This is the 21st year of Government of the Fianna Fáil Party and I suppose, like many ordinary people of 21 years of age, they are inclined to settle down and to forget the jousting and the give and take days of their teens or even of their early childhood. From the speech the Taoiseach made here last Thursday, it seems that he wants us now to forget the rompings of his teens or the misdemeanours of his early childhood in politics.
The Taoiseach reprimands the Opposition about the type of speeches they have made on this Budget. He seems to feel very sorry for himself and to resent any sort of criticism. I do not take any exception to the type of speech made by Deputy Haughey, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Justice. He presented one side of the picture as it appeared to him. It has often been said of politicians that they want to have things two ways. The Taoiseach seems to want them only the one way. He wants us as the Opposition to support what he believes are the good things done by the Government. I do not think that is the role of an Opposition. I do not think it is the definition of "Opposition" that the Taoiseach gave himself when he was the Deputy Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party on this side of the House. I remember that on one occasion—I mentioned this before—he said it was not the duty of the Opposition to provide solutions for the Government. It was not the duty of an Opposition to tell the Government what policy they, if in Government, would implement. It was the duty of the Opposition to be watch dogs and to criticise where they thought criticism was justified.
Deputy Haughey also said he was surprised there was so little reference to the Budget itself. I do not know whether or not Deputy Haughey was here last Thursday but I am sure he read the Taoiseach's speech. Can Deputy Haughey tell me there was any substantial part of that speech devoted to the Budget proposals? In one short column the Taoiseach talked about the main provisions of the Budget and then he went on to talk about things he said we should not talk about, the cost of living, advances in social welfare, emigration, employment and unemployment. Therefore, whilst also talking about the main provisions of the Budget, we are entitled to talk about these things which the Taoiseach said we should not mention. Of course, he describes it as misrepresentation.
The Taoiseach asked for suggestions from the Opposition. He deplored the fact that he as Leader of the Government, is not getting any assistance from the various Opposition Parties. We are not so childish as not to realise that, invariably, if any solution is suggested from this side of the House, we hear the cry from the Fianna Fáil Party: "Why did you not do it?" However, that sort of interjection by backbenchers of the Fianna Fáil Party does not deter me and has not deterred me from saying what I believe should be done in certain branches of Government and in respect of some of the policies the Government are implementing.
On the other hand, we are entitled to take the Taoiseach to task and remind him how he behaved in Opposition. I remember occasions when, if not he, the members of his Party could be described as saboteurs when they cried very loudly that because foreign capital was being invited in here the then inter-Party Government were selling out the country. That sort of propaganda, which I will not say was designed to, but which might have undermined the efforts of the Government at that time, was freely spread throughout the country and freely given in this House.
The Taoiseach also said when he was in Opposition—he subsequently denied it—that he had a plan to create 100,000 jobs, over what period I do not know; he was not very specific. He talked about 100,000 jobs but he did not give us any details as to how he intended to implement that plan, behaving according to his own description of a good Opposition man, merely talking about and suggesting things but giving no details of policy in respect of them.
Deputy Haughey, the Parliamentary Secretary, spoke about the favourable position in regard to the balance of payments, the tremendous increase in national income, the increase in industrial output, the small but welcome improvement in agriculture in 1960 compared with 1959. He became very enthusiastic about all these improvements and described them as the greatest improvements that have ever taken place in any single year under any Government. It would be fair comment therefore to say, as I said last Thursday, that the Budget which was introduced does not reflect the enthusiasm of Deputy Haughey when he talks about the improvement in the balance of payments, national income, industrial earnings, industrial output and agricultural output. The Budget is not that good.
If all these things were as good as Deputy Haughey seems to believe they are, surely the Budget would have been more attractive to many more people than it has been? It has not been a spectacular Budget. There is nobody who does not welcome the increase, small though it was, that was given in social welfare. Everybody welcomes the remissions that were made in income tax. Apart from these items, however, what imagination was shown in the Budget? Does it demonstrate that the five-year plan has been eminently successful? I do not say it has been unsuccessful but has it been eminently successful? This is the fifth Budget that has been introduced by this Government and apart from a few things here which are of no great consequence it is much the same Budget as has been introduced in this House for many years back.
The Taoiseach says that it is unfair for us to talk about emigration, as he suggests we have done, as if it only began in 1957 since the advent of the present Fianna Fáil Government. We are all conscious of the emigration figures—at least I am and so is my Party—in the 'fifties and the big emigration figures after 1945 when the war ceased. If they happened to be bigger in 1955, 1951 or 1946, surely that should not prevent the Opposition Parties here talking about the recent emigration figures, the figures for 1960, and comparing them with 1959 and even with 1957?
