Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 9 Mar 1961

Vol. 187 No. 3

Committee on Finance. - Motion by Minister for Finance (Resumed).

Mr. Kyne

As I was saying when progress was reported, due to the fact that it is not classified as a depressed area, the constituency I represent has failed to qualify for grants similar to those which would be given on the western seaboard, notwithstanding the fact that in that constituency only last week the chairman of the Irish Council of Trade Unions of Waterford, speaking at their annual election of officers, made the statement that within the past year over 4,000 single tickets to Great Britain had been purchased at the Waterford Station, and notwithstanding the fact that though those 4,000 people had left there still remained on the unemployment register practically 1,000 names. When you consider, as I have said earlier, that to that must be added hundreds of boys and girls of school-leaving age who have never previously secured employment, and who have not registered at the employment exchange, there must be in the city of Waterford alone a potential labour force of something in the neighbourhood of between 5,000 and 6,000 people seeking work that is not there for them. That position cannot be allowed to continue.

I was keenly interested in the remarks by Deputy Declan Costello in this debate when he expressed the view that now was the time for the Government to take some steps to secure through the Central Bank control over the activities of the commercial banks operating in this country. I would suggest in addition that control over the activities of the insurance companies should be a joint effort. It is amazing to consider that in the city of Dublin there are thousands of middle class citizens who have not taken advantage of the Small Dwellings Acts paying various amounts of money every month. In one instance it came to my notice recently that the occupant of a house was paying £6 per month—a very normal easy rent, as I told him. To my amazement I found that of that payment only £2 went to pay off the capital debt. The balance of £4 had to go to pay off interest on the loan.

That is a state of affairs that certainly deserves investigation and redress. I am aware that the Minister will tell me that if the grants from the Government, plus the supplementary grant from the local authority were not paid the Government could possibly afford to give a loan at a much lower interest. Whatever way the desirable result can be achieved, it is essential that cheaper money be made available to people desirous of expanding their business or doing worthwhile jobs like providing their own homes.

In connection with insurance activities, I was amazed to learn recently that in the case of a certain company covering third party risk on motor cycles when an owner went to pay his renewal premium he found not a 25 per cent., but a 100 per cent. increase on last year's premium. This was notwithstanding the fact that he was entitled to a no claim bonus and was not being penalised for any previous claim. It is essential that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should under the 1936 Act use the powers given to him to investigate and restrict these sweeping increases in something that is compulsory upon the people, if they are to comply with the law.

My main object in intervening in this debate is to draw to the attention of the House and, in particular, to the attention of Ministers what has happened as a consequence of the increases in payments under the scheme of contributory old age pensions and the other contributory types of pension, such as widows' and orphans' pensions and unemployment benefits. It has been stated in the Press and can be borne out from examination of the Book of Estimates that the contributory old age pensions scheme has relieved the Government of certain commitments. Not only are the Government relieved directly, but, flowing from an instruction of the Minister for Social Welfare, boards of health, or boards of assistance, as they were formerly called, have now taken advantage of the increase in pensions to reduce home assistance payments, blind pensions and disability pensions to dependants of recipients of contributory pensions. I am aware of a specific case where the increase secured by the man and his wife was exactly £2, representing 11/6d. to himself and £1 8s. 6d. to his dependent wife. He lost a sum of 35/- formerly contributed by the local health authority, made up of 18/- home assistance, 12/- blind pension and 5/6d. turf allowance. The total increase represented by the contributory pension is only 4/-, while the son of that worker has to pay a new amount of 4/6d. per week as his contribution to those increases.

The Labour Party keenly supported the Bill that provided increases in pensions because we believed in the principle that one should make provision during a period of employment to cover illness, unemployment or old age, but we did not foresee that, by regulation and direct instruction, benefits that formerly were contributed to by the Government and the ratepayers and passed on to the most needy sections of the community, would be withdrawn by the local authorities on the pretext that the contributory pension benefits so lauded at the time of introduction would more than compensate for what was being withdrawn. It is regrettable that the Government should have assumed that attitude.

I am well aware that the Minister for Social Welfare has said that that is not his province, that it is up to the local authorities to do what they wish in matters of that kind. That is quite so, but during the period of another Government, when it was drawn to the attention of the then Minister that local authorities were taking advantage of increases in allowances to old people, an order was issued forbidding the local authority to take credit for certain amounts of those increases. This time, quite the contrary has happened. Instead of such an order, a circular was issued directing the attention of local authorities to the fact that increases had been given and that appropriate action to reduce subsidiary benefits should be taken.

I appeal to the Minister responsible, even at this late stage, to review the matter and to consider issuing instructions that the benefits received under the contributory pensions scheme should not be used by local authorities to effect reductions in their payments.

Mr. Jones

The Book of Estimates on which the Vote on Account is based shows rising expenditure over the previous year. If the expenditure is related to our population, it means that approximately £45 per head of the population is required to administer the services in the coming year. Taking the number who will actually contribute it represents a contribution per head of about £80 to £85 a year.

