Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 13 Mar 1962

Vol. 193 No. 9

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

Mr. Cosgrave

I think it is generally agreed that the bill which has been presented to the House by the Minister is a formidable one. It is the largest demand ever made, and the rise in the Estimates by £16,000,000 over last year is, I think, the largest single rise in any one year.

When we come to examine the Estimates in detail, I think it is pertinent to inquire what general overall plan the Government have to meet the economic situation and to meet the problems which at present confront the country. It seems to me, having examined this Book of Estimates, that there is little evidence that the Government are alive to the needs of modern society and, indeed, with a few minor exceptions, the Estimates show little alertness on the part of the Government and little indication that they are preparing the country for the very substantial changes which will inevitably come about with the new developments, particularly in Europe.

The most striking change in the past few years has been the substantial rise in the cost of living. The consumer price index for February, 1957, was 135, and the latest figure, which was issued last week, shows that it has risen to 154, a rise of 19 points. I suppose at this stage the responsibility for that substantial rise does not matter a great deal, but nevertheless I think it is important to reflect on the decisions which the Government took after they were elected and which, to a very considerable extent, sparked off a rise in the cost of a number of commodities, and particularly food.

When the food subsidies were abolished, a number of consequential happenings followed: a rise in the charges imposed by the health authorities and rises in a variety of items, some directly and others indirectly affecting costs on all sections of the community. One of the contributing factors to the rise in prices and the increased charges imposed on many people has been the increase in the health charges. Formerly, persons entitled to hospitalisation services under the Health Act were charged at the rate of 6/- a day. That charge was increased to 10/- a day and, in addition, there has been a very substantial increase in the rates burden which has to be borne throughout the country.

The Health Act came into being as an act of political expediency. It will be rejected as an act of political embarrassment and a national liability. It is generally recognised that there is widespread dissatisfaction with it, that it is costly, inefficient and inequitable, that many who should benefit do not, and that some who were formerly entitled to free treatment cannot get these services any longer. I hope that the committee which is investigating the health services will bring in a report quickly and that a better service will result.

When this Act was introduced initially, it was claimed that it would not involve more than 2/- on the rates. That was only ten years ago, and today the rates attributable to the Health Act would average about 12/-.

Dr. Ryan

Attributable to the Health Act?

Mr. Cosgrave

Attributable to the Health Act.

Dr. Ryan

I will prove to the Deputy that it is under 2/-.

Mr. Cosgrave

I think a Question was answered some time ago which showed that it averaged about 12/-.

Dr. Ryan

The total increase in the health services rate is 5/9d.

Mr. Cosgrave

I think the Minister is wrong. I am sure it is more than that. I have not got the reply with me.

Dr. Ryan

I have the figures and I shall give them to the Deputy.

Mr. Cosgrave

In any event, it is a very substantial increase and, coupled with the other increases in rates, the rise in the rate demand throughout the country this year is of a phenomenal character. I was struck by the fact that the Taoiseach appeared to resent the criticism expressed by farmers and those who are affected by the substantial rise in the rates. The Taoiseach went on to refer to increases in wages and salaries and he said that he did not think anyone would oppose or criticise the payment by the Government of wage and salary increases to public servants. I do not think for a moment that anyone would object to that. In fact, everyone recognises that because of the rise in prices and the rise in charges for various services, all sections of the community who were in a position to secure wage and salary increases have secured them.

What we criticise, and what we are entitled to point out, is that this whole rise in prices and the rise in salaries and wages were sparked off as a result of the Government's decision a few years ago to abolish the food subsidies. That sparked them off and other factors have followed, such as increased health charges and the consequential rise in the rates, as well as in direct charges. One significant fact about the increases in wages and salaries is that they were granted in respect of those sections of the community who had available to them some bargaining power, and were in a position to secure them through arbitration and conciliation machinery as in the case of civil servants and other State servants, or who were in a position to make their case to the Labour Court, or directly to their employers by whatever machinery was available to them.

That is satisfactory enough in respect of the sections of the community who have secured wage and salary adjustments. However, also in the community are a very considerable number of people who have no such machinery available to them. They include pensioners of all categories—State pensioners, old age pensioners, widows and orphans, Garda pensioners, ex-Army personnel, retired teachers, and so on. Many of these people might be described as the weaker sections in the community. They have not been able to cushion themselves against any increase in the cost of living which, in the past five years, has risen 19 points in respect of items included in the consumer price index. Over and above that, a great variety of charges have increased.

Items not directly included in the consumer price index but which nevertheless impinge very seriously on many sections of the community have increased in cost. In addition, pensioners and persons living on fixed incomes have seen the value of their pensions and incomes reduced, over the years, to an alarming degree. Many people are living on accumulated savings: they now find it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. Food is dearer. Bus fares, health charges, electricity charges, postal charges and so on, have increased and, only the other day, we learned of a further impost in relation to postal charges. All these burdens have to be borne by fewer people.

It is the duty of the Government to explain why, in those circumstances, it was necessary this year to make such a substantial increase in the number of civil servants. When this Government were elected, they announced they had a plan to modernise the Civil Service, to reduce the numbers, to regrade certain grades, and, generally, to provide a more efficient and up to date service. I know from experience that there is a wealth of talent in the Civil Service, if properly used and directed. However, there seems to be no direction or leadership from the Government and there is an obvious lack of drive and initiative.

It is a matter of concern that, at a time when the population is at the lowest level in our history, according to the last census, it should be necessary to increase the number of State servants. What has happened to the plan announced by the Government when elected in 1957? On the introduction of the Budget that year, the Government announced a reorganisation programme. They said steps had been taken, there and then, to put it into effect and that further developments would be announced later. It seems to me this plan is like the plan to provide 100,000 new jobs. It was all right on paper, it was all right to catch the headlines for a time. Instead of 100,000 new jobs, there are fewer people employed now than were employed in 1956. The fact that there has been some improvement in the past year or so is lulling the Government into an attitude of complacency. Undoubtedly, there has been some improvement in 1960 and 1961, compared with 1957, 1958 or 1959.

It is well to know that, according to the economic statistics published prior to the Budget, the total number at work in non-agricultural activity in 1956 was 718,000; in 1960, the figure was 699,000. I understand there has been some improvement since, but complete figures are not available. Despite the reduction in the numbers in employment, despite the drop in the total population, and while there has been a reduction in the numbers on the unemployed register, these figures show that over the past five years 250,000 persons have emigrated in search of employment. The figures indicate that while those who are in employment secured, as they are entitled to secure, wage and salary increases, a larger Civil Service is required to administer the affairs of the country for a smaller population. That is a matter that requires some explanation and some defence. The plan which was announced, apparently, has not been made effective. In fact, it means that there are more civil servants administering the services for a lower population.

The Estimates which have been presented, while providing for wage and salary increases, offer little evidence of a policy designed to prepare the country for the new situation which is developing.

It has been recognised by many authorities that one of the prime needs at the moment is a better standard and a better system of education. While there is, in the Estimates, an increase in respect of wages and salaries for teachers, the grants in respect of pupils have not been increased. I understand from a recent reply by the Minister for Education that the matter is under consideration. It is now, I think, eight years since the capitation grants were revised and very substantial changes in costs have occurred in the meantime. Undoubtedly, there is justification for an alteration in these capitation grants to provide adequate fees and adequate facilities for those wishing to avail of higher educational opportunities.

In the developments which are inevitable in modern society, it has been emphasised over and over again that those people with the highest standard of education, culturally, scientifically, and so on, will secure the best opportunities. One of the matters emphasised in recent times is the need for more opportunities to equip students with scientific knowledge and all forms of technical training. The vocational education system has been one of the most successful schemes ever introduced into this country. The successes of the vocational schools, their value in cities and towns—indeed, in rural areas as well—have shown that the system has provided many people with further education who would not otherwise be able to continue their education after what, for most of them, is the normal school-leaving age.

These night schools and continuation schools have provided great opportunities and training of the best possible type. The development of the new European situation and, indeed, the fact that so many of our people are obliged to go abroad to seek employment are, of themselves, compelling reasons why the best possible training and facilities should be provided. Whether people are to work here or abroad, those with skills or proper training, those who are in a position to exploit the qualifications which they have will be those who have secured a good secondary education, or, alternatively, training at vocational or technical schools. It is for that reason I believe the importance of education in the national framework has not been fully realised.

It is not possible for an Opposition at any stage to suggest desirable changes in the Book of Estimates but from experience everybody knows that there are charges and items included year after year for various Departments which should be scrutinised to see if the proposed expenditure is justified or if better value could not be secured by expenditure in a different direction. If expenditure is giving value then everybody can support it. Nobody will quarrel with the statement the Taoiseach made that all are in favour of better services and no one suggests any curtailment of services, but it is impossible to scrutinise the Estimates for each Department regularly to see that no item of expenditure is continued which could be avoided or pruned or that no expenditure is incurred which could more profitably be incurred in a different direction.

I notice in these Estimates a very substantial sum this year, almost £500,000, for defence equipment. It may be that that is necessary to equip our troops going to the Congo. If so, it is probably reasonable enough. On the other hand, if it is not so, we should not incur heavy expenditure on equipment which is by any standards out of date or obsolete. Even across the water, we have seen where very considerable expenditure was incurred on defence equipment which had to be dropped and which involved very considerable losses. It is questionable whether we have not, so far as public expenditure is concerned, borne more than our share of the responsibility for ensuring peace and order in the Congo. We all agreed with the proposal to send and maintain Irish troops there but if, in addition to providing troops, we are to be saddled also with responsibility for equipping them, it is a matter which might well be the subject of discussions with the United Nations authorities to see if that responsibility could not be borne by countries larger and in a better financial position to do so. It is remarkable that others have defaulted in their payments while we and other small countries have not merely to carry our own costs but to purchase bonds in order to bear the burdens of others. However, there will be a further opportunity for discussing that. In respect of the estimate for defence equipment, unless it is absolutely necessary for operations in the Congo, benefits of greater value to the community would be secured by spending the money in other directions.

Two matters which have been discussed here in recent times and which the Minister for Industry and Commerce has refused to hold enquiries into are (1) the price of bread and flour and (2) motor insurance premiums. No matter how fully documented a Minister may be—no one questions the integrity of a Minister or his officials—nevertheless in matters which affect so many sections of the community such as the price of bread and flour and motor insurance premiums, a full public enquiry is the only form of investigation which will satisfy public demand.

I am strongly of the opinion that the full light of a public enquiry should be allowed to play on the prices of bread and flour and the cost of motor insurance premiums. It may well be that on investigation the costs or prices can be justified but those of us who, in the past, defended—as we have had to do when in Government—ministerial or governmental decisions in the absence of a public enquiry, know how difficult it is to convince either the Dáil or the public on the basis of figures produced to a Government Department and examined by officials who in turn pass them on to the Minister for examination and decision. There is not the same confidence behind a decision arrived at in that atmosphere or in those circumstances as there is in a full, impartial public enquiry at which all interested parties are in a position to make their case and have the matter fully and properly investigated.

The application of this country to join the European Economic Community has been the subject of considerable discussion both in the House and outside it. This is hardly the occasion to discuss it in detail except to query the Minister and the Government as to what real plans have been made to get the country ready to meet the situation. What practical steps have been taken in conjunction with the various interests that will be affected to face the problems which will occur if protection has to be reduced and if tariffs and quotas have to be modified? A matter that has agitated those interested is whether a compensation fund will be provided for marginal industries to tide them over the transition period. Has any estimate been made of the categories of industry likely to be affected? Is it possible to say how many are employed in those industries and what period will be required for them to meet free competition? These are vital questions which affect, or will affect in the near future, this country and are matters which must be dealt with by the general economic policy as proclaimed by the Government. It is important, therefore, that we should get from the Government a clear indication of what steps are being taken to meet that situation.

The increase in this Book of Estimates has been attributed by the Minister and other Government spokesmen, to a considerable extent, to the rise in remuneration. That is responsible for part of the increase, but, in addition, from the figures given here last week by the Minister, there is an increase of 500 in the number of permanent and temporary civil servants. It is difficult to see the justification for that substantial rise, in view of the undertaking given here some short time ago.

There is, as I say, available a wealth of talent and ability in the Civil Service if it is properly directed. Many of our civil servants have achieved distinction in their Departments and some who left Government Departments and secured employment in outside concerns have shown their ability and capacity; others, indeed, have been requested to give their services for a period to countries abroad, and wherever these officials have gone, they have reflected credit on themselves as well as on the country. It is therefore all the more difficult to understand why, with that talent and ability, with that knowledge and experience which a great many of them have accumulated, it has not been possible to get not merely the plan which was promised but to get into operation a system which would provide for greater efficiency at a lower cost and, over a period, a smaller rather than a larger service. Nobody has ever suggested that serving civil servants should be allowed to go but that they could be allowed to work out their normal period to retirement and the jobs they vacated need not be filled again. Instead of that, we find this staggering increase in the total of the Book of Estimates, accompanied by a substantial rise in the number of civil servants. That is a matter which requires explanation and defence.

I want to urge upon the Minister that in considering the Budget he should consider most favourably the sections in the community who have been unable to provide for themselves against the rise in the cost of living, particularly pensioners and retired persons living on accumulated savings. Many of these people have received practically no increase. Some of them have received small increases, if they are recipients of old age or other pensions, but their increases have been negligible compared with the rise in the cost of living.

While satisfaction is being expressed at the rises granted to serving personnel in the State service such as the Civil Service, the Garda Síochána, the Army or the local authorities or those in private employment who have been able to get increases, many people who have given the best years of their lives, who have shown themselves good citizens and satisfactory workers in whatever sphere of activity they are employed, now find that, because of the very substantial rise in the cost of living, they are unable to meet the demands made upon them. Some of them even still have commitments; some of their children may not have completed their education, and so on. These are the sections who are most heavily penalised as a result of the devaluation of money and the rise in the cost of living. I want to stress particularly the need for sympathetic consideration for those people. In other walks of life, rises in allowances, wages or salaries have been made retrospective. If that is the policy for those who are still serving, it is all the more justified in the case of those who have retired. Their needs and requirements deserve the most sympathetic consideration possible.

Mr. Faulkner

Somebody once said that politics is the art of the possible. In my experience of the Opposition in this debate each year, they never seem to be satisfied with the possible as far as we are concerned. This year the Government are faced with constant demands from them under practically every subhead of every Estimate for increased expenditure and, at the same time, they demand that total expenditure be kept down. We are told that the farmers must have more, industry must have more, that pensions must be increased but expenditure must go down.

We on this side of the House are very conscious of the position in regard to expenditure. We are concerned about it and have always endeavoured to keep it within limits. Nevertheless, we must keep in mind the objectives which are stated in the Programme for Economic Expansion. We must endeavour to increase productivity, to create more jobs. Where these objectives require added expenditure, especially when this expenditure is to come out of greater national income, I believe that expenditure is justifiable. It is hardly sufficient to come in here and to complain that the Estimates have increased by £13 million and simply to state that they should be reduced, without making some effort to show where and in what manner the reduction should be made. Wild statements of this kind are being made by Opposition speakers in the course of the debate.

