Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 20 Apr 1961

Vol. 188 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - Resolution No. 11—General (Resumed).

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

The day of the political Budget is played out. The people are getting wise to Budgets now. It is not one Budget we get in the year, but three or four. The people now take the Budget as a matter of form. There was a time when Budget Day was a big day in this House, and you could not get a ticket because the place was lined with people trying to get into the Gallery. It is not so today. The people are beginning to realise that it is all cod. The Budget means nothing more than putting up a jumble of figures. If there is not sufficient to carry on for the year, then three or four supplementary Budgets are introduced before the year is out. The Budget should be on a business basis and the people should know where they stand from year to year.

This is the largest Budget ever. I do not know whether the Minister is proud of that or whether he bows his head in shame. I feel he should bow his head in shame. We have the largest Budget ever. Twelve years ago. Fianna Fáil were saying that £50,000,000 was an intolerable burden for the people of the country to bear but we have long ago exceeded that sum. I would not mind that if there were some tangible results, but the fact of the matter is that we have the greatest emigration, the largest number of civil servants ever and the lowest number of agricultural workers on the land. Is the Minister proud of that? If he is, then he can be proud of his Budget. He has done nothing to alleviate the position of these people.

The Budget is not a very good election Budget because the Fianna Fáil back benchers were rooted to their seats when they heard it. There is very little justice in it. It is a Budget which Fianna Fáil will have to explain to the people and the people will not take it with a grain of salt. They will think and act for themselves before long. It is a comfortable man's Budget.

When I see any reliefs in a Budget I welcome them. We always welcome reliefs. While I welcome the 1/6d. for the old age pensioners, I deplore the fact that, immediately after announcing that, the Minister slapped on one penny on the ounce of tobacco and the packet of 20 cigarettes. He took back the 1/6d. almost there and then. That is a mean thing to do. If they give a man 1/6d. or 2/6d., let him have it. It should not be taken back from him in another way.

I welcome the relief of 8d. in respect of income tax, but at the same time I should prefer to see more reliefs going to those who need them. In this country we have many people in very needy circumstances, including the small farmers and the unemployed. Many of the people in the back streets of Dublin and the other big cities are in a dire plight because the cost of living has soared time and time again. In addition to that, any of them who are strong enough have to go to England to earn a living and keep two houses. As they pay heavy income tax, it is very hard to keep a house in England and Ireland and at the same time, rear a family. The Minister should have endeavoured to grant relief to those most in need of it.

I welcome any change in regard to death duties. I always held that death duties should be completely abolished. It is an unjust and unnatural tax to impose on people. When the head of a household dies, the family needs help, sympathy and relief. Instead of that, we slap a tax on to that man's little property before the family can get on their feet. This type of death duty should be wiped out because it is unnatural in a Christian country to penalise people who have already been sufficiently penalised.

I have been here a long number of years and I can state that this so-called orthodox financing will not do. For the past 25 years, I have seen the same old drift, with no attempt made in an ambitious way to control our money and use it in the interests of our own people. Can we not make an effort to stop emigration? Can we not make an effort to give work to those who are idle at home? I say we can. Can we not make an effort to control the movement of capital out of this country? It is unpatriotic to send finance out of the country. It is the duty of the Minister and the Government to provide some type of control—I do not suggest complete control—to ensure that any money there is to spare is spent in this country and in the interests of this country.

I should like to see small thrifty farmers and workers standing on their own feet as they did in the past. Even in the bad old British days, they were able to fend for themselves, although they may not have had as comfortable a way of living as we have now. We are too much inclined to allow foreign combines to take control of this country. As an example of that you have the flour mill combine which has bought up all the mills. It can exert pressure on the people any time it likes and can put prices up or down as it suits it. I want to see open competition with the smaller firms working and fending for themselves.

As far as my county is concerned, I have seen over the past three or four years a complete sell-out. Many of the people who are selling out their large holdings are up to their eyes in debt. There are too many taxes at the top. They get tremendous offers from people who buy their land by telephone at figures which stagger them. Where they might get £10,000 for their land, they can get £25,000 or £30,000 from across the water. Is it right that the Government should allow these things to happen?

People need not say that this is politics because it is not. I believe in the thrifty small farmer, the man holding 50 acres to 100 acres, paying his own way and rearing his family. If my county were properly worked, it could give double the production overnight. That is not the case. We allow foreign combines and limited companies to buy up thousands of acres of land and use them in their own interests. The result is that only one or two people get employment herding with a dog, while the small man has to take to the emigrant ship. Where land is offered for public or, indeed, private sale, it is the duty of the Government and the Land Commission to step in and give the market value and divide the land among the type of people who will best work that land. I do not want to see every Tom, Dick and Harry given the best type of land. I want to see farmers' sons and workers get that land and get the finances to stock it. If we did that, the Budget would change overnight. We are not doing that. We are playing to the big people all the time because there is money behind them. The Minister and the Government should be ashamed of themselves to permit what is happening in the country.

If that is allowed to continue for the next five years, what will become of the country? There will be a foreign monopolistic combine with an international set-up of financiers who will want to bleed the country white while the going is good. If times get bad, they will walk out and smile. Under the present Budget, the Government should have made a real effort. These foreign combines are able to get round the Acts. Not alone can they get round the Acts but there are Irishmen who tell them how to get round them. The Minister for Finance and the Government should do something about that.

My county is the richest county in Ireland from the point of view of land, and it would be of enormous value to the export trade if it were properly worked. There is too much of our land lying idle. There is too much of it waterlogged and undrained and all because the Government are not energetic enough to ensure that provision is made for people who will work the land.

We are not doing that. I see men in my own county with holdings of up to 600 acres of land. They are living comfortably on 200 acres and leaving the rest in a semi-derelict condition. There is no effort made to give that land to the right type of people. The flight from the land is a desperate thing. I know it happens all over the world but a small island like ours cannot stand it. We would not mind it so much if it were the old and the blind who were going but it is our healthy young men who are leaving and, once they get the taste of the bright lights in the big cities across the water, they would starve sooner than come back here.