When the Minister produces this Book of Estimates to the House, the House is entitled to expect that the Minister will justify the expenditure on the grounds that there will be increased production as a result of it and that some of the expenditure will reach rural areas and help to solve the problem of emigration and unemployment. In that case, the increases would be welcome. No amount of money can satisfy for the loss of our young people who are leaving the country permanently and flying from the land. The Minister might prefer to justify the increases on the basis of an increasing cost of living and the consequent increased provision that has to be made by way of remuneration of existing personnel.

The employment prospects were not touched on in the Minister's statement. The Minister did mention undeveloped areas, Shannon Airport, drainage, but he did not indicate what the prospects are of increased employment under those headings. If the provision of extra money for undeveloped areas had the effect of retaining people in those areas and providing employment for them, the expenditure would be justified. We had no clear statement in regard to the general policy on employment. Industry has been referred to and we would certainly welcome any expenditure which would bring industry where it is needed. In the constituency for which I speak, we are very interested in the fact that while neighbouring territories can obtain generous aid through the operation of the Undeveloped Areas Act, we, who have similar problems quite close by, cannot get the benefits of this legislation. There seems to be a concentration of industry in the larger centres of population, in the Dublin area and in Cork, and Limerick seems to have been left out. It is very strange that areas in Kerry and across the Shannon can qualify for these grants and that we in Limerick, with similar problems, cannot. Nobody will deny that it is rural areas that suffer most from unemployment at present and the only way, to my mind, that we can arrest the flight from rural areas is to seek new methods by which to keep the people on the land.

The majority of holdings in any part of the country are very much under 30 acres and in areas where land is poor, it requires more concentrated effort to obtain a living from it. Very often, the occupiers must fall back on part-time work, building and road work, to stay in the locality in which they were born. That tendency in Irish rural life at present is being impeded to a great extent by the mechanisation of which Deputy Booth spoke yesterday as a sign of progress. He said that anybody watching heavy machinery leaving Dublin for the country could not but be struck by the fact that there was money in the country for these things. A Deputy who followed suggested that many of these machines were bought on hire purchase. I do not rely on that argument, but since the Deputy mentioned this social revolution, I would say that it is a social revolution when people depart from their traditional way of life in the rural areas and flock to the cities and, in some cases, emigrate. The combine-harvester is an innovation perhaps but no indication of real prosperity which should be counted in terms of the well-being of the ordinary people.

It would be a completely false picture to think that in modern conditions everybody who has got machines can afford them. To my own knowledge, you may have one machine in a parish with an individual earning a living by moving the machine from one farm to another and doing work which now, unfortunately, is not being done by local labour.

The progress of mechanisation and the dispersal of labour are not calculated to promote the welfare of the country. It is better that we should keep families in the country on a reasonable standard of living and that such work as is available should be done by them rather than that we should export large sums of money for expensive machinery and export our youth to work in other lands.

I am very glad to see increased provision in the Book of Estimates for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. In the southern counties, this is at present our greatest problem and we hope the extra money will bring about a speedier solution of it. The prosperity of the dairying industry and the cattle industry depend on this. We should have liked to see some further provision beyond the eradication, which certainly does help, to encourage dairy farmers to get rid of their problems faster by means of a direct reward for the eradication of reactors from their herds by an increased price for milk. I know it will be said that this would mean an increase in the price of butter, but that is a problem we shall discuss on the Vote for Agriculture. I do not wish to elaborate on it now.

Forestry is another means by which employment can be provided in rural Ireland, but I notice that the Estimate is in or about the same as previously and, if anything, there is a very slight decrease. There is no prospect of increased employment so far as that service is concerned. An increase of about £140,000 is being made in the provision for arterial drainage. This is a welcome development and I wish the increase had been greater. It is one thing that we should proceed with as quickly as possible, as the machinery is available, and try to bring into cultivation lands which have been flooded. We have had disastrous floods in the past few years and I was on deputations to the Minister for Finance and the Parliamentary Secretary seeking speedy intervention to remedy the continuing losses the people of the areas concerned had sustained. I hope that as far as my own constituency is concerned there will be no jealousy in its regard by any other place. I hope that the scheme in so far as the two major rivers are concerned will not be long more delayed, that we will have some work on the Deale before this year is out, and that the survey of the Maigue, when it is completed, will be speedily dealt with.

There is another factor in regard to employment in rural areas. Again, it is linked with this question of the flight from the land. How can we operate a land policy in this country? It seems to me extraordinary that we should keep young men working on their own farms, serving their apprenticeship and attending local vocational schools and evening classes and yet when they have reached the stage of being craftsmen and are qualified to do any farm work —they are skilled at that stage in farm management—and when they apply for land, we meet them with the answer that because they have no land, they cannot be considered. That is something which should be tackled. We ought to help to re-establish these younger elements on the land.

The Minister for Agriculture the night before last told us that everybody knew that the land in this country was held by elderly people and that it was not passing on to the young people. It is an extraordinary thing that when we have land to give away, we exclude the younger people by the type of answer that, because they have not got land, they cannot be considered. This is something which would be a positive contribution towards keeping the younger people on the land. They should be given a sense of ownership and a sense of responsibility. They should be allowed to establish families of their own on the land.