Almost half of the increase in the Estimates is devoted to increases in salaries to public servants, teachers, Gardaí and so on. Is it suggested that these increases are not justified? If it is, let those who state that they are not justified point out exactly where they should be reduced. Let them point out what categories should not have got any increase at all and let them state what increases they think these people ought to have got. Social welfare takes up roughly £1.4 million of the total increase. Again we ask ourselves: is this increase warranted? Judging by the motions on the Order Paper over the names of Opposition Deputies, I think any neutral observer will be inclined to say that not only do the Opposition believe they are warranted but that they are not sufficient. I cannot understand how they can reconcile these demands for increases with their call for a reduction in the amount of money being made available to give the increases.

The remainder of the increase is designed to increase productivity, mainly in the fields of agriculture, industry and tourism. Can we reasonably object to these increases? The small farmers are facing difficulties mainly because their incomes are not rising at the same rate as the incomes of people engaged in other types of work. When I say they are facing difficulties, I do not believe these difficulties are anything like as bad as they were in 1956 under the Coalition Government when the price of cattle had reached rock bottom and when the price of the bulk of what the farmer had to sell was in a similar position. However, I do believe the difficulties are sufficient to warrant the Government's spending the extra money in aiding them, that is the £3.5 million increase in the Estimate for Agriculture. Some of this money is to be devoted to research work and this type of work is vital at the present time, when we take into account the position of agriculture in relation to the Common Market.

Some of this money is to be devoted to export subsidies. A great deal has been said about this matter but I do not intend to develop that subject now.

Some of the money is being used to increase production on such schemes as the lime and fertiliser subsidy. This is of exceptional importance. We all recognise that for agriculture to thrive, particularly in the circumstances we will meet in the future, it will be essential to increase production at a lower cost per unit. Subsidies for lime and fertilisers are certainly designed to enable the farmer to produce more at less cost.

Large sums are being made available for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis and this is a guarantee that the Government intend to pursue energetically their programme to eliminate this disease. Can anybody quibble with the amount being made available for this purpose when it is remembered that the cattle trade is of vital importance not only to the farmer but to the country generally? It is of vital importance to the industrial side because a large part of the raw materials imported to keep the factories going are paid for out of cattle exports.

We, as a Party, have always been concerned with the problems facing agriculture. We have endeavoured, so far as we were able to do so, to direct expenditure to the best possible advantage. There is a large increase in the amount of money being made available for agriculture now as compared with the amount made available in the Book of Estimates of the last Coalition Government. It would take more than loud talk and high sounding phrases in this House to convince the farmers that we, on this side of the House, are less interested in farming and agriculture than the Coalition Government were.

Part of the increase of nearly £1 million is being made available for industrial promotion. Having listened to the debate on the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce which dealt in the main with An Foras Tionscal I can say that with one or two exceptions the members of the House were strongly in favour of providing as much money as possible for this body. Here again we have an increase in the Estimates to which no great exception is being taken by anybody.

Industry is faced with a dual problem in connection with employment. We are endeavouring to employ all those who come to employable age and who are anxious to work in industry and, on the other hand, we are endeavouring to absorb those who are losing their employment on the land. If we take a realistic view of the position we must recognise that no matter how we may increase production on the land it cannot increase employment on the land to any appreciable extent. This is not peculiar to Ireland. It is common to all civilised countries in the world and so we have no alternative but to push on with our industrial expansion and to endeavour to get as many foreign industrialists as possible to set up industries here.

I should be glad if we could provide sufficient money for industrial projects to enable us to give equal grants to every part of the country. The fact that over the past few years since the programme for economic expansion got under way the number employed in industry increased by 7,000 a year is proof that the Government's efforts are bearing fruit. I do not think anybody will object to the extra money being made available for that purpose now.

Today the extra number of jobs available in industry is about equal to the reduction in the number of jobs on the land. This is not a very satisfactory position. It would be necessary to double the number of jobs at present available in industry in order to make any sizeable impact on the problem facing us. However, we must remember that a few short years ago employment on the land and employment in industry were falling simultaneously. Deputies know what the situation would be now if that position had been allowed to continue.

Industrial production has increased by 5 per cent. and that is one of the highest percentage increases in Europe. We must endeavour to step up this increase in production because therefrom benefits will flow to raise the standard of living of our people.

Deputy Corish said the programme for economic expansion cannot be as successful as the Government believed it would be when they launched it in 1958. This is a remarkable statement seeing that the target set by the Government was for a 2 per cent. increase. We must also remember that a 2 per cent. increase was a reasonable target at the time when the increase in industrial production in the Coalition Government's term of office was only 1 per cent. I cannot see how it can be suggested that the programme has not been operating successfully when we have an increase of 5 per cent. instead of the initial target of 2 per cent.

If Deputy Corish had said that the Government were not satisfied with the increase he would have been closer to the mark. We on this side of the House have had considerable success in Government and it is from the fact that we have never been satisfied to rest on our accomplishments that this success has stemmed. We have certainly been encouraged to continue along the lines on which we have been going by the success we have achieved since the programme was initiated.

Deputy Esmonde also mentioned this matter of the increase in production. He admitted that the figure of a 5 per cent. increase was correct and that as a percentage increase it was one of the highest in Europe. But, he said that because of the fact that our industrial production was already low that 5 per cent. increase was easily obtained. Again, this is a rather remarkable statement because, when the Coalition Government were in power, a Government which Deputy Esmonde supported, the increase was only one per cent. per annum on a lower industrial production. I find it difficult to see how the Deputy can be complacent about a one per cent. increase on a lower total national production and then criticise a five per cent. increase on a higher total national production.

The building industry was mentioned and figures produced in an endeavour to show that building is not proceeding apace here. Whatever these figures may purport to show, we all know the facts. It will be generally agreed that, if a man decides to build or reconstruct a house, in most cases he will have to take his place in the queue and wait for a considerable time before a contractor can come to do the work for him. Figures, when taken out of context, can prove anything. The figures produced simply mean that we had a collapse in the building industry in 1956 and that it took us a considerable time to get it back on its feet again.

Unemployment and emigration are still with us but, as the Taoiseach pointed out, there is a sharp reduction in emigration and in the number of unemployed. The official figures show that today there is little more than half the number of registered unemployed that there was in March, 1957, when we took over.

Mr. Kyne

What about the figures for emigration?

Mr. Faulkner

The figures available to us of the inward and outward movement of passengers by sea and air, indicate a sharp reduction in emigration.

Mr. Kyne

Seventy-six thousand in 1960.

Dr. Ryan

What figures are those?

Mr. Kyne

The British figures.

Dr. Ryan

Of course, the Deputy would prefer to take a British figure than an Irish one. I give you the numbers by sea and air, but the Deputy would prefer a British figure.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Minister is again pulling the old gag of attacking the British.

Mr. Faulkner

The money provided in these Estimates for productive purposes is increased as a result of the Government's efforts to provide increased employment. The Government are concerning themselves with producing a new programme for economic expansion. The objectives in this programme will be the same as those in the Programme at present in operation: to increase production and to provide more employment. However, it cannot be planned on the same basis as the present Programme because consideration must be given to the great opportunities and the many and varied difficulties this country will face if it becomes a member of the Common Market. This consideration must underlie all our planning.

There is no use denying that progress has been made. It is self-evident. I should like to point out, however, that we are not complacent. We recognise the difficulties facing us as a Government and facing the people but we believe that if we continue along the lines we have followed up to now, we will overcome these obstacles.

Mr. Kyne

I do not intend to make a long speech, nor do I intend to be critical of the many problems facing the Government or of their efforts to solve them. I realise that it is the duty of an Opposition to consider these problems and the methods by which the Government endeavour to solve them, to offer criticism and that any criticism offered should be constructive. I merely desire to take advantage of this debate to ask a few simple questions in the hope that the Minister may give me the answers to some of the problems bothering me, and perhaps other Deputies, before we are called upon to take certain decisions.

We all know that one of the big things on our horizon at the moment is the question of entering the Common Market. May I begin by saying I am in complete agreement with the Government's decision to apply for membership of EEC in the circumstances that Great Britain has decided to apply for membership? I say that quite clearly, without any reservations. The Government had no option and the House as a whole, with the possible exception of one or two individuals, agreed with that decision. I still agree but I would say to the Minister that the Government have a duty to give, and to continue for the future to give as much information as possible in regard to our application and the applications of other countries for entry. I would appeal to the Minister to keep this House supplied with all the information possible so that each Deputy may conscientiously make up his mind when called upon to make a final decision about what we should do in given circumstances. I realise it is not easy to get that information but I believe a good deal more could be obtained. Other countries similar to ours have made applications and there is information available as to the action they have taken to further their applications and to prepare themselves for entry into the Common Market. A good deal of information could be secured in that way and it is most desirable that it should be made available to us.

Much has been said about the dangers confronting us. I must confess that I have read and heard so many different views about the good and the evil that will arise from our entry into the Common Market that I am so confused now that I am practically back where I started at the beginning of last year. Much as employers, industrialists and farmers may have to worry or may have to face business recessions for a temporary period—or indeed, in extreme cases may have to face loss of business, if they are unlucky competitors in a large, competitive market— nevertheless they still will have the advantage of the accumulated capital secured during many years of protected trade behind tariff walls or under the quota system. In that way they will be able to provide for the rest of their time for themselves and their families.

But on whom will the full brunt of our effective entry into the Common Market fall? I suggest it will fall on the workers employed in these industries. Immediately an industry goes to the wall, the first effect is the dismissal of employees. Then they have to face a period of struggle, first of all on unemployment benefit and later, if they exceed six months, on unemployment assistance, which is on the bare existence level as anyone in this House will admit.

I should like to know from the Minister what steps are being taken, in the event of our acceptance into the E.E.C., to establish training schools to be approved by the general E.E.C. Committee so that workers who are redundant in one industry can be retrained as skilled operatives for a substitute industry, if such can be started. I understand there is a special fund available in the E.E.C. from which member countries can draw. I understand that already Western Germany has availed of that fund to a considerable extent and has retrained numbers of workers for a particular industry. It is only where an approved scheme is in operation that the money can be advanced. I should like to know from the Minister if the Government have plans to carry out such a training scheme and if so, when we can expect to hear about it. It is of vital interest to those engaged in industry.

The Irish Trade Union Congress realise the difficulties and, in conjunction and in agreement with the Government and the Taoiseach, they have set up study groups to study the different industries in which their members are engaged. While the findings on any one of those are not available at present, I understand that a general outline can be deduced from what has been collected already and that at the best, there will be some redundancy and at the worst, severe redundancy; that in time, some of these industries will improve and perhaps expand and employ more people than heretofore, but there will be a period when there will be a general slackening off. I hope the transition period will be very short, but I feel that however short it may be, the Government have an obligation, as we all have, to co-operate to see that the blow will be softened by the re-training of men in any industries where it is possible.

I believe there is a future for this country, even in E.E.C. I believe that now is the time to attract industries from the United States of America and Canada. It is quite possible that United States firms and Canadian firms with a European trade may decide to move over to Europe in order to get behind the tariff walls. Ireland is suitable for these countries, first of all, from the point of view of the availability of labour. In Great Britain and in West Germany and most other countries, except perhaps Italy, there is no scarcity of labour at present. That cannot be said in Ireland. Even if all the available labour were absorbed, I am quite sure that if Canadian or American industries were established here, we would have no difficulty in withdrawing from Great Britain or the other countries to which our emigrants were forced to go, a sufficiency of labour to provide men and women to man all the industries we are likely to get. As well as that, there is the question of language. We speak the same language in general as is spoken in Canada or the United States. That, too, will be a pointer to the Americans and the Canadians where to base their industries.

I suggest to the Minister that the giving of special grants to places west of the Shannon should now cease. It is a question of giving everybody who is anxious to help and to seek to attract outside industries a free hand. I know many development committees who have used time and money and given careful thought to the matter and who succeeded in attracting industry. What did they find? They found that if the factories were to be opened in the neighbourhood which secured them, they would have to sacrifice a considerable grant which was given elsewhere. It is time that differential in respect of areas west of the Shannon, the distressed areas, or the congested areas—call them what you will—stopped so that each group, whether it be in Leinster, Munster, Connacht, or any other part of the country, can be satisfied that if it succeeds in attracting industry and capital, it will be on an equal footing with groups in any other part of the country. I certainly feel that unless that is done, much of the effort that has been put into development will be wasted.

As a trade unionist and as an officer of a trade union, I realise that the trade union movement has a duty in regard to this problem. It is our duty to go amongst the workers and point out to them that on entry into the Common Market, the day when the worker and his employer were natural enemies must end and there must be a combined effort to produce more at a cheaper rate. The problems ahead are grave and must be tackled in a spirit of co-operation and any trade unionist who does not understand that, or does not realise that part of his duty as a citizen is to impress on his fellow workers and trade unionists that concern and that wish to co-operate, is failing in his duty.

While admitting that and while all the time I am prepared to carry out my part, I feel that the Minister should impress upon employers and industrialists that if they seek that co-operation, any increased production which results from it must not be used for personal gain by the shareholders; rather must it be used to reduce the cost of the materials we manufacture so that we can compete in the market of the E.E.C. countries.

Too often in the past have workers been induced by incentive bonuses and various other methods to give a little more, or a good deal more, in each day's work and too often in the past has that money been used for personal gain by the management. The result was that when more was produced, arising from the fact that it was cheaper, the workers found that it led to a retrenchment in employment content and what the worker said to himself was: "All I succeeded in doing was to work myself out of a job." Surely it is the duty of the Government to impress on employers and to give a guarantee to the workers that if they do co-operate and if they do work to make their produce competitive on world markets, then, in turn, they will be secure in the knowledge that the effort they make will not result in unemployment. To me, an ordinary layman, not an industrial expert, the answer seems to be embodied in Pope John's recent Encyclical. The day has come when those who participate in the manufacture of goods must take some part and have some say in management and I feel some effort should be made to fit in that advice with the crisis that has now come upon us.

I do not want to continue along these lines but there are two points I should like to touch upon. The first is the matter of tourism. I believe that could be further developed, even though our receipts at the present time are something in the region of £50 million a year. That is a wonderful effort and I think that Bord Fáilte and the Irish Tourist Association have done a lot of excellent work to which I should like to pay tribute.

I have, however, a complaint to make on which I shall not go into detail. It is in reference to a small seaside resort which communicated recently with Bord Fáilte with a view to drawing attention to its amenities and in the hope that a brochure would be made available. They received a letter from Bord Fáilte saying that organisation had no knowledge of their existence. I am aware that the development committee of that seaside resort had each year provided most up-to-date brochures.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

All this would seem to be a matter for the Estimate.

Mr. Kyne

I agree, but I was referring more to the general principle than to details; I have not given the name of the town. I would, however, suggest to the Minister to urge Bord Fáilte not to confine their activities to the main tourist resorts because I think the more rural parts of Ireland have many more attractions for tourists than such famous places as the Lakes of Killarney. The Minister should endeavour to get Bord Fáilte to include the smaller places in their tourist publications.