That is why I had hoped for a Budget this year that would make some change in the old orthodox way, pleasing nobody but serving the national interest. I am not one of those who will refuse to compliment a Minister of the Fianna Fáil Party if he does something good in the national interest. I have been in this House a long time and I remember when the then Taoiseach replied to Churchill. I thought that was a noble reply in the national interest and I had the courage, because of that, to stand up on my own and pay him a compliment.

Deputy Manley asked the Government to cut out this narrowness between us. After all, are we not all countrymen, even although some of us come from the towns or the cities? Look at what is going on. It makes no difference to me whether the Minister for Finance is a member of Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil as long as he does the right thing by the country. The present Minister is long enough in the House now to realise that what we wanted 40 years ago is not being realised and that there is very little likelihood it will be realised in our lifetime or in the coming generation. We are not getting any younger and I for one would like to leave public life seeing the country making steady progress, and see our people living comfortably and thriftily in our towns and villages. However, that prospect is not there.

After 40 years unemployment is higher, taxation is higher, the population is smaller and the Civil Service is getting bigger and bigger every year. I know that all the experts will get up to refute the arguments I make with figures. I do not give two hoots about those figures. I believe what I see with my own eyes. I see the flight from the land is deplorable and the cost of living on the small communities throughout the country is becoming unbearable. Eventually only the strong men will survive. All that will be left will be large combines, big mills, large ranches and very little employment. That is what this Budget is providing for.

I would ask the Minister if he is happy about the Budget. It ran into dozens of pages when it could have been cut down to a half page for all that was in it. Of course we had to be very spectacular; we had to have our little glass of water every half hour to keep up our energy. The people are sick and tired of that. What the people want to see is that their money is used for the greatest good of the greatest numbers. What are we making of this country? It is becoming a nation of scroungers waiting to see how much they can get from the Government. What we want is a Government who will do the most unpopular things possible and be proud of it, if it does the nation some good. We did it in 1957 by putting on taxes on commodities coming in and it got us out. Fianna Fáil will not do it. All they will do is skulk over there and try and stay in power as long as possible.

This may be the last speech I shall make here and I would not like to retire without telling some home truths in the House. I have been telling them a long number of years. I am quite satisfied there are still a few of us who believe in an Irish Ireland, in which we control our own finances and where we would have, instead of an outflow of people, an inflow. I am not against foreigners coming in and investing their money so long as they do not run out again when things get bad. Neither do I want foreigners excluded from the land of this country provided there is some control over them and that a man cannot just ring up and buy an 800 acre farm in Meath without anybody knowing why or who he is.

We are told the Land Commission is nearly winding up its business. I would ask them to come down to my part of the country and see what is happening. There is plenty of land there to be divided but what is happening is that the ranches are getting bigger and bigger and the small people are getting poorer and are being squeezed out. We must have a new deal for our people. We are talking about improving our export markets but we have made no effort to extend them to the new countries of Africa. There is one exception of course, Arthur Guinness, a good businessman, whose beer is being sold in Nigeria. There is not a shop beyond there in which he is not selling his beer. I have a son beyond who is drinking it there after his day's work. It is the finest export trade in the world and it is expanding every day. He can do it because he has the business technique.

There is no business technique in the Fianna Fáil Government. Go down to Arthur Guinness and put 70 or 80 boys down there for five years as apprentices and find out how to find markets. Now he is going to start a big lager industry in Nigeria. More power to him. That is the technique we should have in this country.

Jacobs can export their biscuits all over the world. They want no sops from the Irish Government. They are business people. They can open their markets in any country. What are we doing? We cannot even control the little Irish market in Birmingham, Manchester and London. We cannot sell our produce there because we do not know how to do it. We do not know how to package it and we do not know how to sell at the right price at the right time.

We keep fleecing the public here to pay all those heavy charges to sell our little surplus. It is a shame that the Fianna Fáil Government after being so long in office have not developed business techniques to open markets all over the world. There are dozens of openings but no effort is made. All we hear is that a committee is sitting. It makes no difference if it is a greyhound track that is being put up; Fianna Fáil control it. If it is a racing stud, Fianna Fáil control it. That is a narrow and a mean attitude. It will be like that until the Irish people fling out that type of Government where they should have been flung 20 years ago. You are mean. low, despicable. You are a Government that play-acted with the fortunes and lives of our people. You have made fools of the poor and rich men richer. Today, you are a rich man's Government. You are a conservative Government. You are trying to play a part. You try to say we were conservative.

We forced you to keep your toes to the Constitution, whether you liked it or not. You spent 20 years trying to break your own Constitution. You people will have to toe the line at every cross-roads and chapel gate for the next few months. We look forward to a welcome and a happier change in the life of our people. If we get rid of this blister of Fianna Fáil Government and Fianna Fáil taxation, our people will become wealthier and happier. They will then be able to say: "There is no fear in our hearts now. We are not afraid our land will be taken over. We are not afraid we shall not get a job. There are men in charge of affairs now who will see there is fair play for all."

What has been the position over the past 20 years? If you want to work on the road, to be a ganger, to be a rate collector, to be anything, what have you to do? You must bow your head and pay quietly into the Fianna Fáil club. If you do not, you are squeezed out. If you want to be independent in the Fianna Fáil ranks and to state your mind, what happens? You are squeezed out. That is what happened in my county. They squeezed out the only public man that Fianna Fáil had who was honest and straight enough to speak up against Fianna Fáil. They said, in effect, "You may try for Leinster House but we will never let you in there." The Fianna Fáil Party are a set of political humbugs and nothing more. That is what they have been over the years.

I get the impression that Deputy Giles does not quite approve of the Government.

That is a slight exaggeration.