Housing is a matter to which Deputy Booth also referred. I looked at the national figures. I saw a decline in the number of houses provided for in the Estimates presented here. I do not see any significant increase in the provision for my own area. There are many people waiting for houses. For some reason, this progress in house building is not as rapid as many would desire. As Deputy Corish said, it would contribute to even temporary employment, not to speak of solving the housing problem. I found on a couple of occasions, when I inquired into the matter, that as between the technical advice tendered at local level and that tendered at Departmental level, there seemed to be a clash which caused this type of delay. Again, I suppose this is something to which one might refer on the Vote for the Department of Local Government.

This Book of Estimates, which is the national bill, does not take into account the local bill. I have seen our manager's estimate for local services seeking a further increase in rates. That, of course, is an addition. In the ordinary way, when everything else seems to be going up, one would imagine that the provision of increased money, whether locally or nationally, ought to result in increased employment. Yet the figures published in the Statistical Abstract do not seem to give us any extra employment for this increased money. Therefore, the only other thing that can be assumed is that this increased bill is due to the increased cost of living and the increased cost of public services.

Deputy Booth said that the establishment of rural industries was the envy of Fine Gael. As one Fine Gael Deputy, I want to say I have nothing to be envious about. There has not been any industry established in that way in my constituency. I do not know of any. I hope that some of the grants will be made available in my constituency for the provision of work.

It is a fallacy to say that an increased demand for electricity and increased mechanisation is a sign of prosperity, to use his own words. This social revolution is something which has been coming for a long time and if people in the rural areas are now getting the benefit of electricity and of these other services based on electricity, then it cannot be held to be increased prosperity which is bringing it about. It is something which, in the ordinary way, the people had been waiting for.

If one type of new machine comes into a place, as, for instance, the combine harvester, several mowing machines go out of operation. The fact that we replace mowing machines by combine harvesters does not make any real difference so far as the people or their employment is concerned. Our main problem at the present time, to my mind, is that we have a declining population. That is a problem over which the Government in some measure have some control. Then there is this problem of emigration for which, in the ordinary way, no Government can provide a ready and quick remedy, but the Government can influence employment. In so far as they can influence employment to a large extent in the rural areas, then I think they should give a lead and try to keep the people on the land.

No matter how much industry we may place in towns, the successful operation of these industries depends upon two factors: One, the consumption at home and the other, the export market which may be broken into. If one should fail, then the other cannot long survive. If the products of Irish industry at home were to lose their markets as a result of the flight from the land, then we would need a large export trade to compensate for that loss. This year's Vote is something which will have been received by the public with very mixed feelings. As I said at the beginning, I do not think anybody would cavil if there were to be increased employment or the arresting of the decline of population, the flight from the country. In that case the moneys would be well spent but in the light of the circumstances as they are given to us at the present time, I am afraid we can only ascribe the position to fewer people having to pay more for somewhat the same service.

Minister for Education (Dr. Hillery)

Listening to speakers who oppose the Government, I am impressed by the fact that they do not seem to visualise for themselves any other role than that of an Opposition. They do not seem to be interested in preparing alternative policies or even in saying what better way there could be of managing affairs. It would appear that they are satisfied to seek to promote discontent and not attempt in a positive way to win public support for any policy or plan. Obviously many speakers feel that the first essential step in promoting this feeling of discontent would be to weaken, or undermine in some way, the public confidence which has been built up steadily and solidly over the past few years.

Therefore, I am not surprised to find them attempting to represent this national confidence as a false, baseless optimism, artificially built up by Government spokesman. In other words, there is a clever attempt to sow seeds of doubt, an attempt to weaken the confidence which now characterises the nation's activity. In that regard I should like to point out that the confidence and optimism do not result from the speeches of members of the Government alone but are buttressed by many statements of people who have no particular stake in the fortunes of the Government Party as a political Party. It is also worth pointing out that these statements which inspire confidence have been, as far as I have seen many of them, merely a listing of indices of economic activity, ungilded and without exaggeration. That an ordinary flat statement of the facts of economic activity in the country should be regarded by the Opposition as exaggerated, optimistic statements is an indication in itself of the very positive advance that has been made in a short time.

It is remarkable that Opposition speakers up to now have set a standard of perfection, if you like, by which to judge this Government. They overlook any progress that has been made and they look for the ills which still exist and the ones which have not been completely eliminated in a very limited period. If I might remind the Opposition their type of destructive activity requires far less time than the activity of rebuilding and putting a strong foundation under an economy. I would remind them also that, since nobody is perfect, the activities of the Government should be judged not against standards of absolute perfection but against the standards of any alternative Government that may be set up.