Deputy Cosgrave spoke about the Health Act. There is a Select Committee of the House considering that at the moment. I am quite happy to await their decisions, but I should like to say one thing here in connection with the Act. There is a very small section of the community who receive no benefits whatever from the Act.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not discuss the administration of the Health Act in this debate.

Mr. Kyne

I am not discussing administration. I was pointing out that there is a section outside the Act which should be included. They are small middle-income groups who contribute by way of rates and taxes but who get no benefits. Some effort should be made to bring them in.

The last Fianna Fáil Deputy who spoke said that there were many members of the House who wanted to get services but who were not prepared to pay for them. I have no patience with that type of person, and if the Deputy who referred to that were talking about the Opposition, he certainly could not include my Party. I have no quarrel with the size of the Estimates this year. If I look for services, I expect to be asked to pay for them, unlike many people who are going around the country crying out for services but who are not prepared to foot the Bill.

Mr. T. Lynch

Although I listened very carefully to the Minister for Finance as he introduced the Vote on Account, I was particularly interested in the Taoiseach's contribution to the debate. He certainly has not lost his old brazen-faced dash, even if the brass is wearing a bit thin by now, in his attempts to defend this Vote and, at the same time, in an endeavour to defend the policy of his Government. After many years, I am reminded of something I read in a newspaper, something about all the strife and all the corpses of 40 years and whether it was all worth it. I ask the same question now and would refer to all the policies the Taoiseach has advanced over the past number of years.

Two years ago, he twitted me by suggesting that perhaps I would like to write the Fine Gael policy. My reply is that whatever we write, we stand over and endeavour to put into operation. The Taoiseach is not the man to twit me or anybody else. As Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party, he had to swallow practically all the Party's main policies through the years from the time they tried to destroy democratic government in this country. How many of the policies of Fianna Fáil have gone down the drain? Where now is the policy which advocated that all the ships should be at the bottom of the sea? Where is their policy to destroy the British market?

This afternoon, we had a starry-eyed Deputy Faulkner talking about endeavouring to get increased production and to sell more of our produce across the water. The Taoiseach, in his contribution, said it is easy to prove anything by statistics and added that that was a habit of the Leader of my Party, Deputy Dillon; but the Taoiseach went on to endeavour to prove by statistics that the farmers of this country were never better off. I would refer him to one of his Party's great policies included in the marvellous posters pasted up on the walls— green posters for green people. It said they would do away with unemployment and bring back the emigrants.

That was a good many years ago and I may be accused of harping back or of dragging up a lot of old stuff. There was the general election policy which said: "Let us get cracking with Seán Lemass. Housewives, vote for Fianna Fáil and put your husbands to work." There was also the famous poster about the £100,000,000 for 100,000 new jobs. That was just cheating the people.

Deputy Faulkner expatiated this evening on the continued success of Fianna Fáil as a Government. There is a yardstick by which to measure this continued success by a crafty leader and his followers. I have in mind a community trusting a leader; when all his promises had been broken, when financial difficulties and public scandals seemed to overwhelm him and his party, he went confidently to the polls with a policy of "the language and the flag", the dear old land, and an attack on Great Britain and its King, backing all up with organised intimidation, and personation, and smiles for the gun-bullies who bulldozed the electorate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not see how this arises on the Vote on Account for the current year. The Deputy is going back many years, and fighting elections. That does not arise.

Mr. T. Lynch

Going back many years and fighting elections! When, Sir?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has mentioned elections.

Mr. T. Lynch

Where, Sir? This is what has us the way we are.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That may be so, but it is not relevant to the Vote on Account.

Mr. T. Lynch

I said it was a yardstick by which to measure the success of this Government. Perhaps, Sir, you thought maybe that I was accusing this Government of these methods. I was talking about something I read last Sunday about Big Bill Thompson and how he got back in Chicago. That was how he got back. He said he did not want the English language in Chicago; he wanted the American language. He attacked the King of England. He got back again. If you, Sir, see in the mirror the Fianna Fáil Party, then I cannot help that.

The Taoiseach is now leading this House and the country into the Common Market. I suppose we can do nothing now but go into the Common Market. This is a great awakening for the Government Party who for years have been standing on self-sufficiency. The cover picture of Dubin Opinion showing the Taoiseach and the Minister for Lands sitting in a low-backed car, with their backs to the horse, gives an idea of what is actually happening the Government; they are driving into the Common Market, but there is no one driving the horse and they do not know where they are going. In their first year of office, a motion was tabled here in the names of Deputy Dillon and Deputy Costello asking the Government to set up a committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas, with power to summon witnesses and take evidence. That committee was to investigate our re-applying for membership of the Six to the Six. That was turned down by the Minister for Industry and Commerce at the time. He could not bother about it. Today, he is the Taoiseach. Now the decision had to be made and we are going into the Common Market willy-nilly. Because Great Britain has decided, we have applied for membership.

There is supposed to be a great hive of industry in Government circles investigating the pros and cons of our entry into the Common Market, what will happen to this, what will happen to that. It is about eight months since the Taoiseach told us that he had this idea in his head. We will see now what they have done or what they are doing in regard to our primary industry, agriculture. Five years ago, the Minister for Agriculture was voted in the Budget a sum of £250,000 for expansion and development of agricultural markets. There was a great flourish of trumpets in 1957 when this money was handed over to the Minister for Agriculture. It seems to have acted as a kind of anaesthetic on himself and his Department. That is borne out by a Question I asked him on 7th March last:

Mr. T. Lynch asked the Minister for Agriculture the amount of money expended by his Department up to 31st December 1961 out of the £250,000 voted by Dáil Éireann in 1957 for the expansion and development of agricultural markets.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Smith): The amount spent up to 31st December, 1961, was £23,154.

It must be obvious to everybody in this House that the Minister for Agriculture and his Department are doing absolutely nothing about investigating markets. I am convinced they do not know how. I stand over that statement.

As far as Government policy was concerned down through the years, its only concern was to sell commodities out of protected factories. No salesman was needed. All that was required was a man to fill up the dockets and allocate them. We are now going into the Common Market. We have no one, or practically no one, who knows very much about marketing commodities—I repeat, Sir, marketing commodities—in the cold blast of competition.

Today we had a responsible Deputy, Deputy Faulkner, saying Fianna Fáil and the Government have always been concerned with the problems of agriculture and that production increased by five per cent. last year, the highest increase in Europe. He then says we must have more production. I agree with him, but, before we have any more production, we must have salesmen. We do not want more production in butter because we already have too much and it is costing too much to subsidise the sale of it. We shall have to reduce the quantity of wheat we grow because, if there is a surplus, we shall have to subsidise its sale. We shall have to reduce our pigs and our bacon because otherwise we shall have to subsidise the sale of them. I should be very easy in my mind if I knew the Minister for Agriculture had people investigating all these things, but this figure of an expenditure of £23,000 out of £250,000 shows clearly that the Department of Agriculture has not done a tap practically for the past five years. The money was gladly voted, with great cheering and trumpet-blowing by Fianna Fáil, and to-date only £23,000 has been spent.

In this industrial empire set up by the Taoiseach under his great industrial policy, we find now that there are a great many houses built with cards and this will be a great problem for this country. Many of our industries can turn out splendid products.

Many of them can turn out products at the right price and sell them well. I am very glad that some of these industries are set up in the city of Waterford, and no thanks to Fianna Fáil for any of them. These industries are able now, before ever we enter the Common Market, to sell their products at the ends of the earth without any Government subsidies and without any help.

Many of the assembling industries which were set up are in jeopardy. The Government should see to it—and I would be all with them—that these industries are warned and helped to put their house in order. I should not like to see any of them close. I should not like to see their pay boxes with "Shut Down" on them. It is a great thing to have a pay box open every Friday night for the payment of wages.

It was always said by this Government when they were out of office that there were too many Ministries. They created a Ministry of Transport and Power. In voting money on this occasion, I would urge that if we are to have a Minister for Transport and Power and such a Ministry, at least, the Minister should appear to have some function. When the Minister for Transport and Power is asked a Question in this House about any matter he says it is outside his authority, that he has no function in the matter. There is no necessity for this Minister if he will not tell the House what happens. It is most discourteous of this Minister to come before this House and say that he has certain figures, that they are better than the figures for the year before and then, in the following week, to refuse to disclose these figures.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely that would be a matter for the Minister's Estimate?

Mr. T. Lynch

It looks as if it is a matter of Government policy that the Minister and a couple of his colleagues should refuse to answer Parliamentary Questions. I am jealous of the right of a Deputy to ask a Parliamentary Question. It is the greatest weapon people have. If a Minister or a Government Department are doing anything unjust to any member of the community or to any Irish person then the person can approach his local Deputy and get him to put down a Question for answer in this House and have it answered the following week. That is a very important function of a Deputy and no Minister should belittle it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I feel the matter does not arise on the Vote on Account.

Mr. T. Lynch

Very well. I now turn to health services. Many Deputies have spoken about the Government's policy on health. Many Deputies have spoken about what it is costing and have complained about the cost. Notice might be taken of the fact that the farmers of Ireland have been marching and have been slapped by the Government and even by the Taoiseach himself for daring to make such protests. I think they are perfectly right.

In November, 1952, I happened to be a member of a deputation, representing the Waterford Corporation, which, at the request of the then Minister for Health, Deputy Dr. Ryan, now Minister for Finance, was summoned to Cork City Hall to meet similar deputations from all the local authorities in Munster and from the three county boroughs of Limerick, Cork and Waterford. The Minister wanted to tell us about the Health Bill and to ask the support of the various councils for the health services. There was a very reasonable debate on the matter. Eventually, it boiled down to the brass tacks of how much it would cost in the £. The Minister said it would cost 2/- in the £. A colleague of mine from Waterford asked if it could go any higher and the Minister said "No." Even though I was not then a member of the Dáil, I had had some experience of Fianna Fáil Ministers and I had my doubts. I asked if it could cost 4/-. The Minister said it would be impossible. That was published in the Cork Examiner of 16th November, 1952. What was the result?

Deputy Cosgrave spoke here this afternoon. He mentioned the increases and the Minister for Health of that day, now the Minister for Finance—who has now gone to his tea—said it was not right and that these increases had not taken place.

The Minister for Local Government told me, in reply to a Parliamentary Question on Wednesday, 12th April, 1961, the rate in the £ for health services, amongst other things, for the year 1951-1952 for all the county councils and borough councils. I had down a similar Question to which I got an answer on 3rd May, 1961 which tells the same thing about the health services for the year 1960/61. This is very interesting.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It may be interesting but it is not in order on the Vote on Account. I cannot see how the Deputy can discuss the administration of the Health Act on the Vote on Account.

Mr. T. Lynch

When Deputy Cosgrave mentioned that there had been substantial increases the Minister for Finance, a former Minister for Health, said it was not correct. Where we were paying 1/1d. in Waterford for health services we are now paying 18/-. There it is.

Mr. Galvin

What services did the 1/1 cover?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I feel the matter may be relevant to discussion on the Estimate for the Department of Health.

Mr. T. Lynch

It covers health services, which the Minister said would be increased by only 2/-. One plus 2 makes 3, in my addition, but, in the Minister's addition, it makes 18. I shall close by saying that these increases are caused by all the rises in pay and the spell of inflation, and the whole reaction was set off by the Fianna Fáil policy of removing the food subsidies. We are told the national income has increased, according to statistics, as the Taoiseach would say, but the income of the person who has a fixed pension such as the railway pensioner who came out on a pittance, has not increased, nor has the income of the Old I.R.A. pensioner, people who were very badly treated by the Board set up by the Fianna Fáil Government, a Board composed of men out of touch and out of sympathy with the people about whom they were making decisions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Decisions of the Board do not relevantly arise.

Mr. T. Lynch

I have covered some of the points I intended to raise. A few others that I cannot bring to mind at present may be more appropriately raised on the Estimates when they come up for discussion.

Mr. Timmons

I have listened to Opposition speakers who would lead one to believe that the country is on its last legs. In solemn procession, they have forecast gloom and depression throughout the country, particularly in regard to increased expenditure outlined by the Minister for Finance. They have not truly represented the whole picture. As has been pointed out by several speakers on this side of the House, one of the main causes of the higher expenditure has been the consequential demands following the eighth round of wage increases.

The impression has been created by some Fine Gael speakers that the eighth round followed from Government policy but we all know—and I am sure Labour Party members who are here will confirm—that the eighth round was obtained, not on the basis of a rising price index, but in an effort to secure a better standard of living and improved working conditions. Nobody begrudges any worker these new standards today. Would anybody suggest that public servants should not also enjoy increases arising out of changed circumstances? It is a measure of the success of Government policy that this situation has developed.

One of the primary factors contributing to emigration has been the low wage structure here and it is a matter of congratulation for those who initiated the eighth round that they have in some way helped to curb emigration. I should not like any suggestion to go out from this House that the increases were unnecessary, that there was no need for a rise in the standard of living, or a demand for improved standards generally. It is my hope that even further improvements will take place in that field, even in the changed conditions we are going through.

I do not want to see—and this is in relation to the general situation and the gloomy speeches made by some Opposition members—the return of conditions I experienced as a public representative of this city some years ago when Parties who are now making depressing speeches had the responsibility of Government. In those years, we witnessed tragedies of emigration and unemployment and, as a member of Dublin Corporation, I have seen the normal rate of house-vacancies jump from 200 per year to as many as 1,500 per year. There was a mass exodus from the city and housing estates in Dublin were left abandoned by the people as a consequence of the policy of the Government of that day, properly known as the Coalition Government.

In addition, I have seen over 200 people who had purchased houses under S.D. loans having to surrender them and emigrate because they were unable to carry on through unemployment. Some factories closed down while others went on short time and that situation prevailed until the then Government decided to call it a day and Fianna Fáil returned to office in 1957.

Suggestions have been made to the effect that local authority housing had slackened. It slackened for some time, for reasons I have given. The corporation could not carry out its normal housing programme because of the high vacancy rate. Instead, they transferred their activities in a limited way to flat development. The housing programme was interrupted and it is now gaining momentum again. We have a housing problem at the moment. It is not serious but it has a rather interesting aspect inasmuch as the people who, because of the bad conditions in the country and particularly in the city, had to emigrate in the past couple of years, following the disastrous consequences of the Coalition Government, have returned. Some have obtained positions and are seeking to get their homes back.

There are some 30 families on the waiting list of the corporation anxious to be re-housesd in their dwellings and as a concession, the corporation has reduced the waiting period in cases of former tenants to three months. As a public representative I have received letters from people as far away as Canada who had emigrated. Some of their families are here and they are anxious to return because of the increased employment opportunities. I had one case within the past month of a young man who came back here to get employment with the Dublin Corporation. There are other cases of people who have returned from England because of the changed conditions even in our city.

These are facts that contradict the general statements made that there has been no improvement in the general position. As well as that, industrial sites in the fringe areas of our city have all been disposed of within the last year or so. They were lying idle waiting for tenders. Some of them were advertised in 1956 and 1957, but there were no takers. Now every available industrial site in our city is being utilised for new industries and in some cases for the expansion of older ones.