It will be fair then for us when we go before the people to examine the record of the Fianna Fáil Government just as they were entitled to go before the people in February, and March, 1957, and tell them about our three years of office and about the two Budgets we introduced. Surely the Taoiseach and the members of the Fianna Fáil Party have not become so thin-skinned that they cannot take criticism? I know, especially on the hustings, they were well able to give back criticism and refute criticism. The Taoiseach adopts the role of a purist in politics. He wants everybody to pull together, to stand solidly behind the Fianna Fáil Party and sympathise with them in any difficulties they have. According to them, the Dáil was responsible for anything that was unsuccessful—not Fianna Fáil.
I remember in particular how the present Minister for External Affairs had so much to say from 1954 to 1957 about emigration. I read Deputy Davern's speech on this year's Budget about the decline in emigration. There is no decline unfortunately and surely this is the time to point these things out. The 1959 figure, the most reliable we have, puts the rate of emigration in that year at 38,400. In 1960 that had increased by something in the region of 2,000. Surely, therefore, we cannot say that the policy pursued by Fianna Fáil in those two years has succeeded in diminishing emigration from this country?
The Taoiseach does not have to tell us that there are many nuns and missionaries who emigrate every year and who contribute to the figures available. These people have been emigraing every year so we can have a good comparison in one year with the other, disregarding the Taoiseach's suggestion about the nuns and missionaries. This year we shall have the true emigration figures when the result of the census of population is made known. We shall then not have to depend on figures for people leaving by boat and by air and coming in by the same means.
Deputy Haughey talked about the improvement in the balance of payments, national income, industrial output, but the funny thing about this country is that the smaller the population, the more prosperous we seem to get. I do not know how the economists reconcile that sort of thing. Deputy Haughey is, I suppose, an economist. At least he is an accountant and he seems to be fairly well satisfied that as far as the economists and all the fiscal measures are concerned, this country is on the right road. How many of us in this House, particularly we in the Labour Party who do not pretend to be economists, can judge the country in any other way than by the outward signs?
The outward signs to us are the numbers in employment, the numbers who leave the country, the amount of income that goes into the household each week, the number of people working on the land or in industry. We can judge the economy only on figures like that and it is on figures like that that the Government will be judged. I do not think the Government's record in respect of employment is good. We heard the Minister for Transport and Power talking about the wind of change blowing through the country through the establishment of so many new industries but we must not lose sight of the fact that the Government's record in respect of employment in the last four years is not a good one.
It is no answer to say that the Government's record for the three years before that was not a good one or that it was not good in the three years before that again or in 1935 or in 1932. In the next election the Government will be judged on the figures for unemployment in the past few years. As far as the people of the country are concerned, the figures for employment have declined by 20,000 since 1957 and that decline was particularly noticeable in rural areas. We get no comment from the Taoiseach when we suggest certain measures to try to ensure that more people would at least stay on the land. I know that the Local Authorities (Works) Act has been trotted out in this House time after time. I agree it was valuable in that it kept Irishmen at home in this country.
The Local Authorities (Works) Act is not a fair comparison in this respect but it is no harm to mention it in this context. This year we are to spend £5,000,000 for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. Last year we spent another £5,000,000 to try to ensure that the cattle of this country would be rid of tuberculosis and thus qualify for the British market. It is a pretty big figure for a worthwhile project, but surely if the Government and the economists think it desirable we should spend £5,000,000 to eradicate T.B. in our cattle they should consider that it would be worth while to spend a similar sum, if not double the amount, to keep Irishmen at home?
We try to preserve our cattle trade with Britain but neglect to take the steps necessary to keep Irish flesh and blood at home and, no matter what has been said about the causes of emigration, the one big reason Irishmen emigrate is that they have not got employment. Many of them do it because they have not got security or continuity of employment or decent wages. Somebody has suggested in the past few days reasons Irishmen emigrate. They gave examples of people who had up to £8 a week wages but who had the itch in their feet and went off anyway. I can say that for every one of that type there are thousands who want to stay.
Surely there is work to be done in rural Ireland—in drainage, in forestry, in fishery development? Surely there is productive work of that kind that could be given in order to keep people at home? When one talks as I am talking now, people are wont to say it is so much preaching, so much moralising. Surely they must realise it is important to keep Irishmen at home in their own country, if not from the point of view that they are Irishmen, at least from the economic point of view?