This Government took office in 1957 at a time when, for the first time since the war, there had been a drop in production, the highest unemployment figures ever, a serious imbalance in external payments and an absolute shortage of money, to meet not the great plans which we hear about, now they are in Opposition, but to meet the ordinary everyday payments of grants particularly, as Deputy Corry said, through the local authorities. Now after four years it is possible— and it is recorded this year—to show that the unemployment has been cut by 30,000; that the national income has increased far beyond what we hoped when we set out to plan what could be done; that external trade is balanced and, to replace the dismay and hopeless feeling which existed in 1956, there is an air of confidence in the country.

That is a comparison of the activities of the present Government with the activities of those who would wish to replace it. The achievements of the Government over the past few years remind me of Dr. Johnson and the performing dogs when he said, "The wonder is not that they do it so well but that they could do it at all". In this case, the wonder is not that we could do it so well but that we were able to recover at all from the activities of the Government that came before us.

Any branch of public activity at the moment gives us a good indication of the progress we are making. The spending and activities in the Department of Education are as good an indication as any. This year, for the first time, we have reached the level in post primary education where 70 per cent. of the pupils from 14 to 16 years of age are attending post primary education, full time. There are about 76,000 children in secondary schools; and the annual increase in the number in the secondary schools over the past few years is well over 3,000. This is a double indication not only of the increased amount the State is spending but also of the number of people who are willing and able to provide post primary education for their children.

For the past couple of years, the national school building programme has reached the record figure of 90, which is about double what it was four years ago, and, as I announced recently in another place, the Government have sanctioned the building of a science block at University College, Dublin. Science is so important at the present day that we must regard ourselves as fortunate in being able to afford the necessary buildings which are to go up. It might be noticed from the Book of Estimates also that there is a token estimate for science in the secondary schools, whereby I hope to give some assistance towards promoting a greater interest in the subject of science. I have not yet worked out the details of that, but the token is there as an earnest of what we intend to do. As I announced recently, I hope to introduce this session a scheme of scholarships. I am not saying it will be the miracle to cure all our ills but it will be a pattern for future development.

The money for all these activities has been made available by proper management of our affairs. None of these activities would have been possible four years ago before Fianna Fáil took office. Much of the extra money spent is on salaries, which again is an indication in one Department of what is happening throughout the economy. People are getting up to a better salary level without any marked effect in taxing the rest of the community. Any Department's activities can be quoted; I took the one with which I am familiar.

I recently attended a function of planting trees and I was able to tell the children at the school where the function took place that the State has this year hit the target of 25,000 acres planting of trees per annum and now holds 330,000 acres of plantation. It looks forward to the continuing of planting at this level. That, in itself, is another indication of the availability of money for investment and the wise investment of money in a field where employment will be made available and where there will be a good return for the money invested.

Speakers are inclined to overlook the bright spots. I was struck by the thought, while listening to the Opposition, that they become louder and braver, not as the next election approaches, which seems to be the obvious explanation, but as the last one gets further away. They are getting further away from their sins and their disabilities so their courage is returning.

Of the one dark spot mentioned, emigration, I should like to say it is a problem of which the Government are very conscious. People, especially people who regard themselves as permanent Opposition, are inclined to hand this big problem completely to the Government for solution. It is a national problem. On the economic level, emigration is due mainly to the movement of population which is occurring not alone here but in every country. People will not stay on the land now, unless the land can give them a standard of living comparable with what they can get elsewhere. Our people are leaving the land at about the same rate as people are leaving it in any country in western Europe. I think it is about two per cent. per annum. In any other country, as has been the case for many years, the man leaving the land could seek employment in one of the cities of his own country, but our people have had to go abroad to the cities of America or England.

There are very many other reasons for emigration but in that economic situation where people are leaving the land and looking for employment in the cities, the obvious answer is to make available here at home the employment for which they are looking. Government policy has been directed and most energetically directed towards the development at home of manufacturing industries to give that employment. The successful results of the activities up to now are quite obvious.

I should like to take up one point with Deputy Esmonde who seemed to think that factories are taken away from the east and encouraged to go to the west. I think the actual state of affairs is that any advantage going to a person establishing a factory in the west is just enough to balance the disadvantage of being so far from the centres of population and any other disadvantage which arises from being in an area specially marked out as an undeveloped area. In my own experience, one factory disappeared from Ennis and turned up in the east of the country, so the advantage is not always as he states.

Emigration is a movement of people. We will not get anywhere by wishful thinking or saying it should not happen. We have to accept it as such and deal with it as such, influence the stream as much as we can. In respect of those who are leaving the land and who cannot be supported on it, we must do our best to promote employment elsewhere in Ireland in manufacturing industries, and, at the same time, improve the capacity of the land to carry the population that remains on it, as well as improve the various facilities and amenities so that people will be more tempted to stay on the land.

Much of the Estimates expenditure under consideration is concerned with agriculture. The eradication of bovine tuberculosis is essential in order to keep that part of the farmer's income safe and to increase it. The progress of the scheme is a measure of the energy put into it by the Minister for Agriculture. I believe that in the middle of this year, there will be nine counties attested as free from tuberculosis which is a great achievement in organisation by the Minister and his Department.