Our housing programme has also gathered momentum. There has been a revivification of the Small Dwellings housing schemes. Applications are reaching the Corporation at the rate of 60 a month. There are in the region of 120 applications for housing repair grants per month and this is giving increased employment to big builders and small builders, to tradesmen and other workers who have secured improved conditions by way of increased wages, and so on.

It is in that atmosphere that we have to face the charges made here of the alleged failure of the Fianna Fáil Government to put matters right. The Estimates themselves reveal that additional expenditure is being channelled into very desirable projects. Nobody can suggest, for instance, that one of our biggest agencies for creating employment here, namely, tourism, should not be further expanded. Week after week, appeals are being made in different parts of the country and in the city here for grants from Bord Fáilte to encourage tourism. A welcome development is the formation of committees and development associations eager to utilise the opportunities presented and to exploit that situation.

I would make one comment in regard to the tourist grants to hotel proprietors. I shall not go into detail on the matter, but there should be some safeguard against speculators acquiring premises with Government grants and then after a short time putting them on the market and selling them at a very much enhanced price. The Government should prevent that kind of exploitation.

By and large, I believe that given continued support by the people, the Government will do all they possibly can to achieve the aims set out in that expansion programme that has been referred to. The expectations have been more than realised and under the White Paper now being produced by the Government, I hope further progress will be made.

The question of our facing the European Economic Community is one that is exciting a great deal of thought and concern among the people generally. I would appeal to all Parties in this House, in the event of this step being taken—the most serious one that has confronted this country for many years —to face the issues optimistically, not to be critical and pose questions as to whether this industry or that industry will have to close down. Public representatives have a deep obligation to help the people in any situation that arises. In the past, the country had to face very grave and momentous issues and it is only through courage and a spirit of optimism that things were done. Our whole history reveals those characteristics in our people and if we approach the problems that now face us in the same spirit, we shall succeed in the end.

Mr. Rooney

While listening to Deputy Timmons, it was very difficult not to interrupt him, having regard to some of the remarks he made. I shall take him up on one of the points he made relating to our factories. He said there were a number of factories established and that exports had increased; then nearer the end of his speech, he complained, and rightly so, about the fact that a number of these enterprises had been availing of State loans and grants and then disappearing overnight. Of course, he refrained from mentioning, when he referred to the establishment of factories—maybe he was not aware of it—that these factories had been encouraged by the 1956 Finance Act, the Sweetman scheme for the establishment of factories to engage in exports and avail of remission of tax on profits from these exports. Deputy Sweetman brought in this 1956 Finance Act and immediately many enterprising industrialists set about organising industries and establishing factories. These are the factories which Deputy Timmons has been talking about and which got scant praise from the Fianna Fáil Party at that time. However, Professor Carter, who is the Stanley Jevons of Political Economy at Queen's University, said at that time in Belfast: "Progress in industry in the Republic of Ireland has been remarkable. The biggest technical factor in the change has been the tax exemptions for export industries."

That is the answer to Deputy Timmons on that point. There has been considerable progress and the one thing we must regret is exactly what Deputy Timmons mentioned towards the end of his speech, the fact that some of these enterprises are not basically sound and, having availed of State grants and credit facilities, in the old saying, "go bust". Deputy Timmons, speaking of conditions at present and comparing them with those of the past, failed to realise that there were more houses built in 1956 and 1957 than there were last year. That was in spite of the best efforts of Deputy Briscoe, as Lord Mayor of Dublin, to upset the whole housing situation in this city.

Deputy Timmons also talked about people coming back here to work but he has not examined the statistics, or he would see that, in fact, the number of persons in employment has decreased by about 60,000, as compared with 1955. That is a drop of approximately 1,000 a month which means that the number of jobs is falling at the rate of 250 a week. In addition to this drop of 250 a week over the past five years, under this Government there has been an emigration rate of nearly 1,000 a week, according to the figures. We have 1,000 people emigrating and 250 people losing their jobs and that is the situation the Government must face.

The bill which the Minister has put before the Dáil on this occasion is a real tragedy. Strangely enough, the Minister has been associated with several tragedies in this country, beginning with the foundation of the State. As Minister for Agriculture, he followed it up with the attempt to exterminate the livestock population in the Thirties and caused untold hardship to the farming community. Then we had the Health Act which is now causing so much confusion in the country and now we are faced with a Budget which is £40,000,000 greater than it was when he took office as Minister for Finance in 1957.

The increase this year is £16,000,000 compared with last year. When the Minister and his colleagues were seeking office in 1957 and taking advantage of the very difficult situation which existed at that time, they offered the people in their propaganda a policy of retrenchment. They offered to control prices and to steady the economic position of the country. Luckily enough for them, Deputy Sweetman, as Minister for Finance, had already taken corrective measures in 1956 which, unfortunately, did cause a certain amount of unemployment. That was bound to happen but it was only of a temporary nature. Although the Minister for Finance let the situation stand as it was, the up-turn in our finances came in September, 1957, only 12 months after it was necessary for Deputy Sweetman to take these difficult measures in order to remedy the financial situation.

It was necessary at that time to correct a financial situation which was growing. Our imports were exceeding our exports and I think it was quite right for Deputy Sweetman to adjust the financial position. It was all very well for Deputies across the floor of the House to be flippant about the action it was necessary to take at that time but they will not be so flippant when they hear the Minister's statement on Budget day. They can get ready for some shocks. He has to find £16,000,000 and my guess is that he will find it in the eighth round of wages increases. It is calculated that the extra amount of money obtained in wages in that eighth round was about £40,000,000 and it is probable that we will find the Minister for Finance taking a large slice out of that by the various devices which he has it in his power to use.

No doubt, those wage earners who come under P.A.Y.E. will have to pay increased income tax and possibly we shall have a purchase tax on certain goods, in addition to increases in the price of drink and the tax on betting.

Mr. Cunningham

Do you object to that?

Mr. Rooney

I am not objecting to any of these things but I am pointing out that the public who are delighted with the eighth round and hoping that they have got something real will find on Budget day that all they have is something which the Minister for Finance will take from them. In addition to that, we have been told that there is to be an increase in postal and telephone charges. All these things add up to a huge amount in the Estimates for the present year.

What are we to put against that? Let us put our major industry against it and see how it is doing. What is the position of agriculture at the present time? We find that the income of the farmers is much lower than it was even only two years ago. It has dropped very sharply, by over £20,000,000. Against that also, we have to put the steep increase in the rate charges on their land and property.

We see the framers of Ireland on the march. The last time they were on the march was in the 1930s.

Dr. Ryan

The Blueshirts.

Mr. Rooney

Whatever they were, they were opposing the extermination of their livestock and its subsidy by the Minister for Finance, who was then Minister for Agriculture. It was a great tragedy for this country that he was Minister for Agriculture during those years. We faced the war with the land understocked and bare. Had we faced it fully stocked, instead of having it laid bare by the Minister for Agriculture of those years, we could have taken advantage of the very steep rise in prices that came during the war.

Now we are facing a situation where the farmers again have to face a reduced quota for millable wheat and a reduction in their prices. The position is becoming difficult, too, for the beet farmers and there are complaints from the milk producers. The numbers of young cattle have reached a dangerously low figure. Apparently the Minister for Agriculture and his Government are making no attempt to face up to that situation and find a remedy for it. Apparently the Minister for Agriculture could not care less about any of the problems facing us.

I mention agriculture because it is the basis of our economy. When we see so much agitation amongst the farming community at present, we realise that they are blaming the Government for the situation and for not taking any action to remedy it. Some of the Fianna Fáil speakers mentioned that the number of agricultural labourers had fallen and that, in fact, the number of persons employed in industry increased by the same figure. I think the figures were that approximately 7,000 people left the land last year and that an extra 7,000 took up employment in industry. However, they disregarded the fact that emigration went on the same as ever. Not one extra job was provided last year.

As I have indicated, statistics show there are fewer people working now than there were even this time last year. With the proposals now before us in this heavy Book of Estimates, we can forecast without doubt that there will be a stampede from the land and that next year there will be 10,000 fewer farm workers on the land than there are to-day. Will those 10,000 farm labourers get 10,000 new jobs in industry? It seems doubtful. Not all of the recently established industries have been a success. Some of them seem to be merely fiddling along, and one wonders how long they will last. They probably provide jobs for a few, particularly the keymen associated with their establishment.

We have seen Government policy very badly applied. We have watched the Government export thousands of pounds of butter to Great Britain and the British consumer being paid 1/6d. per lb. to eat it. That 1/6d. to the British consumer was of very little assistance to our own farmers, who had to feed and maintain their cows and other livestock and send the milk to the creamery. The British housewife was also assisted in the consumption of Irish bacon. Again, we paid the British to eat it. Even in the past 12 months, we had the subsidisation of beef.

All of these devices had only one result: to make Irish food available to the British consumer at a price less than the cost of production in Ireland. It is obvious that that system is a bad one and that, in fact, subsidisation should be provided at the base, that is, on the farm. Those methods of assistance should be made available to the primary producer, because that would steady his position and enable him to expand the economy. Whatever can be done to further the sales of Irish produce, we should not subsidise the consumption of Irish food for the consumer in Great Britain.

Last week, the Taoiseach made some outlandish statements in relation to the farmers and their organisation. It is not necessary at this stage to take the Taoiseach up on some of the statements he made last Thursday, because in fact they have been taken up by the farmers themselves and by their organisation. There is no doubt that the position between the Taoiseach and the farmers will be resolved one way or another, because the farmers are certainly determined on this occasion to make known to the Government they cannot bear any further impositions since they have suffered a drop in their income and are now facing a further drop.

In spite of that, their costs have been rising. Machinery, wages, rates, electricity and all the other services farmers normally avail of have been increased. As against all those increases, particularly the increase in rates, there has been a substantial drop in their income, something of the order of £20,000,000. That cannot continue. Obviously, if farmers' costs continue to rise, their income cannot continue to fall. Some policy or other must be implemented by the Government to ensure that, if farmers must meet rising costs, they must also enjoy a rising income. That will depend on the policy implemented to ensure the sale of farm produce and livestock at a reasonable profit.

Last year the census showed that the population had reached the lowest figure yet. That illustrates that the Government have not succeeded in creating a position in which the population existing when they took office would even be maintained. Some one million left this country since the Fianna Fáil Party took office in 1932 and apparently emigration is continuing apace. I mentioned earlier that employment is falling at the rate of 1,000 a month and seems to continue at that rate. The population is at its lowest figure since the Famine and apparently the Government are complacent and do not seem to care or to be seeking a policy which would arrest that trend.

The possibility of inflation resulting from increased earnings was mentioned by some speakers in this debate. I do not believe there will be inflation because taxation will put an end to any possibility of inflation. I believe that the higher taxes imposed in the coming Budget will stop inflation which otherwise would probably arise. I am referring to increases in prices as well as wages because there is no doubt that prices will rise and keep in front of wages, as has been the tradition. There is always the situation that wages will chase prices. Even if there is a sudden increase in wages, the prices will very soon get in front again because that is the normal trend.

If our exports had not increased, the country would be in a very bad way. We have to thank the 1956 Act for what has occurred in the past few years, not forgetting, of course, the enterprising people who put their backs into those industries and travelled Great Britain and the Continent in search of markets. Those are the people who found markets for our manufactured goods, the people who have done a real service for this nation. They should be encouraged in that and they are being encouraged by the remission of income tax on profits from exports and they deserve that concession. In regard to State grants and loans for some of these industries, particularly new industries as compared with industries which branch out from a parent industry, I wonder whether the Minister has considered the advisibility of appointing a watch-dog or referee to watch the progress of these industries to see whether they are achieving what they set out to achieve in the way of successful manufacturing, trading and export.

The policy being pursued by the Minister for Finance and his Government has driven the cost of living up to the highest level ever. That reckless attitude has created a very grave problem for the classes on the subsistence level and below it. I say "below it" because it is very difficult to understand how an old age pensioner or others of the same class can live for a week on 28/6d., how they can pay rent and how they can pay for fuel and possibly a smoke or a drink and provide the bare necessaries in food.

I do not know how it is done and if any Deputy can tell me how anybody can live comfortably or even enjoy normal health on a weekly allowance of 28/6d., I should like to hear from him. I do not know how these people continue to exist. I mention that because neither the Government nor the Minister seems to care about keeping the cost of living within reach of those people. I also have in mind State pensioners and others on fixed incomes. Some of these people retired on moderately good pensions many years ago but the carelessness and recklessness of the Government have left them in the position that they are unable to make ends meet.

I see in the Estimates a sum of £7,500 for the Secret Service. When the inter-Party Government took office —before the smiling Deputy over there ever got into the House—they immediately abolished the Secret Service allowance and cut it out of the Book of Estimates. As soon as the Fianna Fáil Party scrambled back into office in 1951, the Secret Service provision came in again. It tempts one to inquire what is this Secret Service? Could they be some Fianna Fáil touts who are being paid sops? Whoever they are, they were getting nothing from the inter-Party Government and they are getting £7,500 this year. If we are paying a Secret Service, what are we paying them for? Let us hear something from the Minister——

An Ceann Comhairle

I suggest that the Deputy should raise that on the Vote.

Mr. Rooney

Very well; I am glad I raised it now. The test of any Government is the manner in which the weaker sections of the community are treated. Apparently the Government have no respect whatever for those people. I am referring to the aged, the sick, the infirm and the destitute. These are the people who find it so difficult to meet rising costs. No attempt is being made by the Government to keep costs down. They tried to gain the confidence and the support of those classes in 1957 before they came into office by promising to control prices, but in the very next Budget the prices of bread, sugar, tea and flour were increased. The price of the loaf of bread in 1957, when they came into office, was only 9d.; now it is something like 1/4d.

Those people have not got proportionate increases in their incomes even in relation to the price of bread. Of course the price of flour and butter were also very substantially increased. Many people were, in fact, driven to the consumption of margarine because they could not afford to buy Irish butter.

Regarding the Common Market, let us hope that Britain will be accepted as a member and that Ireland will follow. In my opinion, if Great Britain and Ireland are admitted, the real advantage will come to the agricultural community in this country. The position in Britain will be different, except on the industrial side. I have no fear that industries in this country which are able to meet and beat foreign competition, or which are able to export in the face of such competition, will be well able to stand up against any fair competition from Common Market members, and it is only right to expect that there will be fair play among the various countries who become members of this Community.

We have another situation which is causing considerable alarm here, although I was assured by a Member of the Government that it was a relatively small matter. It has to do with the high prices being paid by Continental purchasers for property and land here. They seem to have vast resources when it comes to paying high prices for large holdings of land, in addition, of course, to the stamp duty. Apparently the high stamp duty is not a sufficient deterrent. Down through the years, we have seen farmers' sons and landless men agitating for parcels of land and calling on the Land Commission to set them up with homes and farms. But the Land Commission is not taking any interest in these sales of property and land to Continental buyers.

An Ceann Comhairle

I think the Deputy is disgressing somewhat from the Vote on Account.