The Government say they are confident that there will be established in this country many more new industries. On the other hand they have said our unemployment figures are down to the lowest in many years. We all know that in this figure of unemployed as registered there are many who are unemployable. I could not put a figure on them. They believe themselves able to work but, for various reasons, employers will not take them. Therefore, we are left with a relatively small number of people available in this country to be put into the industries the Government say will be established in the next four years. What happens then? Will we have factories with no men, industries with no Irishmen to man them? The flight from the land must come to an end. If our dependence is to be on agriculture we must have a minimum army of men to produce the goods, the crops and the stock with which this country is so vitally concerned for home consumption and for export.
When I suggested some time ago— or if I suggest now—that even £5 million or £10 million per year should be spent to keep men at home, it was said that I was advocating relief schemes. As I said before, there is much work to be done in forestry, drainage and fisheries, and even if that £5 million or £10 million were spent on those schemes, or even on relief schemes, it would be worthwhile in order to conserve workmen for the boom in industry which Fianna Fáil say is coming. No one will be more pleased than I and the members of the Labour Party, if that boom does come. As I say, we will find ourselves in a queer position if we are geared to and ready to deal with an increase in our industrial output, and have not enough men in the towns or the rural areas to man the factories.
I saw an item in one of last Sunday's newspapers—whether or not any credence can be given to it I do not know, but it was not denied — stating that some employing agent from Britain attended at, I think, Castlebar and recruited 117 men to go to work in England. Perhaps 50 of them were family men who had to leave their wives and children at home in order to go to some place in Britain to work on an airport runway or on road construction. Is there anything we can do to keep those 117 men at home? Surely it would be worthwhile to engage in the type of work which I described a few moments ago, to keep those 117 men from Castlebar in that part of the country? I cannot check on whether it was a fact that they were recruited and did, in fact, go but if it is true, it is a deplorable state of affairs that we should allow such an important commodity— one should not describe them as a commodity—such an important source of our economic development to be taken out of the country and no return given.
The Taoiseach said there were three main purposes in the Budget. That was his only reference to the Budget. He said there were three important features in the Budget and at column 833, volume 188 of the Official Report, he said:
Against the four per cent. increase in national income which was achieved last year we are now providing an increase of over five per cent. in the old age pensions and the other social welfare payments.
They provided 1/6d. per week. I remember that in previous Budgets presented by the Minister, when they had not the same boast to make about our economy, bigger increases than 1/6d. were given. When there was not such a spectacular increase in the national income, as it has been described by the Parliamentary Secretary, the Fianna Fáil Minister for Finance gave more than 1/6d. per week. That is why we are forced to say, from this side of the House, that the 1/6d. was meagre.
Surely the Fianna Fáil spokesmen have their tongues in their cheeks when they talk about a spectacular increase in the national income, a favourable balance of payments, increased industrial output and increased agricultural output, when all that means for the old age pensioner is 1/6d. per week. It has been so spectacular, according to the Parliamentary Secretary, that that sort of increase may not be achieved again. If Fianna Fáil behave as they did this year, the increase next year will be only the same or even less and the old age pensioner will get only 1/6d. or even less.
I suppose it is not fair to take him to task here now, but the Minister for Health speaking on the radio in connection with the Budget on Saturday night had occasion to say—why, I do not know—that during the regime of the previous Government, even though the price of cigarettes was increased, no increases were given in social welfare benefits. I think it was the Taoiseach who said across the House to Deputy Dillon last Thursday that they were the only Government who had done something for social welfare recipients in every Budget they introduced.
The Government from 1954 to 1957 introduced two Budgets, but in those two Budgets, they included provisions for increases in social welfare benefits. I do not want to go back but, very briefly, an increase of 2/6d. per week was given to the old age pensioners, which amounted to £900,000 for a particular year, an increase of 25 per cent. was given to recipients of social insurance benefits, and there was a vast improvement in workmen's compensation. I mention those figures merely to refute the allegation made by the Minister for Health in his Budget broadcast last Saturday night.
The Taoiseach said that social welfare recipients would share in the increase in the national income. I do not think that is good enough for the old age pensioners. We should be prepared to do a little more for them. The Taoiseach said that the national income in 1960 had increased by four per cent. and that he was giving the old age pensioners a five per cent. increase. As I say, I do not think that is good enough for the old age pensioners. At times when the increase in the national income was very much smaller, the Fianna Fáil Government and the last inter-Party Government gave increases that had no real relation to the increase in the national income. We believe—and I am sure Fianna Fáil must at some time believe—that there is a lot due to the old age pensioners. There is a big backlog to be made up so far as they are concerned. It is not good enough to have them trotting along with the increase in the national income. We should get them up to some sort of a decent standard and then link them up either to the cost of living or a general increase in wages or, if you like, the increase in the national income.