Other money is set aside for fertilisers to improve the land, and further money is provided for a Milk Marketing Board and a Pigs and Bacon Commission, which will again help to raise the standard of the man working on the land.

That is not to say the problem of emigration is solved. That is not to say we are satisfied that it will be solved in a particular period. It is just to show we realise the problem exists and are doing something about it. We hope that those outside of the Government who have some part to play in stemming emigration, and who can play a part, if they wish to do so, will play their part. This is a matter for a national effort and not just for a Government effort.

There are many ways in which the private individual and individual organisations can help to stem the flow of emigration, or to divert the stream of emigration from the land towards work at home. We need the fullest national effort to achieve an end to the problem of emigration and indeed the other problems which face us and which will arise from time to time. If we are to have adaptable intelligence available to us to meet problems in a healthy way, we shall have to spend not less but more money, on education.

Education can no longer be regarded as something which the individual gets to promote his own welfare. Education of every section, and at every level in the community, must be regarded as essential to getting a complete national effort which will help us on the road to what we all want to achieve— national prosperity.

Mr. Sherwin

According to the Book of Estimates, there is an increase in our financial demand this year. I would not object if a few more millions were added, because I am very dissatisfied with the position of the people receiving public assistance, including the old age pensioners and those who received the increase in the contributory pensions. I do not expect them to compare exactly—there is no comparison—but they do not compare at all with statements made by unemployed people in Britain, that they do not need to work because they can get as much without working. No one can say that in this country.

People emigrate to get a job or for excitement, but I believe one of the main reasons for emigration is the miserable social assistance provided here. If people got a reasonable amount of social assistance, they would probably be satisfied to stay here idle, as it seems to me in many cases they are satisfied in Britain. It may be said that we do not want to cultivate that form of life here but it happens in Britain. If people have no work, they must get a reasonable income to keep them satisfied. If there is no work and they do not get a reasonable income in the form of social assistance, they leave the country.

I do not see any great chance of increasing employment in this country. There may be minor increases but there will never be substantial increases. Commonsense tells us that we lack certain materials available in other countries. We depend on the goodwill of other countries, so far as our exports are concerned, and I admit that we are worried about what other countries might do to keep us out of foreign markets.

Taking the long view, we cannot ever expect any substantial increase in employment. We all know that, with the march of time, there will be more mechanisation and that adds up to fewer persons in employment. The average person is out to make more money, even if he is making enough already. He will avail of any mechanisation or automation available and employ fewer people, so that whether we like it or not, there will be no substantial increase in employment. Therefore, there will be emigration.

If we want to keep people here, so far as I can see, apart from the efforts that are being made—I do not deny that efforts are being made by the Government; efforts to establish industries are to be commended but that is not enough—there may be one or two ways of doing so. With the introduction of machinery, working hours could be reduced, but we might then reach a stage where we were working only two days a week. Social assistance could also be increased.

With regard to the social assistance granted recently I thought the contributory benefits should have been at least 50/-. People with insurance stamps should get a substantial increase which would give good grounds for giving an increase to people in receipt of social assistance. So far as I can see, the Minister is afraid to give a substantial increase to people with insurance stamps in case he might have to give other increases.

I do not claim that I am a miracle man but I recognise what we are up against. I recognise the sort of country we have. We have no raw materials. The Minister should give a substantial increase—and should always aim to do so—to insured persons and persons in receipt of social assistance. Why complain about emigration? We will always have emigration.

I am concerned about Dublin. I do not profess to know much about the rural areas, although we all have some general knowledge of them. We are not ignorant of conditions in the rural areas but we take a more specialised interest in our own areas. There are about 15,000 unemployed persons in Dublin. I admit they are mostly of the labouring classes, but I foresee less employment for them. Because of the increase in wages last year, the whole aim of business people was to get in consultants to see how they could save money to meet that increase. As I see it, there will be another general increase shortly and there will be more efforts to lay off workers.

In my opinion, from the point of view of employment and emigration, the Government have failed. I will not say that it is their fault, but they led people to believe they would succeed, and that is where they are at fault. I suppose it is difficult to blame anyone in politics for making exaggerated statements: that is all part and parcel of politics. At my first municipal election, I remember people saying: "If you do not put us in, the country will be invaded." What that had to do with the election, I do not know. It was said, but certain people would say anything.

Exaggerated statements were made about the flow of money and the apparent prosperity in the form of facilities and amenities, but there is no plan I know of that will give any substantial employment or prevent emigration. I hold that the increase in wages of 10/- is now worth 2/6. What worries me in particular is that a high proportion of inferior goods is being sold. A short time ago, a woman I know bought an umbrella. After two days, a strut broke. It was repaired, but after two weeks another strut broke. The same lady bought a handbag. After a very short time, one side gave way and then the other side did likewise. There are many such complaints. People say they are being robbed in an indirect way.

