a position to negotiate and secure increased emoluments to meet the rise in the cost of living, a very large section of the community received no other benefit at all. Retired persons, persons living on pensions other than the old age pension, the widows' and orphans' pensions and those I have mentioned, received no increase, although they had to pay more for bread, flour, butter and other commodities. In addition, people living on fixed incomes got no increase. People who were in receipt of income from investments or from any other source which remained static, received no increase in their emoluments. The effect of all this has been that, as a result of the Government's policy, the consumer price index for food increased between 1957 and 1958 from 109.2 to 118.6 and the consumer price index generally increased from 140 for 1957 to 146 for 1958.
While that occurred in respect of direct Government action, the import price index went down from 111.9 in 1957 to 107.0 in 1958. Some of those figures from the Economic Series are provisional and may have to be corrected later. While that occurred, the Government paid less to our own farmers for wheat, but charged more to our own consumers for bread and flour. For milk supplied to creameries, they paid less, while at the same time, the price charged for butter increased from 3/9 to 4/2 and subsequently to 4/4 per lb. On two occasions, the Government either saved entirely in the case of the last withdrawal of the subsidies, or as on a previous occasion, when the subsidies were reduced. On both occasions, the effect on the Exchequer has been completely nullified because of increased demands and increased expenditure directly by the State and indirectly by the other bodies I have mentioned. This has resulted in increased burdens, because of increased transport charges, increased health charges for hospital accommodation, increased maintenance charges in respect of those institutions and increased outlay directly on food as well as on the other items included in the consumer price index.
Therefore, having failed to implement the policy they set out to implement and having apparently realised that that policy, for which they secured a mandate at the last election, was incapable of providing a remedy, they directed the Secretary of the Department of Finance, in collaboration with the officials of other Departments, to prepare and publish, in a White Paper entitled "A Programme for Economic Expansion" and in the other publication "Economic Development", a list of the various plans and schemes—which, in the main, were initiated by the previous Government and which they recognised had achieved satisfactory results.
When considering this, it is well to see what was accomplished by it. The export figures for different years were given recently here, in reply to a parliamentary question. For 1931, they totalled £36.3 millions. For 1947, after 15 or 16 years of Fianna Fáil administration, they had gone up by just over £3,000,000 to £39.5 millions. But in 1957, after two periods of the inter-Party Government, which initiated a programme of capital development, which initiated the Trade Agreement of 1948, exports were valued, for 1957, at £131,000,000.
This White Paper, and the grey book, recognises the value to the economy of increased cattle numbers. It is interesting to see that, in 1931, we had 4.4 million head of cattle. In 1947, it was down to 3.9 million and in 1957, after the policy which was initiated had borne fruit, the number had increased again to 4.5 million. In the case of sheep, again there was a drop and subsequently a rise. The case of pigs was even more dramatic. In 1931, there were 1.2 million; in 1947, there were 456,900; and in 1957, the figure was back to 1,000,000. I quote these figures because they demonstrate what could be accomplished by an economic programme which was implemented in practice and which achieved important economic returns in respect of increased numbers of live stock, increased exports and increased trade.
When that policy was being operated, it was criticised by the members of the Government, who were then in opposition. While a change of place has probably meant a change in outlook, one doubts if the Government will be capable of implementing a policy which they previously criticised. As other Deputies have said, it is not sufficient merely to have a policy set out in a White Paper or a grey paper or a blue paper. One of the temptations to which a number of representatives of outside bodies have probably succumbed, having read this programme and having read the book on "Economic Development", is to make speeches, as speeches have been made by presidents of federations, chairmen or presidents of chambers of commerce, all lauding that programme as though it were something new.
It is only reasonable that none of those people, or few of them, could be expected to be familiar with the various details of Government policy or of national policy. When they see it presented in simple tabulated form, they welcome it as something they can read, examine and discuss. The fact is that, with few variations, this is the programme implemented by the inter-Party Government and this is the programme that achieved substantial results. But, however effective it was, remember it was criticised by Fianna Fáil when they were in opposition, and it was criticised by others as not having achieved the success necessary to produce a sufficient increase in employment or to reduce emigration.
Yesterday, the Minister for Health had the temerity to allege here that emigration had been reduced and conditions had improved. Whatever figures are available, I do not think it is fair for anyone to claim as a result of those figures that there has been any worthwhile change in the pattern. The recent Third Report of the Capital Investment Advisory Committee comments on the fact that the average annual number of emigrants in the last eight years, or so, has been about 40,000. The report goes on to say:—"These figures indicate the problems which beset this country." That period includes terms in office by both Governments, the Fianna Fáil and the inter-Party. Some few months ago, a figure was given by the British Minister of Labour in the House of Commons as to the numbers seeking employment. Between 1st January, 1958, and 31st October, 1958, 48,000 odd new employment permits were issued in Britain to Irish people seeking work there. The most recent indices indicate therefore that last year something around 50,000 emigrants sought employment.