In 1954-55, the national income increased by £18 million and the Government at that time, because they believed it was his due, gave an increase of 2/6d. per week to the old age pensioner which more than compensated him for the increase in the cost of living and certainly was much more as a percentage increase than the percentage increase in the national income. Even though in 1960, according to Government statistics, the national income increased by £26 million, the best the Government could do in the face of such an increase was to give the old age pensioner an increase of 1/6d. per week.
The Taoiseach also talked about the numbers employed in manufacturing industry and said that, in 1960, the highest number ever had been attained. There is no point in having a row about this across the House or discussing it, but these statistics, prepared by the Taoiseach's Department, indicate that 1955 was the year in which the greatest number were employed in manufacturing industry. I shall not read out the figures. They are there for the Taoiseach or for any member of the Fianna Fáil Party to see for themselves. On the one hand, we have the Taoiseach accusing us of misrepresenting the facts, and then he comes into the House and glibly describes 1960 as the best year for employment in manufacturing industry.
Everybody welcomes the concessions in regard to income tax, but they do not mean a lot for the working man. I reckon that of the amount given by the Minister for the relief of income tax more than 50 per cent. will go to companies. There are many who will not benefit at all. A married man with £11 a week, not a fantastic figure, will save 4½d. a week; but under the concessions in regard to sur-tax, a married man with £3,000 a year will save something like £120 a year, which is not too far off £2 10s. a week. Whether or not the Minister and the Government think it desirable that the concessions should be made in that direction, I do not know. As far as I and the Labour Party are concerned, we would have much preferred to see the Minister give concessions in respect of the allowances—the earned income allowance, the personal allowance and the allowances in respect of wife and children. That would have been much better for the ordinary family man.
I do not know if the Minister, in making these concessions, had regard to the British Budget in reverse. They have taken the extraordinary step of imposing a tax on employment. This is designed to correct an employment situation the British Government do not like, that of full employment. A proposal was introduced in their Budget to try to ensure the most economical use of labour by industry. I wonder did the Minister for Finance, in framing his proposals, consider giving concessions to employers here in respect of the number of people they employed? The accent now seems to be on the establishment of industry and giving assistance for the building of factories and the provision of machinery. There is no reference at all to the employment content. The Minister should consider giving a tax concession to employers who take on as many men as they can, having regard, of course, to the economic working of their industry.
There has not been any comment from the Government on a suggestion I put forward here previously. As far as I know, if a foreigner decides to establish a factory here in the under-developed areas, he gets certain concessions, including the full cost of the factory and one-third the cost of machinery. He may also get an allowance for training employees and concessions in respect of electricity and rates. In many cases, the Government give what may be regarded as substantial amounts of money. Having given this money, what control have the Government over these industries? If a Belgian, a German, a Britisher or an American decides to establish a factory west of the Shannon and builds that factory with the financial assistance of the Government, we do not know how permanent that industry will be. We hope it will be permanent, but have we any assurance it will last any length of time?
I do not want to go into the trading difficulties in Europe at present and discuss "The Six" and "The Seven". We know, however, that the United States are prevailing on the British Government to join "The Six" and there is the possibility that they may do so in the near future. The trading situation in Europe may change to such an extent that it might be more advantageous for someone establishing a factory here to go elsewhere. While we welcome the idea of these people coming here, many of us have wondered why they want to establish factories on our western seaboard. Undoubtedly, the financial inducement is very good; but they must have some other reason, apart from the money. I do not believe that it is solely the money they are after. It was a factor in attracting them to Ireland, but we have no guarantee they will stay here.
I cannot offer a perfect solution now. However, in order to ensure that these industries will be firmly established, not alone should the Government give them financial assistance but there should be a Government representative in these factories to exercise some partial—not overall—control over them. Let him be appointed as a director. Let the Government themselves invest money in the industry so they will have some sort of administrative and financial control. Would it not be a tragic situation if in five or ten years' time, these industrialists should decide to pack their bags and establish themselves elsewhere? God forbid that day should ever come, but if it did happen, we would find ourselves with tens of thousands of Irish workers on the unemployment list again. The Government have asked for comments and suggestions. I do not want to be critical of their industrial encouragement policy. However, I should like to hear a statement from them that, as far as they can guarantee it, these industries will be firmly established. I know they cannot give an absolute guarantee, but some firm statement should be made on the points raised.