Half the people who are considered prosperous are up to their eyes in debt. They buy everything on the hire purchase system and before a thing is paid for, it is worn out. It is obvious that things are not going as well as the Minister would have us believe. I pity not so much the worker who can always demand another 10/- as the people who get only 1/- or 2/- and who must bear the increases in the cost of living. For example, no allowance is made for increases in bus fares. I am concerned about these people not merely those on assistance but those on social assistance—and I appeal to the Minister to give them a decent increase. The cost of living has gone up substantially. Boot polish has gone up a penny and pins a halfpenny. Everything has increased in price in the past 12 months.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The principal statement by Government speakers from the Taoiseach down is that they deserve praise and credit for an improvement in the balance of payments and a considerable increase in our exports. Recently, the Bishop of Cork said that to tell people our exports have increased and our balance of payments position has improved is no solution of the problem in rural Ireland today.

I often wonder if this Government are in touch with rural Ireland or if they are dreaming of a fairyland of prosperity. Many speeches by members of the Government give the impression that we live in a state of outstanding prosperity. No statement by them bears any relation to present-day problems in rural Ireland.

Last year, our agricultural community went through the worst year for a century, during which their income dropped considerably. It was a year in which they had to accept less for their produce and to pay more for everything they purchased. That disastrous year, coupled with bad management by the Government has reflected far beyond the farm field. Its repercussions have been experienced behind the counter of the shopkeeper. Every shopkeeper in rural Ireland will admit that his takings are down but his bills are greater. A larger percentage of people are seeking credit and less cash is being registered in the till.

A great depression has settled on our farmers, farm workers and the ordinary labouring class, not to speak of those who can be described as belonging to the middle income group and the lower income group. Our people are finding it very difficult to exist. Naturally, their unhappy financial position reflects itself in less business in the shops and at fairs and markets. More business houses are available for sale but there is a lack of buyers.

Due to the new licensing laws and to emigration and unemployment, there has been a considerable reduction in the volume of trade in the licensed business. In one way, that may be no harm, but it reacts adversely on those employed in the various branches of that industry. Eventually, it will mean a reduction in employment.

Many small shopkeepers are being put out of business. They are being compelled to draw down the blinds or nail up the shutters permanently. That is a national disaster. The shopkeeper cannot sell his goods and, because of widespread unemployment, he cannot collect moneys due to him. The result is he has no alternative but to draw down the blinds, put up the shutters and clear out. There is practically no town in rural Ireland today in which there is not clear evidence that, since the change of Government, many people have gone out of business and that those remaining in business— country shopkeepers—are finding it increasingly difficult to carry on because of the burdens of taxation imposed on them by Government policy.

I want to protest against the manner in which the Valuation Office has left nothing undone, particularly in the past two years, to impose additional burdens by way of increased valuations on business people.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely this would arise more properly on the appropriate Estimate.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I was just making a passing reference to it in relation to the added difficulties which are driving people out of business. This is a time in which plans for the future should be placed before the House and it is only proper that the seriousness of the problem should be drawn very strongly to the Minister's attention. It is a matter calling for urgent investigation and particular attention. Let us hope this is the last year of office of the present Government, the last year in which there will be a Government operating a policy designed to obstruct and destroy progress in this country. I cannot understand why, on the threshold of a general election, the Government have not availed of this opportunity to present to the House and to the country more of their plans for the future because Fianna Fáil have been a quarter of a century making plans, talking of plans and pigeonholing plans.

We never see the results of these plans. The Fianna Fáil Party are great people for talking loudly outside church gates. They are a Party of loud-mouthed emptyheads. There is no comparison between the speeches they make outside the church gates and those we hear in the House. That is what is responsible for keeping tens of thousands of our people from exercising their right at general elections. The false promises made by them before elections have served to undermine the confidence of the people in this Parliament. It should be the duty of any Government to tell the people at election time exactly what they plan to do. But to tell the people what their plans are and then to take action in the opposite direction is something that disgracefully undermines the people's confidence in Dáil Éireann.

If we judge the Government on their conduct over the past four years, we have a very sad picture. They have fulfilled none of the promises made before the last general election. I have here a leaflet sent out by Fianna Fáil before that general election. It is headed: "Let us go ahead," and it was published by the Fianna Fáil Party at Upper Mount Street, Dublin, printed by The Irish Press Limited, Burgh Quay, Dublin. That was a plan for farmers, giving them an assurance of markets, access to credit and expert advice. Every farmer in the country fell for that plan.

On this leaflet, there is a photograph of a stack of wheat, a cow and a pig, which meant to convey to the farmers that they were going to get more for their wheat, more for their milk from the creameries and more for their pigs, be they grade A, B or otherwise. What has been the result? The Government's policy has driven farmers into workhouses throughout the country. It is responsible in the west of Ireland for the putting of galvanised iron on the windows and padlocks on the doors. In parts of the midlands farmers have set their land and flown to England looking for employment.

In my own constituency, I can remember farmers being told even after the last general election that they would get 82/6d. per barrel for their wheat. The next thing we saw was a statement saying there was no question of such a price being made. Then it was a levy on the farmers. They were compelled to pay a levy and a substantial sum of taxpayers' money was put into the pockets of the millers. This Government were more concerned with the millers who could write out a big cheque as a contribution to the Fianna Fáil organisation. The farmers could not. But the taxpayers' money went to pay the millers for handling the farmers' wheat, while the farmers' income was drastically reduced.