We come then to the figure for those unemployed. There has been some slight reduction as compared with a couple of years ago, but, if one takes into account the increased employment as a result of the oil refinery in Cork, the Avoca mines project, the briquet-ting factories and other projects initiated by the previous Government, there is really very little change—very little change more especially when we consider the figures published in the Quarterly Industrial Review for December, 1958. The figures show that for the four quarters in 1958 the average for the total numbers engaged in manufacturing industries was 142,435 as compared with 145,159 for the four quarters of 1956. These figures prove that there has been little or no change. In fact, in respect of manufacturing industries, a few thousand fewer are employed as compared with two years ago. Emigration has undoubtedly brought about a reduction in the numbers on the unemployment register. The small increase in the numbers employed has reduced it still further, but, in effect, what the Capital Investment Advisory Committee found to be the position is still true. Large numbers are emigrating. The average number of persons unemployed between 1949 and 1957 was over 60,000.
As I say, the problem is there irrespective of what Government is in office, and both Governments have had the responsibility of endeavouring to provide a remedy for it. When we examine the matter at home, we have to take into account that under existing conditions in Britain employment opportunities are fewer now than they were a couple of years ago. The unemployment problem there has been giving more trouble in the past 12 to 18 months than it did previously and it is, therefore, more difficult probably for people from this country to secure employment there than it was previously.
One of the most dangerous illusions that can be created, and it is one that was created by the Government when in opposition and by others outside the House, is that Government action alone or Government policy can create employment. Neither Government action nor Government policy, no matter how energetically pursued, can, of itself, create employment. In the main, this is a private enterprise economy and, with the exception of certain State undertakings which cover certain sectors of our economy, certain categories of work or certain schemes which it is impossible for private enterprise to undertake or in relation to which private enterprise is unwilling to accept responsibility, any expansion in employment, any increase in the numbers of jobs provided depends ultimately on the creation of successful conditions for an expansion in the private sector of our economy. There are, of course, certain exceptions. There is the E.S.B., the Sugar Company, Bord na Móna, Aer Lingus and so forth. Leaving all these aside, any increase in employment depends on the successful expansion of private enterprise. With the exception of certain State schemes and local authority schemes in relation to housing and drainage, or other public undertakings, increased employment depends on an expansion in private enterprise, industrially as well as agriculturally.
One of the essential prerequisites of improved economic conditions is stability. Stability can be created by the assurance of guaranteed prices and by the assurance that economic conditions will remain unchanged, thereby ensuring a market for the goods or commodities produced or manufactured. A significant fact in that regard is to be found in agriculture. Leaving aside the question as to whether or not the price is sufficient, the fact is that because of guaranteed prices for milk and wheat, production increased.
So far as general stability in prices is concerned, the Government can do only a certain amount and can only create certain conditions by the application of a sound policy. One of the things which has caused a good deal of dislocation has been the rapid change on various occasions in the banks' approach to the question of credit. For two years practically, we have had a restrictive and conservative policy. Four or five years ago, the same policy developed. After a time, credit was made more freely available, but, as I say, within the past 12 or 18 months or two years, restrictions were operating again. Now we have the announcement that credit is freely available again. While it is desired that adequate credit should be available, these dramatic changes, and these repeated alterations between a restrictive policy and a policy of easy credit, create difficult situations.
One of the problems which they created before was increased imports. It is quite obvious that while it is not always possible to ensure that money will be spent in the way in which it is most productive, or most desirable, on projects which will be approved, nevertheless, the imports for the month of January showed a substantial increase in the trade figures. While it is admitted that a good deal of this credit is being granted for specific purposes such as the increased use of fertilisers or the purchase of foundation stock for increasing our live stock, in respect of cattle, nevertheless one of the results of that policy will be an increase in the import of non-essential or less essential commodities.
I believe it is important that the banks, in consultation with the Central Bank and the Government, either through the Department of Finance or whatever other Departments are appropriate, should endeavour to secure a greater measure of stability, a greater degree of uniformity in the granting of credit, rather than, on the one hand imposing severe restrictions beyond what is requisite, and on the other hand, the easy granting of credit, in many cases resulting in the importation of goods and the expenditure of money on commodities that are either non-essential or less essential.
There has been a good deal of talk by this Government in the past on the need for spending money on productive work. This White Paper and the talk of economic development indicate their recognition that the programme which was being carried out by the inter-Party Government was sound. If it is proposed to concentrate on worthwhile projects in the future it is to be welcomed.
One of the items of heavy Government expenditure which is less productive—which in fact is non-productive —is large expenditure on roads. While it is necessary that we should have reasonably good road facilities, expenditure on roads is unproductive and, for the size of the country, too much money is being spent. With the rapid development of machinery and heavy equipment in the last ten or 12 years, the employment content in road-making is far less than it was, so, from any angle, there is no compensatory economic advantage in heavy road expenditure. It does not provide employment commensurate with the investment because of the increased use of machinery. While it is essential to have reasonably good roads it does not directly, but only remotely, give aid to production.