It seems to be useless to try to induce the Government to engage in the establishment of industries themselves. We seem to have come to a sudden stop in the matter of State-sponsored companies. We can quote the success of the Irish Sugar Company, the E.S.B., Bord na Móna, Irish Shipping, Aer Lingus, the Whitegate refinery and a few others. These were directly sponsored by the various Governments. They have been eminently sucessful and have given a considerable amount of employment. They have been responsible to a large extent for what is regarded as the favourable balance of payments position. If these industries have been successful, surely the Government should investigate what further can be done in the matter of establishing State industries to afford further employment?
Speaking about emigration I referred to agricultural workers and their wages. It seems to me that the wages of agricultural workers have lagged very much behind in the last eight to ten years. I have before me the book of Economic Statistics compiled by the Central Statistics Office and, on page 27 in Table 15, we are given index numbers of the weekly earnings of industrial workers in transportable goods industries and of minimum agricultural wage rates. The table shows that while industrial workers' earnings stood at 100 in October, 1953, and agricultural wages stood at 100 in July, 1953, by October, 1955, industrial earnings had leaped to 108.4 but agricultural wages had only risen to 104.9 and in December, 1960, industrial earnings were 142.4 while agricultural wages were then only 134.7. It thus appears to me that, as far as the agricultural worker is concerned, so long as he has to live with a situation like that where his income is not in line with other workers he will turn his eyes towards the towns or, if he cannot get employment there, he will turn them towards Britain.
I was pleased that the Minister in his speech spoke about the development of horticulture. I think this was the first major pronouncement or reference by the Minister for Finance or any Minister of his Government to the possibility of this development. I do not know whether the time is opportune for a further statement to be made about it, but we can recollect the complaint by the General Manager of the Irish Sugar Company to the effect that he was being restricted in his efforts to develop this industry. The small farmers would certainly welcome development in that respect, because there would be crops that they could manage easily from which there would be a very good return if the canning industry which has been mentioned is to be developed on any sort of scale at all.
Whilst not posing as an agricultural expert I had occasion to say on some Vote on Account a few years ago that I believed the policy in respect of the small farmers should be reviewed. The Taoiseach complained that he does not get many suggestions from this side of the House. I complained on that occasion that the bigger type of farmer could more readily avail of the generous assistance given by various Governments than could the smaller farmer who has not the capital or the initial moneys to put down to build his haybarn or his byres, or to engage in drainage in order to get the Government grant.
The man with capital, with financial resources behind him, can get everything. He can avail of every single thing from a grant for an incubator up to a grant of maybe a few thousand pounds for land drainage. The small farmer who needs it cannot get it. I shall not attempt to define what a small farmer is, because the small farmer in County Wexford might not be the same as the small farmer in Tipperary or Mayo or any other county, but every Deputy has his own idea of the small farmer and the Government could certainly average what he is. There should be much more assistance given to the smaller type of farmer than there is to the man with a large holding.
Nobody likes means tests, but it has often occurred to me that it is the poorer sections of the community to whom the means tests are applied. It is the widow with no means whose husband had no insurance stamps who is subjected to means tests. The man who applies for the dole is subject to a means test. The non-contributory old age pension is subject to it. In all these cases the applicants have to prove that they have got nothing before they can be assisted by the State, but in respect of industry or agriculture we do not find any means tests at all. In respect of children's allowances there are no means tests. The richest man in the country who has children qualifies for children's allowances. The wealthiest group who decide to build a hotel are entitled to a grant within the rules of the administration of the law. The farmer who has 2,000 acres or 1,000 acres can qualify to obtain a grant for an incubator or to build a cow house or a pigsty, but he does not really need it. All he has to do is to apply for it and he gets it.
I shall not say that that sort of money represents a substantial amount of the agricultural grant, but it should be devoted to the person who really needs it. I know farmers in Wexford struggling with 30 acres who cannot get all the grants they need to do the drainage necessary on their land and who cannot build the various sheds and outhouses and pigsties that they need because they have not the initial moneys to engage in that work, or at least they have not the full amount. Therefore I believe that as far as the agricultural industry is concerned we should do much more to help the small and middle-sized farmer who provides the goods for us. We say we depend on him and that he is the most important man, and if so we should help him more.
The Taoiseach mentioned as if it were a new thing that the Government were considering doing something to change and improve the educational system in this country. I understand that he cannot be here for every debate, and I believe that his time is much more precious than the time of all of us here, he being the Taoiseach, but surely that sort of reform in our educational facilities has been advocated for the last four years, for ten years before that and for ten years before that again? I have always felt, and have protested in this House, that not enough scholarships were being provided to allow children who would be regarded as very intelligent and clever to carry on their secondary education and if necessary to go into the university. We are very mean and niggardly about the amount we provide for education.