I represent a wheat-growing area and I know how disappointed the farmers were at the failure of Fianna Fáil to fulfil their promises. The farmers felt that when Fianna Fáil got back into office, they would restore the price of wheat to 82/6d. per barrel. But last year the price of wheat was reduced and, just a few weeks ago, there was a further reduction. The Government decided that the price for wheat bushelling 57 lbs. would be 70/- per barrel, a reduction of 2/6d. on the 1960 price; for wheat bushelling 55 lbs., 62/- per barrel, a reduction of 7/6d.; and for wheat bushelling only 54 lbs., 57/6d., a reduction of 11/- per barrel.

Were the farmers told before the last general election: "If you vote for Fianna Fáil, you will get a reduction of 11/- per barrel in the price of wheat"? Not at all. Through dishonest, insincere and foul means, they obtained the votes of the farmers by saying: "You will get 82/6d. per barrel instead of 57/6d. per barrel for your wheat." It may be noted that, in 1954, 52 per cent. of the wheat delivered to the mills bushelled under 57 lbs. and, in 1956, 36 per cent. bushelled under 57 lbs. Therefore, in the years 1953, 1954, 1955 and 1956, on average, a quarter of the wheat had bushelled less than 57 lbs. If the wheat in the coming harvest is to show the same average, there will be a reduction of from 2/6d. to 11/- per barrel in the price. Yet we are told by Fianna Fáil that the farmers are prosperous and have plenty of money to spend. How can any Minister for Finance or the head of any Government tell the farmer that his income is increasing and he has more money to spend, if he is also to be told that the best they can do for him in 1961 is a further reduction of from 2/6d. to 11/- per barrel in the case of wheat bushelling under 57 lbs. and, on top of that, a levy and a payment for the sack?

But the strangest thing about it was the manner in which that was put over on the public. There are many people who think that the Government's policy in regard to the price of wheat for 1961 is the same as last year. They have been led to believe it is the same as last year. The strange thing is that I think there are Fianna Fáil Deputies who have been caught up in this web, too, and who firmly believe the price of wheat will be the same for 1961 as for 1960. Of course, they may know, but being politicians and toeing the Fianna Fáil Party line, they believe that, if they tell the farmers often enough the price of wheat is not being reduced, they will believe it.

On 7th February this year, the Government Information Bureau issued a statement on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture in relation to the price of wheat. It is difficult to understand why there was only a brief announcement in the 10.15 news bulletin from Radio Éireann on 7th February in regard to the statement on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture concerning the price of wheat and feeding barley. No stress was laid on the fact that, in respect of wheat bushelling under 57 lbs., the price had been reduced. The Government did not allow Radio Éireann to broadcast in that news item the true position in regard to the reduction in the price of wheat; but if it had been something that would have brought grist to the Fianna Fáil mill, it would have been announced ten times over on the radio.

I would ask the Minister for Finance what responsibility the Government have for failing to communicate to the wheat growers the true position in regard to the price of wheat, since Radio Éireann was not allowed to broadcast the announcement in the form of the statement issued on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture by the Government Information Bureau. It is right to mention also that there was no mention of it in the news bulletins from Radio Éireann on the following morning, 8th February, or on any other occasion. There was only one brief announcement, that the price of wheat was the same as last year. No details were given of the reductions from 2/6 to 11/6 per barrel. To make the matter more serious, the National Farmers' Association held a meeting to discuss the statement made on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture. They also issued a statement and sent a copy of it to Radio Éireann. But that was never broadcast in any news bulletin, either.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Have the Government any responsibility for the broadcast mentioned by the Deputy?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

This is the Government Information Bureau.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy knows very well they have no responsibility.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

If the Government Information Bureau issue a statement on behalf of the Minister, surely the Government have responsibility?

Dr. Ryan

I saw a circular going out to every Deputy, county councillor and every paper, fully explaining the position, giving all the reductions and drawing attention to them.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Minister does not deny the fact it was not broadcast over Radio Éireann? Why was it not broadcast over Radio Éireann?

Dr. Ryan

I did not hear the broadcast.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Nor did anybody else, either.

Dr. Ryan

But I am not going to take the Deputy's word for it.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Minister could not have heard the broadcast.

Dr. Ryan

They can say what they like; nobody stops them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Government are not responsible for the type of broadcast.

Dr. Ryan

He knows that very well.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

No matter how cutely the Government try to do these thing, they can be found out.

Dr. Ryan

Of course, they can be found out when they issue a full statement for everybody to read.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

How many farmers got the full statement?

Dr. Ryan

You could not circularise every farmer, but it was sent to every T.D., to every county councillor and to every paper. Deputy Flanagan got it.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Yes, I am quoting from it. I put it to the Minister that there are many farmers who did not see that statement.