I should prefer to see increased expenditure on land reclamation or on drainage. In that connection one of the worthwhile schemes which was stopped by the Government was the work proceeding under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. I do not deny—I do not think anyone on either side of the House would deny—that some of the money on some of those schemes may have been spent unwisely. In any scheme which involves public expenditure, some money is bound, in the nature of things—I do not mean that money was squandered by anyone—to be wasted because public expenditure is often more wasteful than expenditure by private enterprise or by individuals; but compared with expenditure on roads, money spent on drainage either on arterial drainage or schemes under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, acts as an incentive to production and is an essential requirement for increased production from the land.
One criticism that is sometimes made is that expenditure on the Dáil, on missions abroad, and so on, should be curtailed. I have no doubt it would be possible to work with a somewhat smaller Dáil, just as it would be possible to arrange in some cases for less expensive missions abroad, but it is wrong for anyone to create the impression that if we save a few thousand pounds on either somewhat fewer Deputies, or somewhat fewer missions abroad, that would solve our problems. In fact, I often think that those who make these suggestions are really covering up for their lack of a positive constructive programme, or a positive constructive suggestion, to deal with the economic difficulties of the country.
Undoubtedly, taking it by and large, there could be some reduction in our expenditure under those headings, but compared with the total national expenditure it is infinitesimal and would mean that, under no heading, would sufficient money be made available for any worthwhile scheme, and merely to offer these suggestions as they are offered sometimes by people who either have nothing better to suggest or who have not thought sufficiently about them, is wrong. Deputies on both sides of the House recognise that some saving might be made, but these suggestions will not solve, and do not provide a remedy for, our various problems. No one could imagine that any such reduction or changes could help in the solving of our problems.
The policy of the Government, having failed, as I believe, in respect of reducing expenditure, and despite the food subsidies, and the temporary saving effected by their abolition, merely had the effect of bringing about a further increase in the cost of living and once again generated demands for increased wages and salaries. The Government have now abandoned their own policy and, as a result of the exertions of the Secretary of the Department of Finance and other officials in collaboration with him, they have catalogued the various schemes which were either in operation, or initiated by the previous Government, and they are now published and adopted as this Government's policy. It is said that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery and, while we may be impressed by the Government's conversion to our policy, we doubt their capacity and ability to work a policy which they previously condemned.
It is quite wrong to imagine that any Government can, by itself, solve these problems, but what is wrong is that this Government, when they were in opposition, created the illusion that if there was a change of Government, the various problems and difficulties would be surmounted. They claimed that all that was necessary was a change of Government and that action would follow.
In the Budget of 1957, the Government provided a sum of £250,000 for market research and, after some time had elapsed, a committee was set up to inquire into it. I understand that that committee has furnished two reports, but so far these reports have not been published. It is difficult to understand the delay in publishing them, as the Government expressed so much concern about market research and the need for guidance for producers. It is important that the reports should be published quickly, and it would be quite wrong to create the same lack of confidence in this Marketing Committee as the Government were responsible for creating in respect of the Milk Costings Commission. I hope that these reports and this committee will not suffer the same fate as the Milk Costings Commission.
Undoubtedly, there is no confidence in the Government. The people have no belief in their capacity to deal with, and solve, the problems which confront the country, and one of the reasons for the lack of confidence is that, in the past, we had too much politics and too little statesmanship, plenty of impressive talk, and little action to remedy the economic problems. If recent events indicate anything, they indicate that political considerations are still dominant and that, instead of concerted Government policy being implemented by people capable of understanding requirements, capable of implementing a policy they believe in, this Government, as an excuse for their own failure have merely set out the various schemes that were initiated by the previous Government and hope, because that policy found general satisfaction throughout the country, it will solve the difficulties.
It may be, if that policy is implemented energetically, if it is implemented in the spirit in which it was initially undertaken, that all sections of the community and all sections in this House combining can secure the desired results from its being carried out in a constructive fashion, and consistently applied over a period of years. One of the deterrents to improved economic conditions is the sharp fluctuation, whether in economic conditions, in terms of trade, supply, or in market conditions. This programme recognises that the policy which was being operated was a realistic one, that it was based on the knowledge that improved trade could come only from increased production, that, in modern conditions, we had to produce and sell abroad, and all the nonsense talked in the past about economic self-sufficiency has been proved, by both events and time, to be clearly an illusion and that, in fact, the only policy is one that will develop bilateral and multilateral trading on an increased scale.
Finally, I want to mention the matter referred to yesterday in a parliamentary question—the fact that the Government have decided not to acquire an atomic reactor. I believe it is a mistake in present circumstances, when we have rapid developments taking place in scientific matters, when so many of our trained personnel, scientists, engineers and others, are looking for employment both here and abroad, that they should not have adequate opportunities of studying and working in the sphere of atomic energy. It is undoubtedly true that very substantial changes and developments are taking place in that regard, but the fact that these changes are taking place is no reason why we should isolate ourselves from the opportunities presented by the offer of this reactor.
These changes will continue to take place and the fact that they will take place is all the more reason why we should afford our engineers and scientists an opportunity of gaining the experience, knowledge and technical know-how which is essential in modern conditions for progress. For that reason, I hope the Government will reconsider that decision, and, while cost may be an influence operating as a deterrent, its acquisition at the present time, as compared with expenditure in other directions, could be a worthwhile investment.