I am not unduly worried about that. His disapproval is not based on fact in any degree. He has accused the Government of a refusal to do anything unpopular. At least in one respect I was in agreement with him because he stressed very strongly, and I think correctly, that a Government doing their job properly must be prepared to take an unpopular line at times in the national interest. I must part with him when he says that the last Coalition Government faced up to their responsibilities and took unpopular action which resulted in their ultimate defeat. I must remind Deputy Giles and other that the last Government were never defeated. They simply disintegrated because they had not sufficient cohension to keep together. What they did was to take certain action with regard to levies which had a catastrophic result and the whole Government fell apart. Then they left us to clean up the mess they had created.

It is hardly right on the Budget that we should spend too much time on mutual abuse. As far as possible, I want to confine myself to the actual Budget itself. I think this was a most disappointing Budget for the Opposition. It was quite clear from Deputy Sweetman's speech yesterday that he had prepared a speech in anticipation of a Budget which was not subsequently announced. I have a certain sympathy with Deputy Sweetman, a previous Minister for Finance, in having to compose a speech in advance without knowing on what basis it should be founded. It showed lack of political insight in that he quite clearly misunderstood what would happen. His speech yesterday can only be described as all sound and fury, signifying nothing. It reminded me of nothing so much as the man who took up the notes of a political speech after the speaker had finished and found at one passage a heavy "N.B." mark in the margin and underneath it: "Shout like blazes; argument weak."

Deputy Sweetman had no argument when he stated that the people would not accept the Budget. He showed he had cut himself off from reality. I presume he was speaking more for supporters of Fine Gael than for the population in general but, if the people will not accept the Budget, I sincerely hope he may have meant that members of the Fine Gael Party who are taxpayers will continue to pay tax at the rate of 7/- rather than accept a reduction to 6/4d.; that farmers who are members of Fine Gael will not avail of the new subsidies on fertilisers; that those members of Fine Gael in receipt of benefits from the Department of Social Welfare will continue to draw only their previous allowance and will not avail of the increase which has been granted. However, I think that is more than unlikely. Therefore, all I can do with Deputy Sweetman is to offer him my sympathy in the very difficult situation in which he found himself.

Deputy Corish was a bit shorter, certainly, but he misinterpreted the situation when he said that the only way in which the Budget could be summarised was to say it was a Budget which was produced in order to give an appearance of benevolence. I should not like to be taken as criticising the Minister for Finance but he did not give me the impression of being in a particularly benevolent frame of mind. He appeared to be trying to face facts in a realistic way and he was not prepared simply to distribute favours and reliefs just for the fun of it. That reminds me of an election slogan which was never used by Fianna Fáil but was used by Fine Gael. That slogan was "lower prices, lower taxes and better times for all". Some people seem to have forgotten that but I never will, because I think that shows Fine Gael in its proper light. At that time, and ever since, they have fallen far below the standard which Deputy Giles set for his Party in his speech here today. There was no question the, and there has been no question since, of Fine Gael trying to face facts. Before assuming office all they did was to promise people that they would campaign for lower prices, lower taxes and better times for all.

They promised fun and games for all, which was a completely irresponsible way for assessing the national situation. It was the carrying out of that policy which placed us in the position of having such a serious balance of payments crisis. If the last Coalition Government had not been so keen to encourage spending, to encourage more fun, we would not have experienced that crisis at all and certainly never to the same dreadful extent. The tragedy of that situation was that not only was unemployment at an enormously high level but the rate of disemployment was also very high. Unemployment by itself is a very serious matter; it is the situation where you have a supply of labour which cannot find jobs. When you find that jobs that have been in existence are closing down, when you find employees being redundant, as is the polite way of putting it—it actually means that employees are being "fired"—then a real crisis has developed.

That was the situation which did develop in 1956, as I know as a business man to my cost. I shall never forget the tragedy of having to cut down on members of my own staff, and I am sure they will never forget it either. The imposition of temporary levies at that stage did the most appalling harm to our economy and destroyed our own self-confidence. The public began to feel that we were incapable of running our own affairs, that we were the victim of circumstances over which we had no control and that the future was grim indeed.

It was in that situation that Fianna Fáil assumed office again. Looking back over it now, no dispassionate observer can fail to be impressed by the rise of public confidence, not only in the way which the public have subscribed to Government loans but also in the way in which private investors, both Irish and foreign, are now prepared to invest considerable sums of money in our national enterprises. I would not deny for a moment that some of the decisions of the last inter-Party Government were good ones. I think the incentive which was given to the development of the export drive was very well conceived, but it should not be forgotten that very few people apparently availed themselves of those facilities.

It was only when the country had once again assumed a high standard of stability that people began to feel that investment in Ireland was something well worth while. I would say that is one of the greatest contributions which this Government have made to the progress of the country, that they have restored public confidence not only in the Government, not only in our ability to develop our natural resources but also in our ability to plan, work, design and develop resources which are not native to ourselves and to do all these things not only as well but even better than they can be done elsewhere.

Morale is one of the most intangible circumstances which must be taken into account when dealing with difficult situations. Certainly national morale was at its lowest ebb in the concluding months of 1956 and in the first few months of 1957. Not only was that the case outside the Government but, even worse, it was the case inside the Government. It is an appalling admission of failure after three years of power when the Taoiseach had to go to the President and say that he could lead the Government no longer because they would not come with him and that he had not the power necessary to put his policy into effect. That is something a lot different from when a Taoiseach finds himself defeated in the House or in a general election but it is hard to have much respect for a man who has to hand in his gun simply because he has lost his nerve.

How many times has a Leader of Fianna Fáil done that?

I am not aware that he has done it so far.

The Deputy is not very long in the House.

That may be but I have never lost sight of events and I have never heard of it happening because there never was a case of a Fianna Fáil Government disintegrating. I have heard that, in the concluding years of his office, a Taoiseach may go to the President and ask for a dissolution on the grounds that he needs a bigger majority but no Fianna Fáil Taoiseach has ever gone to the President and said that the ship was sinking under him and that he would like the President's permission to go ashore before he got his feet wet.