Dr. Ryan

How can we help that? We gave it to the papers and explained fully what it meant, and we gave it to Deputies and county councillors, and I am sure that at all meetings Deputy Flanagan goes to he explains it to the farmers.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I certainly do explain it to the farmers.

Mr. S. Browne

Fine Gael asked for this, from a Fine Gael dominated committee of agriculture in Wexford which passed a resolution to that effect, asking to have the growing of wheat cut down.

Dr. Ryan

Did Deputy Flanagan's Government explain fully about cutting the size of the loaf?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Of course it was explained.

Mr. O'Sullivan

They were not bringing it in over the Border from the North of Ireland.

Dr. Ryan

They cut the size of the loaf and said nothing about it. Everything in the North of Ireland is better than down here according to the Deputy.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Now that the Minister for Finance wants to talk about the loaf, suppose we talk about it for a minute. When we left office in 1957, the loaf was 9d., but as a result of four years of Fianna Fáil policy, the same loaf is now 1/3½d.

Dr. Ryan

Not the same loaf, because we brought back the proper size again. You took two ounces off it and said nothing about it.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I do not want the Minister to lose his patience.

Dr. Ryan

That is all right.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

In relation to the loaf, I want the Minister to bear in mind that while the farmer is having an 11/- a barrel reduction in his wheat next year, and nobody can claim responsibility for that except the Government, the price of the stone of flour when we left office was 4/3d. and today that stone of flour is 8/3d.

Mr. O'Sullivan

No change in weight there.

Dr. Ryan

I do not agree with that.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

No sensible person in the country would agree with the Minister.

Dr. Ryan

They would not accept the Deputy's figures on anything.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I will challenge the Minister to produce the correct figures for the price of the stone of flour. It is 8/3d. today, and the price when we were in office was 4/3d., and there were no two ounces off that.

Dr. Ryan

You could get eight loaves out of that, and seven now.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

In relation to the price of bread and flour, the Government had a plan before the last general election. They also had a plan in relation to the food prices, but the plan for food prices met the same fate as the plan they had for agriculture. It was dishonoured and disowned and disrespected the moment they got into office. It is only now, four years after, they are being found out, and that is why the Minister for Finance is so worried. He knows that he was a cog in the wheel of all this dishonesty, perhaps a big cog, and that the wheel is turning more and more slowly and the dishonest cogs are becoming more evident to the public today.

Dr. Ryan

I am honoured by the Deputy lecturing me on dishonesty.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

It is no harm for the Minister to get a lecture on dishonesty, because the entire policy of Fianna Fáil in relation to the price of flour and bread, and their agricultural policy in general, is based on dishonesty and deceit practised at the last general election.

Let us again probe into the statement I have read from the Fianna Fáil election propaganda, in which they said that an assurance of markets must be given to farmers and that, in addition, expert advice was also to be given to them. What did they do in regard to expert advice to the farmers? They completely finished the operation of the parish plan, which was designed to set up for each parish or group of parishes a proper advisory service for farmers. It had been set up and was most effectively working and giving good results in many areas, but because, like the Land Project, the parish plan had been sponsored by Fine Gael, the Government left nothing undone, through sheer spite, in their attack on the Land Project, and now there is less land being reclaimed than ever before. Section B of the scheme was dismantled, and, in addition, the parish plan was completely abandoned. Section B of the Land Project will be immediately restored after the next general election. It is only right that that should go on record.

Dr. Ryan

At £600 an acre?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

That is an undertaking given by Fine Gael to the electors and to the farmers.

Dr. Ryan

At £600 an acre?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Local Authorities (Works) Act and Section B of the Land Project will be restored —those are two undertakings which Fine Gael solemnly give to the electors in the coming general election. As soon as the general election is over and the new Government assumes office, one of their first steps will be to restore what Fianna Fáil took from the people. By depriving the people of the benefits of the parish plan, of the agricultural advisory services that were there for them, they were denying the farmers what they were entitled to, a proper advisory service based on the parish agent responsible for lectures, advice and everything relating to the promotion of agriculture in a parish or parishes.

Fianna Fáil were also to place at the disposal of every farmer, according to their undertaking at the last general election, access to credit. Did they get it? What new credit facilities are available to the farmers since the Government took office?

Dr. Ryan

Four times as many.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Not at all. Nobody believes that.

Dr. Ryan

You do not, of course.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Everybody knows today that there is less money available to assist the farmers in the purchase of land, the securing of machinery or in any other way. The facts are that, at the last general election, the farmers were led to believe that the moment there was a change of Government, they would have nothing to do but to make application to the Agricultural Credit Corporation and cheques would be coming out to them at an express rate, but that is not the position. I cannot see in rural Ireland where the big volume of money is to assist people to purchase livestock, to re-seed their lands and to obtain supplies of fertiliser. I want to assure the Minister for Finance and the House that there are many farmers in rural Ireland today who were led to believe that, through Fianna Fáil policy, credit facilities would be made available to them, but they have now discovered that, in addition to the many other promises made, the promise of credit for small farmers was only another votecatcher, a promise designed to deceive the people.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 14th March, 1961.