Mr. Rooney

I was referring in a broad way to the stamp duty and beginning to say that apparently the stamp duty is not a sufficient deterrent against the purchase of Irish property and land. It is a relatively small matter, but at the same time, if it continues, a difficult situation can arise in the long run. Why should we wait for that? Would it not be better to take some action now?

Since this time last year—it was the same Minister for Finance who introduced the Vote then—there has been a general election and the public have given a verdict. They reduced the majority of the Government and in fact the Fianna Fáil Party lost approximately 80,000 votes. There is no doubt that if a general election were held in the near future, they would lose as many more. I mention this because we have been asked to relate this Vote to that of last year. Fianna Fáil have now the support of 80,000 fewer people than they had then.

However, apparently the Cabinet could not care less. They certainly are not implementing any kind of positive policy: they are resting on their oars and are satisfied to watch the enterprising factory owners, managers and the others employed in them, doing the job for the country by manufacturing and exporting goods and increasing our national income. The Government are taking no interest whatsoever in the problems of agriculture which are very big problems. Farmers' incomes are falling, and worse still, the number of people employed on the land is falling. There are many farms now on which four labourers were employed a few years ago which now have just one. Farmers now have to resort to lending their workmen to one another and to going to each other at harvest time when extra help is required.

I do not see how the country can face up to the Common Market with such a depleted labour force on the land. The prospect—and I would be prepared to bet on this—is that there will be 10,000 fewer men and women working on the land this time next year compared with today. I feel the Minister should reconsider the situation which has thus been created. I suppose that when it comes to adjusting it, there is very little he can do with what exists, but it is up to him to devise and implement as soon as possible schemes which will restore the agricultural prosperity brought about in 1948 by the Minister for Agriculture in the inter-Party Government and sustained by that Government up to 1957.

In recent years, the Fianna Fáil Party have lost interest in the farmers, possibly because they never had the confidence of the vast majority of the farmers. If they let down agriculture for the Irish farmers, they will certainly let down agriculture in the Common Market, if we succeed in getting into it. That is why it will be necessary for the Government to devote all their enterprise and energy towards agriculture. Agriculture cannot prosper so long as labourers are going off the land, into industry or emigrating. Deputy Blowick mentioned that there were seven townlands in County Mayo where the doors have been locked up and the houses shuttered because complete families have emigrated. They have left the farms because they were unable to get a living from them.

He was, of course, speaking of the areas where there is not so much prosperity; but that economic position in relation to farmers seems to be spreading. A situation is gradually evolving under present circumstances in which more and more families will emigrate and more and more houses will be closed up. It is no solution for the Government to say that there is a movement from the land into the factories. That is not a solution. This country will never prosper until the numbers engaged on the land, living and producing from the land, increase considerably. The greater the increase the more prosperity we will enjoy.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. Childers)

I should like, first of all, to knock down some of the bogeys that have been introduced in this debate. One piece of nonsense to which we had to listen was the suggestion that people leaving the land is something exclusive to this country and something that happens only when Fianna Fáil are in office.

I should like to remind the House that so far as families engaged in farming are concerned, from 1954 to 1957, the number went down from 299,000, in 1954, to 285,000 in 1957. Apparently the Coalition Government, despite all their brilliant endeavours, were not able to reduce migration from the land. It is true that from 1957 the number of families working on the land continued to decline; the number fell from 285,000, in 1957, to 279,000 in 1961. If the numbers are compared, however, in the two periods it will be seen there has been no very great change in trend.

The same argument applies to the number of permanent workers in agriculture. In 1954, there were 58,000; in 1957, there were 50,000; and, in 1961, there were 46,000. That, again, indicates a continuing trend. There appears to have been some stabilisation actually in 1961 as compared with 1960 although comparing the figures for one single year with those for another single year is not a very reliable index but, to the extent that we have these figures, they would suggest that there has been a temporary reduction in the rate of emigration.

One of the more satisfactory features in the national economy is the fact that in both 1960 and 1961 more people secured employment in industry than ceased to be employed in agriculture. That indicates that the Fianna Fáil policy of trying to assist agriculture, on the one hand, and developing industry on the other is beginning to bear fruit. It is time for people to stop talking in this House about migration from the land as if it were something exclusive to this country.

The trend is world wide. When agriculture grows prosperous migration takes place; when agriculture does not prosper, migration takes place. It is utterly impossible to judge either the agricultural income or agricultural prosperity of a country by the degree of migration from the land because it is almost identical whether the farmers are growing richer or whether they are not. The trend is, as I said, universal. It is something every country, in Europe particularly, has to face. Quite clearly, in the objectives of the European Economic Community, while they definitely speak of the necessity of raising agricultural incomes, they also point out that it will be necessary, because of an inevitable reduction in the numbers on the land, to encourage industries in regional areas in order to counteract the undesirable results of migration. Even the authors of the agricultural policy of the European Economic Community do not pretend that merely raising agricultural prices and agricultural incomes will by itself solve the problem.

In 1938, the total aid to our farmers was £5,000,000. In the year that is just expiring it was £36,000,000. Whether compared with the price of agricultural produce, with the output of the farmers, or with any other factor, it shows a tremendous contribution by the Government and the taxpayers in coming to the aid of the agricultural community. Deputies on the Opposition benches failed to mention the fact that subsidies last year on products exported from this country amounted to as much as 25 per cent. of the total value of the products exported. No such subsidy was ever given before in the whole history of this country. Agricultural subsidies are difficult for a country the greater part of whose production is based on agriculture because, to some extent, the farmers inevitably pay for their own subsidies.

In that connection, the percentage of gross production from industry as between our country and others is something that has to be examined particularly when it comes to giving aid to the farmers. In 1959, the percentage of gross production from industry in Germany was 53 per cent.; in the United Kingdom it was 48 per cent.; in Denmark, which is supposed to be a largely agricultural country, and in the Netherlands, where the farmers have a very fine record of output, it was 42 per cent. In Ireland it was 28.6 per cent. That shows that we have not yet established sufficient industries to enable us to give with ease the kind of support which we have to give to the farmers until such time as we enter the Common Market, when a new system of price stabilisation and price guarantees is established in lieu of the arrangements which obtain in every country virtually in Europe for subsidies of one kind or another because farm incomes have not advanced as much as industrial and trade incomes.

Other countries besides ourselves are bound to record the fact that in the last seven years agricultural incomes have not increased as much as industrial and trade incomes and they all have recourse to the same analysis as that given by the Taoiseach in this debate. He referred to the fact, in other words, that, whereas the total agricultural income has increased by only a very small percentage since 1953, the percentage increase per head of people employed in farming was 15 per cent. from 1953 to 1960. That kind of analysis is given everywhere; every country points to the fact that the total income does not show any marked increase but, if you allow for migration from the land, the income left to the people on the land always shows a far bigger increase. What we have to face is common to a great many countries. The total non-agricultural income between 1953 and 1960 went up by 37 per cent. and the agricultural income per head went up by 15 per cent. That can be found in a great many countries other than ours. In 1961, our farm incomes went up by between £15,000,000 and £16,000,000 over the previous year.

Deputies talk in this House in the most airy-fairy way about the Government coming to the rescue of the farmers, but they never face up to the reality that we are 75 per cent. dependent on exports and that, in general, the countries of Europe, with their great resources of coal, iron and steel, with their raw materials, and with their greater populations, are on an average only 45 per cent. dependent on exports. We, therefore, are dependent very largely on export prices. The subsidies which ensure that our farmers receive the most equitable prices for their exports bear much more hardly on the economy of this country than on the economies of countries where there is an enormous industrial output from which to provide the necessary taxation. If I remember correctly, in England, the whole of the enormous subsidy structure for farm prices represents a tax of about 1¼ per cent. on the turnover of industry, whereas in the case of subsidies payable here in the current and expiring year, it is already 6½ per cent., as a percentage of the total production of this country.

Deputies on the Opposition side of the House have failed to remark on the fact that, as I have already said, current aid to farmers represents a higher proportion of the total income of the State than it does in any country belonging to O.E.E.D. No one has denied our statement which indicates that the Government, during the transitional period, have been making a tremendous effort to provide aid, grants and assistance to enable farmers to increase their output, and to lower their unit costs. The aid given in this country can stand up to and bear comparison with that given in any country in Europe.

Again, to reassure the farming community that they are not alone in the lag that has been evident in their incomes in the second half of the period since the war vis-á-vis the rest of the community, it is well to state that if you take a period of ten years, the decade from 1950 to 1960, the per capita increase in farming incomes has been as good here as it was in Belgium and France. In Belgium and France, there was a greater increase than in the case of the United States, Sweden and Norway. With regard to the increase in the per capita incomes of the farming population, there were only two countries where the incomes were greater than ours.

General MacEoin

They will be glad to hear it.

Mr. Childers

Those two countries are Denmark and the Netherlands, and in those countries, output rose and there would appear to be evidence of greater efficiency. The general record in regard to incomes here can be paralleled in many other countries.

I sought some information in regard to the United States where, with its gigantic resources and with its huge surpluses of various food products stacked up from year to year, the total farming incomes have declined from some 20 billion dollars in 1948, to 15 billion dollars in 1961. Along with that, the farming population, as a percentage of the total population of the United States, has gone down in a period of some 14 years, from 1946 to 1960, from 19 per cent. to 11½ per cent., showing, as I have already indicated, that migration from the land appears to be continuous everywhere, under all circumstances, good, bad and indifferent.

A great many members of the House naturally pleaded the case of the small farmer with five to 30 acres of land. Here again, it is absolutely essential to be realistic about the position of the very small farmer. If you examine the income of the small farmer as recorded in the Farm Survey—it does not matter whether you take the maximum income of the very remarkable farmer with remarkably good fortune, in favourable circumstances, efficient and having from £16 to £20 an acre, or the farmer who, for one reason or another, is not so successful—it is perfectly evident that even if through some new Government policy, or subsidies, or through the operation of the Common Market, you were to increase that income by 25 per cent. or 50 per cent., it still does not represent a comparable income with the income of a person not employed in agriculture who has the same responsibilities, the same hazards of life to face, and the same investment in money.

That is what has been plaguing the minds of all thinkers in Europe, the desire to retain as many people as possible on the land. No matter how they look at it, they find that there is really only one solution, that is, that no matter what can be done to increase the incomes of those on the land, to provide them with technical instruction to assist them in marketing, a proportion of the family will have to find employment in industry in the nearby towns, and that is the only way to preserve as many families as possible on the land. But, from the Opposition, we hear only negative cries of despair.

They do not face the ultimate issue. They do not face the issue that, if you take a farmer with 20 acres making an income, say, of £300 a year on his farm, after paying all costs, if after adopting a new, striking and dramatic policy, you raise that income by £250 a year, you still leave him relatively in the same position as the unskilled labourer in Great Britain earning anything from £12 to £14 a week. No matter how much aid is provided for him. unless the factories are there for his family, his position cannot be sustained. Everyone now knows that. It is not questioned anywhere in Europe, but in this House, in the course of this debate, we have heard a great deal of moaning and groaning, without anyone making constructive proposals as to how we might stimulate more industries. The reason there have been no proposals is that everyone knows that we are making the maximum effort in that regard.

Again, some of the suggestions that have been made as to how small farmers should be assisted involve completely crooked thinking. For instance, people have got up and said that we should transfer the £11,000,000, I think, involved in health charges, and paid by the local authorities all over the country, to the Central Fund and that in that way we would be coming to the rescue of the small farmers. We have only to examine the actual amount paid by the farmer for health to realise that, while it might be some encouragement to him, it is no fundamental solution. It does not represent any dramatic change in his income. What the farmers are paying in one form or another would have to be raised by central taxation.

I should like to hear Deputies who suggest the transfer of the health charges from the local authorities saying that they would vote for the increased taxation which would be involved in providing that £11,000,000. I think it would amount to a combination of something like 4d. on income tax, 4d. on petrol, 4d. on diesel oil, and 2d. on the pint. A combination of taxes of that kind would be required and the farmers would be paying much of it. Transferring incomes from one section to another by Government action has all sorts of side effects. You have to be a life-long expert to know how far you can transfer the incidence of taxation from one section to another without the section offended by the transfer passing back the cost to the people relieved. It is utterly ridiculous for people to get up and make brash statements about tax and tax transfers without at least having examined the whole matter, and its effects, in great detail. I do not even pretend to know the science of taxation in its ultimate detail. All I know is that when the Budget comes before this House, and taxes are voted, it is only the beginning of the story.

Although, in general, it is possible to redistribute the national income in favour of the less well off people by the imposition of taxation and the provision of social services, many studies can be made of how taxes are finally paid and there can be transfers from one section of the community to another. We cannot blithely say that we will take a huge section of taxation from one part of the community and be certain they will not be paying at least a great part of it back directly or indirectly in higher prices or in other ways. Therefore, loose talk about how to relieve one section of the community at the expense of another is highly dangerous. Deputies have long experience of government in one way or another. They are not helping the farming community by making suggestions without a great deal of further study on the matter.

Everyone has been talking about the value of joining the Common Market in relation to our agriculture. We have been reading very optimistic statements by the National Farmers Association based on Danish studies of the increase in consumption anticipated in the Common Market countries in the next five years and based on the study of what the increase in consumption in certain foodstuffs is reckoned to be from 1957 to 1965. We have been reading that these increases in consumption may vary from 15 per cent. to 40 per cent. in respect of various commodities, a number of which we can export. We also know of the intention gradually to raise farm prices so as to afford better and better living standards to the farming community.

I suppose that members of the Opposition can hardly be expected to say, when they speak with hope about the Common Market, that if the price of foodstuffs rises there will be an inevitable increase in the cost of living in this country. There is nothing perfect in this world. If you have a Common Market system whereby the whole force of farm prices is raised you will get side effects which come back on the non-agricultural sector. I should like to see people who speak hopefully about our joining the Common Market prepare to face the issue that the price of foodstuffs here may rise. It has been taken into account in other countries and it must be taken into account here. It will be to our net benefit to have stabilised and higher farm prices and some greater opportunities for foreign markets, but we must face the fact that there may be side effects. It is just as well to mention that point in a debate during which people are talking so much about increases in the cost of living.

There are all sorts of evidence that our farming community, despite frightful difficulties with weather, has been progressing. Evidence of that fact is shown by the great increase in agricultural exports since 1956; by quite substantial increases in the price of store cattle between February of this year and February of last year; by the effects of attestation on the general price level; by the fact that, whatever may be the temporary reduction in cattle population, there has been a considerable increase in the total cattle population in the past seven years in spite of the enormous number of T.B. affected cattle eliminated from the herds. There has been plenty of evidence that a great many farmers have been making progress.

It always interests me to read the National Farmers' Journal. Very gloomy facts are given in one part of the Journal and then, flicking through the pages, one sees evidence that individual farmers, despite all the difficulties of wind and weather, have been able to make considerable progress in increasing their incomes by using modern methods.