There are three main points which were stressed by the Minister for Finance in his speech, the question of social service benefits, the question of additional assistance to the farming community and the question of additional incentives to productivity in industry. I should prefer to deal with this in a manner different from that chosen by the Minister. To deal first with social welfare benefits might give the impression that the Government have plenty of money at their disposal, money which they are prepared to dispense now to those most in need of it. In actual fact, the Government's policy has been quite correct, to the extent that the main emphasis right from the beginning of their term of office in 1957 has been to get the country on to a sound economic footing so that money will be available to help those in need. That is the way in which the matter should always be approached.

There is no question of benevolence in the reduction in the standard rate of income tax. The Minister made that very clear. Indeed, I felt there was still a hint of the mailed fist behind the remark that this reduction was an incentive to greater productivity and greater investment. There we see the contrast between the Fianna Fáil approach and the Fine Gael approach in particular. The Minister says he will reduce the standard rate of income tax in the hope that that will not greatly affect revenue; he believes that, if he leaves this money in the hands of the individual, it will be used wisely in order to improve the national wealth. It is quite clearly implied that if the money is not properly used, the reduction will be put back again in the next Budget. That is the right way to approach the matter. Tax reliefs must be used productively. If they are so used, they will be maintained.

There is no question here of lower prices, lower taxes, better times for all. We still have many problems to solve.

These problems, as the Taoiseach said this morning, cannot be solved simply by talking or simply by voting. There is only one way in which our economic situation can be made secure, that is, by hard, productive work. The Minister has decided, therefore, with the support of the Government, that the standard rate of income tax shall be reduced. I do not conceal my delight at that reduction. I think everyone is delighted. It will affect us all. It will be brought home to many of us certainly when our salary cheques arrive at the end of the month.

The second point, and it is just as important as the first point, though I put it second, is that some further assistance must be given to the farming community. We are constantly criticised as a Party who concentrate on developing industry to the prejudice of the farmer. I cannot see the justice of that criticism. At the same time, I would not agree for one moment with the Leader of the Opposition whose sole object appears to be to increase production by the farmers. The problem is bigger than that. When Deputy Dillon was Minister for Agriculture he tried to increase production and he failed, not through his own fault by any manner of means. He set out to drown Great Britain in eggs. That was a disastrous experiment. The bottom fell out of the market because of the policy of the British Government. That was something over which Deputy Dillon had no control. Increasing production does not mean that the farmer will get a substantially increased income. As farmers know only too well, there is always a danger in increased production, unless a secure and almost unlimited market is available. Farmers can do themselves great damage by producing too much, unless they can sell their produce and get a good price for it.

Not so long ago, I was talking to a farmer in County Tipperary. He has three glasshouses in which he grows tomatoes and on which he gets a very good return. I said to him: "You are doing so well, do you propose to extend your activities?" He told me he could not afford to extend. He could afford to build the glasshouses, but, if he increased his production any further, he would be over-producing and would therefore make a loss. But Deputy Dillon thinks increased production is the answer. Quite clearly, it is not. What we must do is give the farmers the resources where necessary and the encouragement and guidance which will enable them to produce at an economic price. By all means, let production increase, but let it increase to a proper economic level.

Every effort must be made to reduce the costs of production. That reduction can be achieved by a better use of the land, better grassland development, better breeding of cattle to ensure a higher milk yield, and so on. It is only by increasing the yield that we can reduce the cost of milk and the cost of butter and make the farming community more secure. That cannot be too strongly stressed. This Government has taken very definite steps to protect the interests of the farmers. In some instances, they have received nothing but opposition. The farmer's milk cheque is a very valuable part of his income. I am not a farmer but at least I know that. There was opposition to our proposal to increase the price of milk. That proposal was opposed tooth and nail by Fine Gael. In a matter of minutes almost, the same people were pleading on behalf of the farmer whose income was falling year by year.

It was precisely to deal with that situation that the Government increased the price of milk, with a consequential increase in the price of butter. Fine Gael like to divorce these two, though they cannot be divorced. They plead that the farmer should be given more but no one else should have to pay for that increase. You cannot give money that you have not got. No Government have any money except that which they collect from the whole community. It is arrant nonsense for Fine Gael to plead for more money for the farmers and, at the same time, urge that no one else should be asked to pay in order to provide that money.

So far as we can, we have tried to ensure that those least able to contribute towards an increase in the farmers' income will be compensated by an increase in social welfare benefits. Nothing could be fairer than that.

We are making sure that those who can stand an increase in the price of butter will pay so that the farmers' income may be restored somewhat nearer to the level at which it should be. Now we are going on with a further effort to increase the grant for farm building and further to subsidise the use of fertilisers, not so that we can merely get better production but more economic production.

All the time in our tax reductions and in our agricultural policy we are looking after the national interests and not a purely sectional interest. We are not backing industrialists against farmers or farmers against industrialists. We are backing industry because we believe it will produce employment and wealth, and we are backing farmers because we believe they will produce, possibly a lesser amount of employment, but also wealth from our natural resources. Having achieved a situation in which there has been a very large increase in revenue without any increase in taxation, in fact with a reduction in direct taxation, we are then in a position to be of some help to those of our community who are less well off.

In regard to the increase in social welfare benefits, we would all love to have made it more but it is no use just giving money away that we have not got. Under no circumstances are the social welfare benefits meant to represent the sole source of income of those who are receiving them. They can only be, as it were, grants-in-aid, contributions towards the running expenses of the cost of living of those who are unable entirely to support themselves. Those have been increased as much as the Minister thought it wise they should be increased. It would have been so much easier, for instance, for Deputy Sweetman if we had increased social welfare benefits by, say, two shillings or three shillings because then he would have had the joy of accusing us of a frankly electioneering Budget. buying votes at all costs regardless of the national interests or of our national solvency. How disappointing it was for him when he discovered that the Minister, even in an election year, was taking a very realistic view of the national position. There was no sign of any electioneering in this Budget, no sign whatever, and there was every indication that, so far as the Government could see, the problems facing us were still so serious that every effort would still have to be made by every member of the community if we were to make any progress towards their solution.

I was very glad that the Minister made some alterations in the scale of death duties. I have pleaded with him in this connection on previous Budgets and I am very glad to see that he has at least gone some way towards meeting the points I made, although I do not imagine that it was because I made them that he has done so. I think it was also made self-evident that the Commission on Taxation also favoured alterations. But in view of the fact that death duties still earn a sum of approximately £3 million, I can well see that the Minister could not afford to dispense with them altogether. I am inclined to agree also with the views set out in the booklet on direct taxation that death duties in themselves are of certain social benefit and prevent large fortunes accumulating in the hands of one or two individuals.

At the same time I have had experience of seeing small family businesses in very great difficulties on the death of the sole proprietor. I have also had experience in my own constituency of a very wealthy man, with a very beautiful house and with a large farm in County Meath on which considerable employment was given, having to sell out everything and go abroad taking all his assets with him, because he assured me he could not afford to die here. I think we are moving in the right direction now that we are giving some incentive to people with large fortunes to come here and to invest here and, although we do not like to be morbid about it, even to go as far as to die here. The main thing is that by their coming here and by the investment of their funds they will give employment. If we could make it more attractive for them to come here rather than go elsewhere it would be to our advantage. Therefore, the Minister has gone some distance in that direction although I think the maximum rate of death duties of 40 per cent. is still possibly on the high side.

Frequent mention has been made already in this debate of the flight from the land. The Opposition still insist this is something for which Fianna Fáil is primarily responsible. It would be convenient for them if there were any justice in that but unfortunately for them there is not. If we look at the figures given in Economic Statistics which has just been issued, it is of interest to compare the reduction in the number of males engaged on farm work during the three years of the inter-Party Government with that during the four years of the Fianna Fáil Government. During the three years of the Coalition Government the drop was 12,000; during the four years of the Fianna Fáil Government the drop was 15,000. That means that the average rate of reduction over the four year period is lower than the average rate of reduction during the Coalition period.

Looking at those figures, quite apart from who was in power, it is quite obvious that the reduction in the number of people engaged in farm work has been going on steadily for quite a long time. This book goes back to 1951 and it was going on then but it is quite clear that it goes back even further. We keep on stressing with every justification that this is not purely an Irish problem. It is a problem of economics affecting all countries exactly as it affects us. At least we have reached the point that the increase in employment in industry has at last balanced the decrease of employment in agriculture. As I have said several times before, on other occasions, when we came in we were dealing with a situation where the rot had set in. It takes a long time to stop a rot. At least we have got everything steady again and we have every hope and confidence that we shall not stand steady now and that, from now on, we shall be making substantial inroads on this employment situation generally.

Very often we are accused of being complacent, self-satisfied. I hope the Taoiseach's speech this morning will have given the lie to that. In case people should feel that we are apt to exaggerate the progress which has been made, I should like to refer to the statement by the Governor of the Bank of Ireland to the General Court of Proprietors which was held at the Bank of Ireland on 31st January, 1961. I do not think anyone would feel that the Governor and Proprietors of the Bank of Ireland were simply "Yes-men" of the Fianna Fáil Party. We do not appoint them or select them. We do not even know their politics. It is highly unlikely that they would all have the same political views. In his report, the Governor states:

It seems likely that 1960 will show a surplus in the Balance of Payments which would be a gratifying sign of the increasing power of the economy to pay its way.

He was slightly out on that. We did not quite show a surplus but the deficit was negligible, but he does refer to the increasing power of the economy to pay its way. Then he continues:

An outstanding feature of the increase in exports has been the marked expansion in the sale of manufactured goods abroad which is a new and welcome feature of the trade returns, and has only been achieved by most careful and detailed examination of the requirements of export markets.

Perhaps the most satisfying factor of the situation is that almost every category of production contributed to the increase in exports.

In case I might have appeared to exaggerate on the question of general public confidence in the Government, I should like also to refer to the same report by the Governor of the Bank of Ireland who refers to the Exchequer Stock in this way:

The issue of £15,000,000 6% Exchequer Stock 1980/85 at £99 per cent. was very well received. The list of applications was opened on Monday, 31st October, and was closed on the following Wednesday with an over-subscription of £3,075,160.

I presume the Governor of the Bank of Ireland knows what he is talking about. If we said that the Exchequer Stock issue was over-subscribed, we would be accused of dishonesty, of twisting the facts and of all sorts of skulduggery but I think we may rely on the Governor of the Bank of Ireland and he says this issue of £15,000,000 stock was over-subscribed by over £3,000,000. People do not subscribe to a loan to this extent or; in fact, to any extent unless there is complete confidence in the Government who are to receive that loan.

It is difficult not to refer at this stage to the whole policy over many years of the Fianna Fáil Party in giving encouragement to native industry. We have heard ad nauseam criticism both from Fine Gael and other Opposition Parties of the tinpot Lemass factories, little shacks here and there sheltering behind tariff protection, completely uneconomic, completely unproductive, with no future whatever. It has been made perfectly clear that the Taoiseach, when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce, was absolutely justified in the policy which he and the Fianna Fáil Government had always adopted of giving every possible encouragement to native industry, even if it was starting only in a small way, because it is those industries which are doing most at the moment to affect our balance of payments position. The new industries which are now coming to this country backed by foreign capital are only beginning to go into production and it is interesting that a large proportion of our exports in industrial production still comes from firms which have been established here for a considerable time.

We are now seeing clearly the situation which the Taoiseach foresaw many years ago, that the economic strength of this country is not as stated by Deputy Dillon here this morning, mainly the agricultural sector because agriculture is failing more and more, not through any fault of its own, to provide the necessary employment for our people on the land. Agriculture by itself will not keep people there. We must have industries all over the country if we are to stop this flight from the land or even to cope with it to any extent. We are doing our best and have been continuing to do our best in that regard. The development of industry west of the Shannon has already had some gratifying results but to what extent that can go on remains to be seen. The most encouraging factor is that our home industry has shown itself able to compete in world markets, that our products are good, well designed, well made, well packaged and well marketed.