The Fine Gael Party have a way of constantly talking about increases in the cost of living as though only governments other than their own ever caused an increase in the cost of living. There has been a general increase in the cost of living in the past seven years in the sterling world and in Europe in general. Some studies were made recently to compare the increases in the cost of living here with those in Europe generally. As far as one can see, we had about the average increase in our cost of living as compared with most European countries. Certainly, the increase in the cost of living here, taking the sterling world in general, showed no remarkable feature.

When people talk about increases in the cost of living, they never refer to the increases in wages which have taken place at the same time. In the course of the past four years, wages have gone up twice as much as the increases in living costs. That shows the workers have improved their position. I am speaking of the increases in wages that took place before the eighth round of increases in which there has been an increase of between 12 and 13 per cent. in the earnings of workers who had this increase, all at once, as compared with the increase in the cost of living, taking the mid-February index, of some 3.47 per cent. between mid-February, 1960, and mid-February, 1961.

The increase in the cost of living has risen steadily from the time the Coalition Government took office until the present day. This curious effort on the part of the Coalition Parties to disguise the increase that took place during their period of office is interesting to note. For example, if you take the annual increase in the consumer price index, taking the mid-November figures, you will see a familiar pattern which continues right throughout the whole period. From 1954 to 1955 the percentage increase was 3.9. From 1955 to 1956 the percentage increase was 2.29. From 1956 to 1957 it was 5.97; from 1957 to 1958 it was 2.82 and then, from 1958 to 1959, for the first time for a long time, the percentage went down by 1.37. The next year the percentage rose by 2.78 and the next year it rose by 2.03.

There is no shattering or remarkable change in increases in living costs over the whole period from 1954 to 1961. There was one period when the subsidies were withdrawn and when there was a big jump. Then there was a period of stability and, actually, there was a reduction in the cost of living for one period. As I have said, it simply shows that we, in common with other European countries, had those changes in the value of money. It has been going on constantly. Very few countries had economic systems sufficiently perfect to control their cost of living, either because they were unable entirely to control inflationary tendencies in their own territories or because they had to pay more for goods they imported.

To the extent that the cost of living has gone up in other countries and costs of production go up as a result of increased wages, if our costs go up in relation to our export trade we can hold our position. We want to avoid excessive increases in costs at any one time because they are liable to affect our position and hinder the growth of our export trade. When we hear members of the Opposition talking gaily about higher subsidies of one kind or another in the face of our application to join the European Economic Community it seems to me to be a futile proposal when we face the prospect of having an entirely different system of price stabilisation in which subsidies will be gradually evened off until they completely disappear.

I was reading through the reports of the debate last week and I realised that the Opposition were trying to introduce a spirit of pessimism but I believe they will be defeated in their efforts because everybody knows there is a far better spirit throughout the country now than at any time since the War. People have far more confidence in the future, more zest for nation building. The best evidence is provided by the comments of the people who come from outside——

Mr. T. Lynch

And stay in the Shelbourne Hotel.

Mr. Childers

——such as journalists and people who report back to the more prominent United States newspapers. People who come to the country see there is a more dynamic spirit now existing than at any time since the War, that the economy of the country has improved, that prosperity is growing. It would be much better if we had more constructive criticism from the Opposition, if they dealt with some of the more difficult problems we have to face. We should like to hear more about such problems as marketing or more about the general economy of the country in relation to our entry into the Common Market. Mere whinging and moaning over the whole economic situation will get us nowhere. Quite evidently, there has been very marked progress in the last two years and nothing the Opposition can do can damp the spirit of the people, who have made it quite evident that they do see a future for our country.

Mr. Browne

It is with mixed feelings that a new Deputy, such as I, make my first address to the Dáil. I want to emphasise that I have delayed doing so for two reasons—and I want to emphasise the word "delayed": first, I think the Vote on Account gives us an opportunity. It is an occasion when we must examine the charges which the people are asked to pay and examine the results likely to flow from that and examine in particular the capacity of the people to bear the burdens indicated in the Vote on Account. It affords us an opportunity to consider the Government's future policy and intentions. Secondly, if affords a Deputy an opportunity of bringing to the notice of the House and the Government the problems which affect his constituency.

I do not intend to take up time making a lengthy political speech to enhance my political reputation. I intend to put before the Government and the House the effect of Government policy on my constituents in North Mayo and I propose to offer some concrete suggestions that I feel would at least remedy the problems of my constituency. I hope my opening remarks will convey that on this, and on all occasions when I speak here, my criticisms will not be made obstructively.

My constituency may be divided into three areas wherein the problems are rather similar but differ somewhat. We have what I would describe as the vast Achill area on the left; the vast Erris area on the right and the central area known as Tirawley. Both Achill and Erris have been recognised as two large migratory areas from which the residents emigrate for a period of the year to improve their incomes and standard of living. The central area is composed of a farming community, mainly small farmers. By small farmers I mean those whose farms average less than 40 acres. In the central area also are the two big towns of my constituency and the smaller villages.

Although the Minister and everybody on the Government side may be weary of the word "emigration", I must refer to it because in County Mayo, 10,000 emigrated over the past five years, according to figures recently recorded. This is a serious situation and if, in the next five years, another 10,000 people emigrate from Mayo what will we be faced with? One of the main causes of emigration of this magnitude from Mayo is the withdrawal of the subsidies. Before he left the House just now the Minister for Transport and Power referred to the side effects of taxation but there is no doubt about it that in a constituency such as mine where there are small farmers with low earnings, if you continue to increase taxation you inevitably create emigration.

The main diet of the poorer people is bread, butter, milk, tea and sugar. Those of us in more fortunate circumstances can substitute meat and other food in our diet and do not have to rely to the same extent as have the poorer sections of the community on these items. For the poorer sections of the town of Ballina, the removal of the food subsidies has created a very serious situation.

In regard to Erris and Achill, two major migratory areas in my constituency, there are two solutions which the Minister in his wisdom might consider. Round about Achill and Erris there is a wonderful coast but, unfortunately, an undeveloped coast. It is appalling for my constituents to look out and see foreign trawlers fishing just four or five miles off shore while the local people of Achill and Erris have not available to them suitable boats or proper landing facilities. The Minister should devise some scheme whereby capital could be provided for these fishermen so that they could participate in the very important industry of seafishing. Our national income could be increased tremendously by the development of the fishing industry. The people of Erris and Achill should be assisted in developing that industry along the coast of North Mayo.

The second part of my constituency with which I am concerned is the central area around Ballina. As I said at the outset, that part of the constituency is composed of small farmers. May I say to their credit that as workers they are second to none in the country? Despite what may be said on the other side of the House, whatever Government may rule this country from time to time must take serious account of the plight of the farmer.

I want to commend to the Government and to the House the remarks recently published in the Irish Catholic, of the truth of which I am firmly convinced, that as far as rural life is concerned the family farm is the ideal of Catholic sociology. The family farm has long been the backbone of our way of life. The family farm has given no small number of Irishmen who have created away from home a record for our country of which we all are proud.

I am rather saddened that in recent years it is from the family farm that many are migrating. Unfortunate as this tendency is, a much more alarming one is becoming noticeable in certain rural areas. When a rural family moves into a town, rural Ireland is left all the poorer. Everything possible should be done to preserve the family farm as the very centre of our economic planning. Therefore, assistance on a lavish scale should be forthcoming especially for the small farmer. Our social planners should follow the advice given recently by Pope John that economic conditions should be such as to ensure sufficient income to enable the family to live in decent comfort.

I have the greatest respect for the Undeveloped Areas Act as brought into this House but I regret to have to advise the House that my constituency of North Mayo has not benefited in any way from that Act. I am rather worried when I see the Government extending the Undeveloped Areas Act to other counties because I know that diminishes the possibility of our getting any industry in North Mayo. I cannot understand why this Government or previous Governments have not done something to encourage the establishment of an industry in Ballina which has a good sea port, a railway service, raw material and sufficient labour available. Industrialists go to the cities. Perhaps it is that labour is more readily available there. I am quite certain that it is that tendency which prompted the Government to introduce the Undeveloped Areas Act.

I read in one of last Sunday's newspapers that Clare is to get six new industries. How disquieting must that be to me in a constituency like North Mayo? It is not that I would envy Clare getting sixty industries but I should like the Government to give special preference to a town which has not already got an industry. My suggestion would be that if a constituency or a town has not got one industry the Government should increase the grant for the first industry and that the grant for subsequent industries would be on a reduced scale. In Clare, which is an undeveloped area under the Act, six similar grants are being made available but an area like North Mayo, which has no factory, has not got the benefit of any grant. If foreign industrialists were to be given an increased grant in a place like Mayo, I am satisfied there would be a more even distribution of the capital being made available by the Government for industries.

I want to make a passing reference to the Moy drainage scheme, one of the biggest drainage schemes in the country at present operating in my constituency. May I say to the Government and everybody concerned that we are grateful that the Moy drainage scheme is in progress? We are very grateful to all the hard working staff from the head engineer to the lowliest worker on the Moy drainage scheme. I want to draw the Minister's attention to the fact—and I say this with deference to politics—that there are shortcomings. I can quite understand that there would be shortcomings in a drainage scheme of this magnitude. Very important main streams have been left out. I understand from the officials that they must keep to the plan as outlined. I am sure that both Deputy Calleary and Deputy Leneghan have the same problem as I have. I want to commend to the Minister the very important streams and tributaries of the Moy not included in the catchment area. I would strongly appeal to the Minister to provide the money necessary to complete those important streams that are left out. It would be a tragedy if a scheme of this magnitude were spoiled. Might I put it this way? —it would be a pity to spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar at this stage.

Rural Ireland is in a very serious condition. Every Deputy, no matter on what side of the House he sits, will agree that much of our Irish culture came from rural Ireland. If rural Ireland disappears, much of our Irish culture will disappear with it. I want the Government and this House in general to realise that people are emigrating in very great numbers from rural Ireland. Something will have to be done to stem this emigration. This year the problem is not made any more easy by the tremendous increase in rates.

On last Saturday, I was present at Mayo County Council when, rather against my wishes, our rate was increased from 50/- to 54/- in the £. To add to that, we are to draw 2/7d. in the £ out of the reserve funds to keep our county going. When one takes into account that the taxpayers of Mayo have to meet £72,000 extra this year without any increased profits, one wonders how long can they continue. The implications are that the forthcoming Budget will bring with it increases. I say those are the implications because I am in no position to say it will. I want seriously to submit to this House that the farmer's income has to meet the increase in rates but has the farmer's incomes gone up to meet whatever increases are imposed on him by indirect taxation? Has the income of the small shopkeeper in the town increased to meet the increased rates and increased taxes that may be introduced?

Those are the problems which we must face in this House. I shall continue to speak in this House and elsewhere, whatever Government may sit on the benches opposite, until something is done to alleviate the many problems that exist in my constituency and, indeed, in the country in general.

In the west of Ireland there are great possibilities in afforestation. A big portion of my constituency lends itself greatly to afforestation. Afforestation has a threefold effect. It creates employment in the planting stage; it creates employment in the thinningout stage and it creates employment when the forest finally reaches maturity. Having regard to the many uses there are for timber, if places like Mayo, Galway, Sligo-Leitrim and other areas in the west of Ireland were planted, it might be possible eventually to establish direct industries on the sites. There are great possibilities along the western seaboard.

As I said at the outset, in connection with my constituency, the people's income can be increased if grants are made available for the provision of boats for fishermen and if the piers and slipways along the coast of Mayo are made available for landings.

In rural Ireland, if the farmer's income is increased the farmer is quite satisfied to stay on the land. Criticisms against the farmers have been voiced in many parts of the country about their right to march in protest. If a body of factory workers are dissatisfied with their wages and if negotiations fail, do they not strike? Is it wrong for the farmer, if he says his income is not high enough to meet his commitments and if he cannot strike, to march in protest? I do not think he is marching to offend the Minister for Finance or any other individual. He is marching to draw the attention of the Government and this House to his present unstable and unsatisfactory condition.

I want to conclude by saying that, as a result of the election, many young Deputies have entered this House. I do not want to reflect in any way on the older members of this House or an any older member who passed through it but I believe the modern generation want their minds and efforts concentrated upon the problems of the present and of the future. In the Government, the Labour Party and on this side of the House there are men with plenty of ability and sincerity, which is more important, who are ready to give the best of their ability to solving the many economic problems which affect our country.

The biggest problem concerns rural Ireland. A tremendous effort should be made on all sides of the House to solves the problems of rural Ireland. There is too much centralisation on Dublin and the larger cities. I heard the words "complacency" and "buoyancy" mentioned a great deal here last week. Those who were talking about buoyancy would be talking about complacency and those talking about complacency would be talking about buoyancy if they had a real knowledge of the problems of rural Ireland. I would ask the Minister and the Government to pay special attention to the problems of rural Ireland.

Mr. Cummins

It is probably true to say that every year since the foundation of the State was a year of tremendous importance. In the building of the State following the long struggle for independence, every step taken by the Government in office was vital. I believe that the year just gone will prove to have been the most important and the most significant of all. The Government's programme of industrial expansion has continued to prove a success. More men have been put to work. Exports are increasing; earnings have increased. All of these are indications that progress has been maintained. If there have been rises in the prices of some goods and services they are only what every reasonable man might expect. The world today is demanding higher standards but these cannot be obtained and maintained without some increases in prices.

In addition to increases in income, most workers enjoy shorter working hours, thanks to the trade unions, but they should remember that these are made possible only by the existence of a progressive economy. If the Government's efforts in the economic sphere were a failure then the trade unions would have found it impossible to obtain for the workers the improved conditions which they have obtained. Workers' representatives made no concealment of the fact that they are demanding a greater share of the national prosperity, thereby admitting that such prosperity does exist. No greater tribute could be paid to the progress the country is making. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the workers' representatives in the trade unions outside are more aware of the country's progress than are their representatives inside the House, the Labour Party.

Deputy Corish seemed to be more concerned with the question of Ireland joining N.A.T.O. than he was with the benefits that must accrue to the workers by our entry to the Common Market. The experiment of the Common Market has been a success from every point of view and the Labour Party would be much better occupied in making more constructive suggestions as to how best we could increase production. No Fianna Fáil Government will involve the country in any commitment which would conflict with the ideal of independence to which every Deputy subscribes.

However we may view the political aspects of the Common Market, the fact is becoming more and more obvious that it is only the Government's far-sighted policy that made it possible for us to think of applying for membership. The Programme for Economic Expansion was no gimmick to attract votes but was a continuation of the policy laid down on the foundation of Fianna Fáil and pursued in the face of Opposition cynicism and misrepresentation.

The leader of the Labour Party referred to the confusion, bewilderment and fright evident amongst the people today. There is no confusion amongst the people today and if there is any uncertainty amongst a section of them known only to the members of the Opposition Parties the Government are not responsible for it. Rather should the blame be placed at the doors of the Deputies who keep harping on the alleged impermanence of the new industries. Failures there may be. No Government can guarantee 100 per cent. success in any programme they initiate. The percentage of failures is so small that it has no effect at all on the overall optimism which pervades the country today.