We do not for a moment minimise the problems which still exist. There is the very real problem of emigration, but I would stress again that this, at least, is partly due to causes other than purely economic causes. It is not now the case, as it was in the past, that people are emigrating simply because they cannot afford to go on living here, because they cannot get their income here. In many cases, people are going abroad because they feel that they can get more abroad. In many cases, emigrants are finding that they cannot get more after all or that the increased income which they may get as wage earners in Great Britain, for instance, is more than offset by the higher rate of tax and higher rate of insurance payments, not to mention the fact that most of the men who emigrate leave their families behind them and therefore have to pay for their own accommodation in Great Britain as well as for the accommodation of their families at home

It is becoming more clearly realised now—and I have had personal experience of men who have confirmed it from their own experience—that it is better to stay at home. Men are beginning to realise that even though they may earn only £10 a week at home and have a chance of earning £15 a week in Great Britain, the extra £5 a week does not pay them for being away from their families and the increased taxation and social insurance leaves them no better off. Employers are finding it difficult enough to get staff for new factories, new industries or expanding industries. It does seem curious with 50,000 still unemployed that that should be the case, but at least we have altered the situation where men were losing jobs here.

We have started the economy on the right road so that it is an expanding economy. We have restored the confidence of the people in themselves and in the Government. We have shown that when it is unpopular to act, as in the Budget of 1957, we are well prepared to be unpopular, and when it is very much in our Party interests that we should try to ensure in an election year that we go to the people with some tremendous benefits still uppermost in their minds, we have resisted that temptation and have produced a Budget which is realistic, which is sound and which is quite clearly designed only in the national interest. That is something which is not new for Fianna Fáil but it is something of which we are always proud and which we intend shall always be the case when we are in Government. It is something from which the Opposition Parties should try to learn because they have failed so often in that regard.

I would summarise this Budget, therefore, by saying that it is a disappointing one for the Opposition because it has not done any of the things which in their heart of hearts, for their own Party interests, they hoped it would do. This is a Budget which has been very realistic, very clear and very farsighted. It is one which will give the necessary incentive to individuals to invest more, to save more and to work harder so that they will earn more still and make their own employment more secure. I have every confidence that it will have these desired effects and that when after the next election a new Fianna Fáil Government takes over we shall find the national economy in a situation which bears no resemblance to that which caused the gloom and despondency of the early months of 1957.

Even starting with that advantage, I foresee that at no time probably within the next five or ten years will the pressure be let up. At no time will we be going to the people and saying: "We are going to give you lower prices, lower taxes and better times." We shall still be stressing the fact that hard work and saving are still essential and that we must put our economy beyond all possible danger, build up our reserves and expand our exports. All these things we are prepared and able to do. I am confident we shall do it and that this Budget gives us an added incentive. It gives an incentive not only to direct taxpayers but to indirect taxpayers, to the wage earners, industrial workers and farmers. If we cooperate, as I think we can and as I hope we shall, the next five years will show a record of achievement even better than the record which this Government has already had.

This is my first time to speak in Dáil Éireann. I take the opportunity to comment on the Budget which has been introduced and also to say a few words on behalf of the people who sent me here from Sligo-Leitrim. I was disappointed with the Budget. Knowing as I do the conditions throughout my own constituency and over a wider area, I would say that an offer of an increase of 1/6 to the old age pensioner is next to nothing. I have been a public representative for the past ten years and occasionally I have been approached by old age pensioners who, before things became even as bad as they are today, asked me if I could help them to get home assistance along with their old age pension because they were unable to live on it. That in itself is proof that 1/6 does not add very much to the means of those people.

I travelled quite a bit through the constituency during my election campaign and it was sad to see the conditions that prevailed throughout those two counties—homes closed and, where homes were not closed, in many cases nobody there but a few aged people. While the last speaker said that the people would go abroad and we would not be able to hold them if they felt, there were more remunerative jobs there, even though it might prove rather disappointing when they got there, I can assure the Deputy that throughout the two counties I represent there are no jobs for anybody. In most rural districts such as the area from which I come, there are three men employed for about nine months of the year. I can also say with the greatest sincerity that if there were employment for the small farmers in these rural areas, even at a lower figure than is paid elsewhere, these people certainly would not go. When we take up the paper and see that parents with a large family are on their way to England or America, it can be taken for certain that it is necessity that drives those people out, and when a home is closed very rarely is it reopened. It is often said there will come a change and those people will come back. I can see a tremendous change taking place before people are prepared to come back into rural areas, clean up a neglected farm, reconstruct the home and start where they left off. It could not happen.

I would ask the Government, if possible, to increase the road grants for my constituency. I have travelled on many bad roads and I would say that if I lived in any of these places I would be forced to leave. The roads are in very bad repair. It is not the fault of the county engineer, his staff or anyone else. It is due to the fact that the money is not there and without the money the work cannot be done. People are leaving and areas are becoming depopulated.

The valuation of the county is going down due to the fact that forestry is taking over. The result is that the rates are not coming in to the same extent as they were and the money is not there to make the roads. I ask the Government to make an effort to increase the road grants for Sligo-Leitrim if they want to keep the people there. I hear many complaints from young married men living on comfortable holdings who say that the roads leading from their holdings to the county roads are in a desperately bad condition.

The villages are having a very hard time due to emigration and to the high cost of living. Boys and girls from the towns and villages, and the surrounding areas, are emigrating because they can afford to buy only the bare necessaries of life. During my election campaign, I discovered that some of my neighbours could buy Irish butter across the Border at 2/6 a lb. People who keep eight, ten or 12 cows feel very disappointed at having to pay 4/7 a lb for home-produced butter, when they can go across the Border and buy it at 2/6 a lb. That is one of the things that is puzzling the people in Leitrim. They know it so well, because the Border is so convenient to them.

Millions of pounds are being spent on jet planes and, at the same time, boys and girls are emigrating, but they have to go by the ordinary boat. No one knows they are going, but the greatest possible publicity is given to people of wealth who can get someone to report on their comings and goings. I believe that our country should first be built up and, when it is fet that all our requirements are being provided for, then certainly millions spent on advertising our country would be well spent. We should not spend millions of pounds on rich people and forget the young boys and girls who are being raised by hard-working parents to emigrate as soon as they are 16 or 17 years of age. That is a sad state of affairs but it cannot really be denied.

If Deputies knew conditions in the two counties for which I speak, they would agree with me when I say that millions of pounds are spent on advertising, and on putting great planes into the air, for people who are kept well in the news, and the young people who are leaving the country are forgotten and the country being depopulated. That is a sad state of affairs and I do not see that it serves any useful purpose. The people with the money are being advertised and the people who really matter and who are an asset to the country are being forgotten. Homes are being closed and the lights are going out. That is causing valuations to go down, and causing the population to go down which is much worse. Nothing will compensate for the closing of the homes and nothing will compensate for the boys and girls who are emigrating.

I should like to refer now to the withdrawal of the Local Authorities (Works) Act grants from Sligo and Leitrim. Usually by October or November, the small farmer in the west of Ireland has most of his work done. He is not like the extensive farmer who can carry out his winter work with tractors and various types of machinery. The small farmer usually looks forward to a few months employment when this farm work is finished, his harvest is gathered and he has finished sending milk to the creamery.

Grants under the Local Authorities (Works) Act were the most useful moneys ever spent in this country. They gave employment and they gave the people to whom I refer something to look forward to. They provided money for improvements in drainage work, road work and many other schemes such as the reconstruction of bridges, etc., but that is all finished. The position has been created throughout the rural areas in which men are employed for nine months of the year —and sometimes less than nine months —except, of course, where a few thousand pounds have been spent on a road here or an extension there.

That is the position as I find it and, as I say, the people will be sadly disappointed in the Budget. Coming as I do from Sligo-Leitrim to represent the people who were represented by the late Deputy Flynn, who was a decent man and a very good friend of mine, I would ask the Government to increase the road grants and to restore the Local Authorities (Works) Act. That would have a better effect than what they are now doing in keeping the people at home and their homes open. If that is not done, the country will be deserted in a short time, no matter how it is advertised.

The Minister has brought in what can be rightly represented as a very honest Budget, and because it is an honest Budget, it cannot please everyone. During the past few weeks, certain speakers, for reasons of their own, have intimated and forecast that we would see a most favourable Budget, a Budget which would not press hard on any section of the community. If we were now considering such a Budget, the charge would be made immediately—and probably rightly—that it was an election stunt Budget. I must say I am glad that has not happened.

I think it is realised by most people that you cannot give relief to one section without taking money from another. Governments do not actually manufacture money and, therefore, what is given to one must be taken from another. If that were realised, I think we would have a saner approach to the question of what money can be spent. Personally, I would say, with other speakers, that the increase of 1/- or 1/6d. may seem somewhat small until one examines the position and finds out what that amount aggregates in the national income. The old age pension has increased during the Government's tenure of office for the past five years, from 24/- a week to 30/- a week, an increase of from £10 million in 1956 to £13½ millions in 1961. Looked at in that light, an increase of £3½ million to a very deserving section of the community is a fair fraction to take from the national Budget.

I find also, in regard to unemployment assistance, that where a man, his wife and two children were getting 38/-a week in Cork in 1956, they now will be entitled to 60/- a week. In addition to that, there is an allowance of 1/- a week for each additional child catered for in 1956. I find that a widow with three children got 36/6d. a week in 1956, but will now have 52/6d. a week.

I would be the first to admit that that is, perhaps, not sufficient for the weaker section of the community, but, in fairness, it must be said that it is as much as we can afford. It is not fair for any critic to say, as I heard said this afternoon, that the Fianna Fáil Government are interested only in the rich man and that Fianna Fáil is a rich man's Party. The history down along has been that Fianna Fáil have taken cognisance of the weaker sections also.

I am glad to say that my experience in my constituency is the very opposite of the experience of the last Deputy who spoke. In my constituency, there is a spirit of optimism and wellbeing. It is a part of the country that is benefiting from industrial expansion, and that is very evident in the atmosphere. There has been a tremendous change in Cork City and in parts, if not all, of Cork county in the past four or five years. I am very sorry if other parts of the country are not benefiting to the same extent. We must be realistic, however. It is very hard to expect the third or fourth son of a small farmer, a son who has received a sound education, to stay on a small holding when they can go into a neighbouring town. Last week, Deputy Sherwin spoke about the number swelling the population in Dublin. I take it most of them are coming from the rural areas. I believe they will go to where they can get better employment and living conditions. I have no solution for that until such time as the man on the land can earn the equivalent of his colleague in industry.

I welcome the Minister's added assistance to the tourist industry. I have long advocated that if an industry is bringing in between £30,000,000 and £40,000,000 to the country annually, and has a potential of increasing that by 100 per cent., it is worth spending a couple of millions on it each year. I do not know of any industry on which we spend so little and from which we get so much. The Minister is very wise in making the provision he has made this year.

Finally, I should like to compliment the Minister. I am certainly glad to be on these benches behind him and to be able to face the people in my constituency on the basis of the advances that have been made under Fianna Fáil during the past four years.

We had much discussion on emigration today. The Taoiseach referred to the Commission on Emigration set up by the Coalition Government, the report of which was published in 1954. I went through that report last week and I am familiar with some of the figures. It would appear from those figures that approximately 900,000 people have left this country since 1921. As was reported in the Press, the figure for the number of deaths last year was 32,658. In the same period, 60,730 births were registered, leaving the excess of births over deaths at 28,000. It would appear that in the previous year the figure was something the same.

You can get from that some idea of how many people are emigrating. Assuming that for each of the past 10 years the number of births over deaths amounted to 28,000, the total works out at 280,000. It is admitted that the population has decreased. Even the Minister himself stated in his Budget speech yesterday that when the latest census returns are published, they will probably show the population has decreased. The evidence in the report of the Commission on Emigration is that, notwithstanding the increased number of births over deaths, notwithstanding the natural increase in population, the population on the 1951 Census was approximately 130,000 fewer than in 1921. Assuming that the population here is 50,000 less than two years ago and add to that the increase of 280,000 births over deaths, and you get some idea of what emigration has been like over the past ten years.