I do not believe that there has been any slowing down of economic expansion. Every sensible man knows that the Fianna Fáil Government have tackled the problems of emigration and unemployment vigorously and energetically, keeping always in mind the country's future and the changing circumstances with which we may have to contend from time to time. The Government have given the country stability and if we were to have a change of Government tomorrow no Party or combination of Parties would dare to make a move which would upset the sane and well-ordered progress now in operation.

The foundation has been laid and very well laid. Every future Government will find that if they are to have regard for the country's economic progress they must build upon that foundation. Deputy Flanagan's assertion that the General Election results showed diminishing confidence in the Government is sheer nonsense. Under Proportional Representation, to which he and his colleagues are so devoted, any Party that can win almost as many seats as all the other Parties put together has achieved a tremendous victory. It might be as well to remind the Deputy of the complete rejection of the Fine Gael policy which we witnessed in 1957.

The Irish Banking Review of December, 1961, says:

The result of the general election was satisfactory from the point of view of business confidence ... The rate of expansion of Irish industry during the present year has been quite satisfactory. It may prove to have been greater than that of last year. In the first six months of the year 27 firms opened new factories or extensions and, at the end of June, 28 new factories were in course of construction.

It goes on to say:

The industries that expanded most rapidly were chemicals and chemical products, metals and engineering, clothing and footwear and food processing.

Mr. Tully

Is Dundalk in that?

Dr. Ryan

Let him make his speech.

Mr. Cummins

It goes on:

Increases took place in the output of cattle, creamery butter and bacon ...

I could go on reading the entire contents if the House were prepared to listen.

(Interruptions).

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Cummins is entitled to make his speech.

Dr. Ryan

He is annoying them.

Mr. Tully

But for P.R., he would not be here.

Mr. Leneghan

But for P.R., a lot of others would not be here.

Mr. Tully

Who retained it?

Mr. Cummins

No sensible Deputy can object to the size of the bill now before the House. At every economic difficulty the cry is for the Government to do something. The Government have always been prepared to do something, but every effort, by way of loan, grant, investment or guidance, costs money. Nobody can object to the Vote on Account and, later, the Budget if it asks for money to enable the Government to do the very things the Government have been asked to do.

It would be well to remind ourselves that increased money, whether for the Government, workers or employers, comes only from an ever-increasing level of national wealth. Increased national wealth can come only from an increase in productive employment. Workers and management must combine to produce to the utmost capacity if we are to have the higher incomes which mean the higher standards we all so earnestly desire. Short of absolute dictatorship, which is abhorrent to us, no Irish Government can force a rise in production. All they can do is to provide the means and the incentives. The rest is up to the workers and the employers — the worker to give of his best and the employer to organise his business to the point of maximum efficiency. We here, thank God, have a free society and we cannot force a shirker to become a worker or a lazy management to become active. The best that can be done is to emphasise and publicise the country's needs and the part which must be played by every individual towards meeting these needs. There is no easy, royal road to success. Continuing and increasing economic and social progress depend no less on the people than on their Government.

When discussing emigration I would direct the attention of the House to a very significant feature, which was also mentioned to-day by my colleague, Deputy Timmons. This feature became very evident last year and it appears to be continuing. I refer to the problem caused by the return of families from Britain, which is engaging the attention of Dublin Corporation. The Corporation have decided not to consider applications for houses from such families until six months after their return from Great Britain. I am not suggesting that the inflow is such as to be a cause of congratulation, having regard to our long history of large-scale emigration. I believe, however, it is an indication that there is a feeling abroad that the country at last has something to offer which is comparable to the attractions of other lands.

The overall picture, as I see it, is one of steady progress. The workers in our new industries need have no fear if they are prepared to face the realities of our position. The trade unions are co-operating in the work of the Committee on Industrial Organisation. If the recommendations of that body are accepted, there is no reason to believe that the financial standards our people now enjoy will not be continued and even enhanced.

Mr. Belton

Having listened to the feeble speeches offered from the Fianna Fáil benches in defence of the proposals in this Vote on Account, I am convinced that at least the backbenchers of Fianna Fáil are hopeful that this Government will last their full term of office or at least, that the Government will last for a further twelve months until Dr. Ryan can bring in his second Budget. As Deputy Lynch said earlier, in the last election Fianna Fáil plastered every wall and hoarding with posters exhorting the people to vote for the Fianna Fáil Party and put back Mr. Lemass as Taoiseach. But now the people, having voted Fianna Fáil back as Government, are faced with finding an extra £17,000,000— £17,000,000 more than they had to find in the last financial year.

I wonder how the Minister for Finance will propose to bridge this gap when he introduces his Budget next month? I suggest the public are anxiously awaiting what he will say in this matter. I wonder what the Fianna Fáil candidates in the last election would have said at the hustings had they realised that their Government, when elected, would impose a further burden of £17,000,000 on the people? Would they have suggested to the people that the Minister proposed to put increased taxation on tobacco, beer, intoxicating liquor, to increase income tax and to introduce purchase tax?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question of taxation does not arise.

Mr. Belton

The time for promises is now over. We have, as Will Rogers said on television the other night, reached the time for alibis. The Fianna Fáil Party have nothing left to offer the people but alibis for broken promises.

When introducing this Vote on Account, the Minister stated that the amount under the heading for teachers will have to be further increased to cover awards to be made to vocational and secondary teachers. Will the Minister consider the pensioned teachers when increased awards are being offered to these people? Will the old I.R.A., the Garda and the civil servants be considered? These people have to meet the increased cost of living just the same as the people who have organisations to fight their cases.

The C.I.E. workers have been neglected by the Minister for Transport and Power and by C.I.E. There are 1,615 C.I.E. workers with a pension of 12/- or less a week; yet these pensioners have to pay as much as 1/8d. in bus fares when they go to collect that pension. We talk about buoyancy, industrial expansion and several other things, but it is a sad state of affairs that in the year 1962, we have so many people with such a small pension and the Government fail to rectify their position.

I might refer to the Fianna Fáil Party as the late Fianna Fáil Party. They were four years late in moving about the Common Market. There was a motion in this House in 1957 that the Government and members of the Oireachtas should sit in committee to discuss the problems arising out of our possible entry into the Common Market. It was suggested that every shade of opinion in the Oireachtas and every shade of opinion in the country would be sought to see what we could do about our entry. Nothing was done by the Government until the summer of last year, four years after it was suggested that they should move. The Fianna Fáil Party were also four years late in realising the value of the British market. We are now rushing after the tailcoats of Britain to try to enter the Common Market. It is just the same as in 1922 when they were four years late in entering this House to form a healthy Opposition and assist in undoing the damage, the bitterness and everything else——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise.

Mr. Belton

It is a good thing to see the Fianna Fáil Party coming around to a proper way of thinking. I suppose it might be said that it is always better late than never, but I am afraid that in regard to the Common Market the Fianna Fáil Party are moving very late. They had four years during which they could bolster up industry to enable it to meet the impact of the problems that would arise from a possible entry into the Common Market, but they have been sitting complacently, wasting four of the most valuable years the country has had.

Last night, at a lecture in the R.D.S. Library given by Dr. Hughes entitled "The Urge to Merge", it was suggested by a leading civil servant that Córas Tráchtála intended setting up offices in the capitals of all Common Market countries. I do not know whether that is true or not but I should like to have the Minister's view on it when he is replying. If it is true, I suggest that as we have embassies and ministries in the capitals of all these Common Market countries, their services should be availed of. If they have not got proper or adequate staff to deal with this problem, the Minister should get Córas Tráchtála to lend staff to them instead of burdening the Exchequer with the cost of new offices and new staff. If offices are made available, we would all like to see good offices in reasonably good districts where we could create a good impression on the people we hope to deal with.

Some Fianna Fáil speakers have excused the eighth round increases. We have had the eighth round but nobody has mentioned the ninth round which has started. When the Budget comes in next month, the Minister will be like a child at school bowling the hoop along further and quicker. An extra £17,000,000 has to be found from taxation and this is going to set the hoop rolling quicker in the ninth round of increases. That is one thing which we shall have to face up to. The Minister in introducing this Vote on Account has presented this country with a problem which the country will find it very difficult to solve.

Mr. Leneghan

Since this debate started, we have listened almost continuously to the prophets of doom. If some of these people who have taken such a gloomy attitude towards the affairs of the country took a leaf from the book of some of the people in my part of the country, they would be doing themselves and the country a good turn. In my part of the country, when a man is going to the county home, he tells people he is going to the bank. It is a better idea than what has been going on here for the last few days.

According to those on the Opposition benches, this country has sunk beyond redemption. It may be, but I do not know where they got the facts on which to base their decision. You have only to go into the streets of Dublin or the streets of any town to find more motor cars now in one county than there were in all Ireland a few years ago. In country places, you are lucky if you can get within half a mile of the church on a Sunday. I am sure that all these cars are not won in all the competitions sponsored by the Sunday Press or the Sunday Independent and I am quite sure they are not available from any philanthropic Society such as the St. Vincent de Paul Society. Somebody must be paying for them. Certainly if the number of cars, the number of television aerials and the number attending dances throughout the country—for which the admission charge is probably the highest in the world—are taken as any indication of the position, then we must be at the peak of prosperity. I see no other way of looking at it.

If I have to believe all I heard since this debate started, the panacea for all our ills is to be found on this side of the House, but it is remarkable that over the past 14 years the people who are now criticising everything that is being done spent seven years in office and as far as I know did nothing about these alleged ills. I do not think anybody takes them seriously. Not one single point of constructive criticism has come from that side since the debate started—not even one. It was purely destructive criticism, the same type of thing as we heard from the platforms at the church gates a few months ago. We should be honest and fair. I am not a member of the Fianna Fáil Party but I believe in justice.

Mr. Tully

Not yet.

Mr. Leneghan

That is my business, whether I will be or not. Nobody here can influence me. I believe in honesty and justice and neither is being shown in this debate. I want to say for the Fianna Fáil Party that since they came into office, they have brought into operation in this country the greatest programme of social legislation ever introduced in any parliament in Europe in a similar period.

Mr. R. Barry

Who told the Deputy that?

Mr. Leneghan

I know. Even if Fianna Fáil gave free beef, they certainly provided other things of benefit to the community. The Deputy's interruption will not help his case at all because he will get more back than he gives. Today the farmers of this country are being organised by a crowd of political adventurers.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

This man was a Fine Gael county councillor.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Ex, I hope.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Ex, now.

Mr. Leneghan

Now I will deal with you.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The Deputy must speak to the Chair when he is in this House, in case he does not know.

Mr. Leneghan

There is no doubt about it. The farmers are led by a crowd of political adventurers. We have them down in my county, some whose star happens to be falling and others whose star has never risen. I want to say here—I am not afraid to say it—that if the publicans and the shopkeepers, all of whom are high ratepayers, went out and paraded in the same misguided way as some of the people who have been organised by political adventurers, they would be booed in the streets and on the footpaths by those very people. It is unfortunate they should allow themselves to be led by such political adventurers. We all know who they are.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

He is making his constructive speech now.

Mr. Leneghan

I could not be any less constructive than the Deputy or anybody belonging to him.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Briseann an dúchas——

Mr. Leneghan

If the Deputy goes around and sees the decent houses the people have——

Mr. Coughlan

They are all empty.

Mr. Leneghan

We know who provided those houses. We know what they were given in 1956 when everybody in my end of the country was afraid to go out in the streets in case the merchants would be after them trying to get the county council to go to the Government for grants.

Mr. T. Lynch

There are no houses being built now.

Mr. Leneghan

They are not being built in Dublin because there is a shortage of labour in the building industry.

Mr. T. Lynch

At the moment, there is, because they are all engaged in building skyscrapers.

Mr. Leneghan

This is coming from one who is neutral.

Mr. T. Lynch

We never murdered anyone.

Mr. Leneghan

You murdered 77 of them.

Mr. Coughlan

They did not die on the hunger strikes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Leneghan must be allowed to make his statement without these interruptions.

Mr. Leneghan

This country has been rapidly developing over the past four or five years and that is what is getting the goat of the people now interrupting. I would emphasise that any one type of development should not be concentrated on particularly: other aspects should be equally carefully considered. It is not alone questions of tourism, of agriculture or any one or two types of development we should be concerned about. The whole field should be very carefully covered and no one would be fool enough not to realise that we will have to take into consideration also the question of our joining the Common Market.

I have no great worries about that. To be frank, I have more worries about the people whom we are going to join in that community. We have survived vicissitudes and crises for hundreds of years and we shall survive our entry into the Common Market. Let nobody be foolish enough to think otherwise. My attitude is that instead of worrying about our standard of living and our not being able to reach the standard of some Europeans, the position is that they may come down to ours. Because if you look at Dublin and part of the midlands today, you will find that half the people there spend most of the time racing and the other half spend most of the time at funerals. We survived the landlords, the crowbar brigades, the troubles and every injustice ever inflicted upon us and we shall survive the Common Market. Let nobody have any doubts about it.

It is rather remarkable that we base all our decisions regarding our past, present and future on things we see locally. Often city Deputies fail to see beyond the confines of the cities they represent and unfortunately many people fail to see outside the confines of their own towns, but the fact is that our people have gone throughout the world and have been successful in every country. The British press has given prominence to the few slips our people make but none to the great victories our people achieved and the great contributions our people have made in the countries throughout the world.

We have been a rambling race. We do a lot of roaming at home, not to talk about going abroad at all, but with our entry into the Common Market, emigration may prove to be a blessing because there is nobody so stupid as to believe there will be only a European Common Market. Other parts of the world like the Americas will, of course, take advantage of this opportunity and, as we all know, we have our people fairly well spread out all over the world. I believe that as the years go by, we shall see the benefits of our positioning throughout the entire universe. We are in Australia; we have taken over America, practically taken over England and Scotland and if we only get our foothold in Europe——

Mr. W. Murphy

Take over the North now.

Mr. Leneghan

It is not worth taking over. There is too much unemployment there. I submit that the Department of Social Welfare should have some kind of section to deal with emigration. I am not advocating that for the purpose of encouraging emigration but from the point of view that when our people go—and it is no longer the labourer and the poorer paid person who goes—they will find something has been done for them before they arrive and that they would have better contacts to go to. It is rather unfair to see young people among us, some of them in their teens, going off to England and America and, finding, particularly in England and Scotland, they have no contacts at all. In America, the position is different because the future has to be partially guaranteed before they go out. It would be only right, considering the tremendous financial return which comes from these emigrants, that something should be done on those lines— and it could be done—to ensure the way is made easier for them when they leave. It should be very easy for the Department of Social Welfare to deal with that matter.

Educational standards are of vital importance from many points of view. Not nearly enough is spent on higher education. Over £4,000,000, or possibly more, is spent on primary education. It is a pity that some children who would like to avail of higher education are debarred from obtaining such an education. The policy of increasing the number of scholarships is commendable. I suggest that there should be another substantial increase in that direction in the not too distant future. We are on the eve of entering the Common Market. The day of the pick and the spade is gone. If we are to engage in industry, we will have to have higher educational standards. Vocational schools are going up rapidly, but there are not sufficient teachers to man them. Many of the schools are closed because of a lack of teachers.