It is obvious that something like 330,000 have emigrated since the last census and nearly 1,000,000 have emigrated since 1921. We do not have to guess about emigration. A total of 35,000 or 36,000 people have emigrated each year for the past 10 years and it would appear to have been worse in the past couple of years. This terrible state of affairs brings my mind back to the statement made by the former Taoiseach, when contesting the 1932 election. At that time, he expressed the opinion that this country could provide a living for 20,000,000 or 30,000,000 people. It is amazing that there could be such high hopes and to find now that the population is less than it was at the time of the last census, notwithstanding the increase of births over deaths. There has been a probable loss of 900,000 people since 1921 and a probable loss of 320,000 in the past 10 years.

As one Deputy mentioned, according to the census of 1951, 150,000 of the 500,000 population in Dublin were born in the country. I assume that the population of Dublin city now is near the 700,000 mark and, of that figure, you will find at least 200,000 were born in the country. That means that rural Ireland is not only moving out of the country but is moving into the city of Dublin. I can understand why the population of rural Ireland is diminishing. At one time the people were satisfied to exist. They were probably afraid to do anything else. They probably have few, if any, connections overseas, but now with radio, television, the popular press and emigrants coming back from time to time with plenty of money in their pockets, those people are not afraid to emigrate. It is difficult to blame them.

At one time, as during the famine period, they were all clustered together in one room. They got no money, except perhaps the price of a few cigarettes. They were prepared to live in rather miserable conditions but they are not prepared to do so now. They are not even prepared to live on the lower standard upon which they were living up to quite recently. The agricultural worker, if he works for his parents, might get 10/- but he is not satisfied with that now. He wants a week's wages just the same as any urban worker, or he wants to get something similar to what his pal who returns will have when he comes back at Christmas. You are not going to get people in this modern age to accept a low standard of living. A couple of pounds can bring them to Birmingham.

It seems that the people with means are doing a bit better but the rank and file of the workers are doing badly. In this Budget, there are concessions for those who pay income tax. The average person who pays income tax pays it because he has the money, but the fellow who has not got the money is not going to pay income tax. I am a T.D. but I do not have to pay income tax because I have nothing else. If I am not paying it, you can judge who will be paying it.

There have been various reliefs for people with money. We should compare those reliefs with the reliefs which people on social assistance obtain. I am particularly concerned with the people on social assistance. The Minister is aware that those people with contributory pensions got as much as 11/-. Their opposite numbers, those not in receipt of contributory pensions, are getting only ?d. Let us compare the ?d as against the 11/-. The Minister may argue that the people who get the 11/- pay for it but that does not disprove the fact that there is a tremendous disparity between the 1/6d. and 11/-.

I am prepared to accept many of the Minister's claims that there are improvements. I said that people will not be satisfied with buttons in their pockets. They want money. That is why they will not stay in rural Ireland. Unless we build up the country industrially and export, there is not much chance of a high standard of living. While I am prepared to compliment the Government from the point of view of industrial activity, I think the Minister, in view of his claim in regard to increased income and increased output, could have been more generous and given those people 5/- and not 1/- or 1/6d. It should be something substantial. It must be remembered that the 1/- and 1/6d. are mere pittances.

It may be all right to say that we have given so much in the past six or seven years. The Minister, however, should consider the increases which have come about in the same period of six or seven years. For example, since we gave the 1/- last year, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Justice brought in a Bill empowering landlords to increase rents by 12½ per cent. That means 1/- or 2/- and the tenants will have to pay it. In the case of those people who are in the hands of private landlords and, indeed, under the local authority and subject largely to differential rents, that 1/- is taken into consideration. For the Minister's information, the 1/- given to those contributory pensioners was taken into consideration. They were docked 1/6d. and 2/-. When the Minister talks in terms of giving 1/6. he must remember the additional costs of those people. Looked at from that point of view, the relief amounts to nothing.

Let us look at the matter of rents. Rents must go up, whether they are differential rents under the local authority or rents charged by ordinary landlords who have got power, where they are liable for repairs, to increase the rent by 12½ per cent. Only recently, there was an increase—it does not sound a lot—in meter fees by the Electricity Supply Board. That represents 1d or 2d. of an increase on those old age pensioners. Those people who have been given the 1/6d. Will have to meet the increased price of gas. The Minister knows that there will be an increase in the price which will mean 1d. or 2d. per week.

The Minister proposes to get almost £1 million from tobacco and cigarettes. Although those people may not have much money, they must have some little form of enjoyment, and the average pauper enjoys his pipe. No matter how such people work it out, they get their tobacco and that is an increase of another 1d. or 2d. a week. Then you must allow for the fact that there will be a general demand for wage increases. It is quite obvious that once one set of employees start, the rest follow. Once those increases are granted, it means that all sorts of increases are imposed. I am very fond of cakes. I do not smoke or drink. I used to get a cake for 2½d. but this will now cost me 3½d. When you add up all those things, you will find that the 1/6d. means nothing. I am putting it to the Minister that the 1/6d. is miserable.

There is one other feature of the matter of which the Minister may not be aware. An unemployed man with a wife and children will get 1/6d. for himself and his wife and 1/- for the first two of his children and 1/6d. for the others. Let us take the case of an unemployed man with a family of five, which is the average. They will get 9/6d. Is the Minister aware that two out of every three people in this category are assisted by the board of assistance? They will probably dock the very money they got when they get the 9/6d. They will be assessed by the relieving officer, who will say: "You got 9/6d. We are going to dock some of that." I want the Minister to keep that in mind and unless he gives an assurance that the relieving officer will not be allowed to dock that money, I am putting it to the Minister that this proposed increase will be a sham. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. Tuesday, 25th April, 1961.
Barr
Roinn