There are very few Deputies, particularly those from the west, who are not always in trouble with somebody about land. Deputies from the midlands do not want to see the people from the west coming into the midlands. They should remember that in the time of Cromwell these were the people who were driven out of the midlands into the west. It is only justice that they should get back there again. No matter how badly they may farm, they could not do a worse job than that done now by those who inhabit these lands.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. Leneghan

It is remarkable to discover the number of farmers in the midlands who have let their lands on the conacre system at high rents to people from the west. The people from the west know how to use the land. They farm while the local farmers are at the races. I do not say they should not go to the races, but, if they do not know how to farm, the people from the west will teach them.

Mr. Tully

What does the Deputy know about it?

Mr. Leneghan

I know more about it than Deputy Tully. That is obvious. Efforts should be redoubled to bring smallholders from the west into the midlands, if only to give a good example to the farmers already there. If the people from the west do nothing more than show how the land should be worked, the Government would do a good day's work for the country in placing them in the midlands, to say nothing of restoring a balance that was upset some centuries back when these same people were compelled to leave the midlands.

Reference was made to the fall in the number of agricultural labourers. It is no wonder the number should decline in the midlands. The agricultural labourers there will not work like slaves for the remnants of the landlord class who now evidently control the midlands and who would pay these labourers a mere pittance instead of a decent wage. There is no man who will not work honestly, if he is paid the value of his work. Many agricultural labourers are being treated as serfs. It is no wonder they leave to earn a decent livelihood elsewhere. Even the girls in the midlands, if there are any left, do not want to be seen dead or alive with certain people.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. Leneghan

The Fianna Fáil Party, no matter what anyone says, is the poor man's Party. The Fianna Fáil Party would be very foolish if they became the rich man's Party, as certain others in this House have become. No matter how many rich people there may be in this country, there will always be quite a number of poor people. It is a good thing to have the poor on one's side, if one wants to govern.

There are many things which can be done to help our people. I would have no hesitation in raising a loan to develop our bogs, our land, and our waters. An industry which could add considerably to the wealth of our country is the salmon industry. Our rivers are unpolluted. No real effort has ever been made to propagate our salmon. We have the finest fishing potential in Europe. Money spent on the development of our fisheries would be money well spent. It is unfortunate that many of our rivers are still controlled by aliens. These rivers should be made available to the public generally. That would be a step in the right direction.

One of the reasons our fisheries, both freshwater and sea fisheries, are not properly developed is the lack of marketing facilities. I do not suppose one person in 20 gets fish on one Friday in the year. It should be comparatively easy to find a market for much larger catches. As one who knows something about fish, I can assure the House there is money in fish.

It is quite true that our population is inclined to fall. So long as we have access to another country on our doorstep, with good wages and a high standard of living, there is not a great deal we can do to hold our people. I have known people in the past 12 months to leave the country and their leaving had nothing to do with wages. Any fully trained man can command a high salary. Teachers, doctors and engineers command high salaries; yet they are the people who are going, and it has nothing to do with finance. They will go whether or not we like it, and the only thing we can do is try to make it possible for them, if they wish, to find employment here. Money directed along those lines will be money well spent.

The marriage rate is dropping rapidly. In fact, I think there are some men who do not know that women exist. That is a rather sad aspect of our economy but it happens to be true. Anything that can be done to make employment available and so increase the marriage rate, even in a small way, should be considered, and the Minister should not overlook that in his Budget.

The law as it is at present in regard to social benefits of various kinds, social assistance, unemployment assistance, unemployment benefit and disability benefit, can start a terrible row in a family. If we take the unemployment benefit section alone, we find that a man can get 10/- each for the first two children in his family, but he will get only 5/- for each child after that. We are all human beings and I am sure when the father looks at the children and sees two worth 10/- each, and the others worth only 5/- each, he finds it rather discouraging. In a country which purports not only to be Christian but Catholic, it is a sad reflection on our legislators that one child——

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy discussing legislation?

Mr. Leneghan

I shall not go any further into that, except to say that the Minister should eliminate that discrepancy in his Budget. It is not fair.

An Ceann Comhairle

I cannot allow the Deputy to discuss legislation.

Mr. Leneghan

I would ask the Minister, apart from giving increased allowances to those who have the "guts" to marry—and so far as I can see in the midlands, they have not——

An Ceann Comhairle

I cannot allow the Deputy to proceed in a discussion of legislation.

Mr. Leneghan

I am not.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is discussing legislation and he must cease.

Mr. Leneghan

I would ask the Minister when he is bringing in his Budget to consider the question of making all children not only equal in the eyes of God but equal in the eyes of the Government, the Department of Social Welfare and himself. If he does that, he will be doing a good day's work.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I am afraid I am not an expert on the dance halls of the west of Ireland or the habits of the people there, but I should like to assure the Deputy from the west that not everyone in this part of the country spends his time going to race meetings or funerals. Both are apt to be sad occasions. However, we are discussing the Vote on Account, more or less, and we find ourselves facing a fairly serious situation, namely, our entry into the Common Market and all that means.

I do not think we need be unduly pessimistic. I do not think Deputies on this side of the House feel that for one moment, as has been suggested, but we do feel, and what we are very conscious of, is that we have not had the leadership, and we have not been given the information by the Government with regard to this momentous decision that we should have been given. It looks extremely likely now that our entry will come about. We have, fortunately, had a lot of discussions in a private way. I suppose every Deputy has attended lectures of some sort, and that every Deputy has read some of the very informative articles which have appeared in the Press. The Press of Ireland has done a very good service in opening its columns to various experts who have discussed the matter, but we have not had very much of a lead from the Government, as yet.

We on this side of the House believe that we are facing a very serious issue and one, in fact, which is the most momentous economic act of union this country has ever envisaged. If this Common Market proposal goes through, not only will we be in competition with the greatest industrial and most highly organised countries in Europe, but we may find ourselves part of a world federation. I believe that eventually Ireland will come out all right, but there are bound to be many adjustments and difficulties before that.

I do not know how many of what I might call our infant industries will be able to carry on without the help of the tariff walls which, in a very large number of cases, were put up to protect them. I sincerely hope that our industries will not only survive the shock but that they will surmount the difficulties and build up an export trade.

I was very interested to hear Deputy Kyne to-day speaking from the Labour front bench. He made a very wise, broadminded, big speech. He said, in effect, that we are all in this together, that there is no essential conflict between labour and management, and that both should co-operate in the common difficulties with which they are faced. There is no good in anybody being fatuously optimistic of the future. The future will depend on what we do, if we are wise enough and hardworking enough.

It is often said with a view to labour but it goes just as much for management, maybe more than it does for labour, that if we all put our back into it and study the problems, we can do a great deal. We shall have to face all sorts of situations in which this country may be flooded with goods at prices lower than those at which we can produce them. By the time we have made a complaint, the market may be gone for some of our industries, with consequent difficulties to our people. Those are the problems which every business person and, I am sure, every trade unionist is worrying about.

At the same time, we know we must go into the Common Market. It has been said that if we stay out of it, we shall be completely ruined and if we go into it, we run very grave risks. These are the alternatives which lie before us. There is only one answer. We must go into the Common Market but we must go into it, knowing the difficulties and facing them. The difficulties will vary with different industries and may vary from time to time with each industry. It is a very complicated matter. The Government have not, up to now, given us the lead in this matter which we should like to have.

I want to talk now about taxation in relation to the burden it imposes on industry. Do not misunderstand me. It is not a question of looking for high profits in industry. We are facing the most momentous few years which have ever faced this country, economically. Incentives were given to industry under the aegis of the inter-Party Government. I am not making a political speech: this subject is far too serious for Party politics. It is an Irish question and can be dealt with successfully only if every group shoulders its responsibility. We are all in it together and we must all do our very best.

The high incidence of taxation is a great burden on industry, as, indeed, it is a great burden on farmers and private individuals. Roughly speaking, a business of any size has to pay something like 50 per cent. of its net profit in taxation. That is a very difficult amount to have to pay out. It varies very much with certain types of industry.

We have seen the very fine effect of the incentives given to industry for export purposes. The big jump ahead was not only a pleasurable surprise to all Irish people but has very favourably been commented upon by experts in other countries. That leap forward in our exports was greatly helped by the incentive given to those industries —and good luck to them: I hope they increase more and more. With that increase in exports, our balance of payment problem is not of such a crippling nature as was the case some years ago.

Something like the same jump forward could happen if industries were given an alleviation in taxation. One of the basic ways in which various industries could improve themselves is by making capital expenditure out of current income. Capital expenditure has to be taxed and, because of the high rate of taxation, it is a very difficult matter for industry. I urge the Minister to make special efforts in his forthcoming Budget and in the period which lies ahead to facilitate industry in every possible way.

It is not given to every type of industry to export. Many businesses are concerned with the distributive trade but their employment content is enormously valuable to the economy of the country. Furthermore, many types of manufactures are not easily exportable or perhaps not possible to export at all. Not every product can be sent very far. Therefore, the overwhelming balance of business in this country is not for export and more is the pity.

Out of the growth of home industries in many cases have come export businesses. We know the old manufactured exports such as the food and drink trade from Southern Ireland. These industries started and worked up as flourishing businesses in the home market. Eventually they could export. I urge the Minister to do everything possible to encourage industry and to help it as well as industry for export purposes. It was again the old classic idea of taxation that the——

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not like to interrupt the Deputy but I do not understand how this is related to the Vote on Account, Government policy on general expenditure.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

It is related to the industrial life of the country.

An Ceann Comhairle

One could talk of anything in that case.

Mr. Dillon

Surely, on the Vote on Account, one may?

An Ceann Comhairle

The policy of the Government on expenditure.

Mr. Dillon

What else have they a policy for?

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not my function.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I do not like to skate round the subject——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not saying the Deputy is trying to skate around this at all, but I am at a loss to know how it is related to the Government's general policy on expenditure. If he can tell me that, I shall be quite satisfied.

Mr. Dillon

Was he not advocating inducements and encouragements to export?

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

What I was about to say on the Government's policy on expenditure is that while we must look after our less fortunate brothers and sisters, we must also be very careful that we do not hinder the normal expansion of both agriculture and business by expenditure, not necessarily on charity but any form of activity, which is in its nature unproductive, because, by the very action of taking money from productive expenditure, we are, to some extent, impeding the trade and industry and agriculture of the country. I would ask the Minister for about the third or fourth time to look into that very carefully and do what he can for industry in that respect.

We have an extra cost of £17 millions for Government this year and some of those millions could have been saved by a wiser expenditure policy. We know there have been increases in wages and that they have had to come about and the Government are faced with that, but there have been also a number of white elephant schemes which have not been productive and which we can ill afford. I should like to see the Government prepared to spend where necessary but not to be spendthrift in carrying out their duty. We face the future with a certain amount of trepidation because we are not being, and have not been, informed by the Government to the extent we have a right to expect but we are facing it confidently none-the-less, because we feel that the Irish people will be able to rise to whatever the future may demand.

Mr. Clinton

I find it rather difficult to speak on this Vote on Account because it appears to be permissible to speak only in general terms. A Deputy to whom I mentioned this said that one was quite free to range over the entire field of Government, but judging from what I have heard up to this and from the interventions of the Chair, it is obvious that there is not a free range and that one may only take a bite here and there and, even then, not spend too long chewing it. Of course, Deputies on the opposite benches took the bite wherever, and only wherever, it was sweet for them.

Speaking within the terms permissible of the situation which has led up to the present Book of Estimates, and speaking of the economy generally, I believe that we are dealing with a very ill patient and before any treatment could be effective, a radical operation to remove the cancerous growth which started about 1932 would first be necessary. Many people feel this operation is overdue and since the Taoiseach made his notorious attack on the N.F.A. last week, many feel he is anxious to throw in the sponge. He feels that 24 years of mismanagement is making the situation quite impossible for him, especially when he realises how unprepared we are for the testing time ahead.

I want to get to one point quickly, lest it should escape me. Deputy Leneghan, the Independent Deputy speaking with the Fianna Fáil tongue, said that we had banished the landlords and the crowbar brigade. If they have been banished in his part of the country, I say emphatically they are still with us in County Dublin because I witnessed an agent of the Government carrying out two evictions in the past week which were completely unnecessary and which would never have occurred if Fianna Fáil had not failed to allow Dublin County Council to build sufficient houses.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not see how that arises on the Vote on Account.

Mr. Clinton

I assume that it is necessary to provide money for housing. I am sorry if I have outstepped the limits.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may have an opportunity of speaking of that subject on the Estimates but this debate is on general Government policy on expenditure. The Deputy may discuss administration in detail on an Estimate.

Mr. Clinton

I felt it was a very important point to mention that we still have the brigade with us, and, as Deputy Leneghan was permitted——

An Ceann Comhairle

The trouble is that everything that is important may not be discussed.

Mr. Dillon

Expenditure on crowbars is an interesting aspect of Government policy.

Mr. Clinton

Deputy Leneghan was permitted to deal with crowbars.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is a detail. It does not come within the ambit of the Vote on Account.

Mr. Clinton

The overall picture which Deputies opposite tried to paint was one of prosperity generally, one of a buoyant economy. Deputy Booth quoted at length from the bank bible, various bank bibles, in fact, but he forgot to quote any part of the speech of the Governor of the Bank of Ireland that might be against him. I should like, if I may, to quote a third paragraph from the same report:

It is a matter of public concern that earnings in the agricultural sector which show little or no rise from the levels of eight years ago should continue to lag behind those in other sectors of the economy. The farmers have had to contend with a difficult harvest. They now face problems arising from the altering pattern of the traditional British market such as affects the butter trade. It has many times been observed that an increase in agricultural incomes through expanding exports would give a major impetus to the general prosperity of the community.

We look at this evening's Evening Mail and we see: “Prices Jump Angers City Housewives.” We see many indications that the people are dissatisfied with the policy of this Government. The farmers are on the march and these sensible people are not on the march without serious cause. I was sorry to hear Deputy Tully, and I think Deputy Corish, condemning the farming community——

Mr. Tully

No; that is not correct.

Mr. Clinton

Will the Deputy wait just a moment?—condemning the farmers because they are now resenting the fact that their incomes are not keeping pace with those of the rest of the community. They have a perfect right to show that resentment. Nobody shows it more or oftener than trade union members. I am not objecting to trade union members looking for their rights but how can they hope that farmers will ever be in a position to pay their workmen what they should be paid if their incomes are not adequate? I believe farm workers, skilled and unskilled, should be paid at the same rates as in any other industry. They cannot get it if the farmers are not in a position to give it to them.

Do not let any Deputy mislead this House into believing that these farmers are on the march simply because of the growing burden of rates. It merely indicates that the last straw is breaking the camel's back. The position that agriculture finds itself in today is due to a number of causes. The Minister for Transport and Power numbered among these causes the fact that we had insufficient industry. I cannot agree more. We have insufficient industry but whom is he blaming for that? I place the blame where it should be placed, on the Government. I know from personal experience they are deliberately keeping industry out of this country. We offer certain inducements on paper; we write a brochure; but when people come here to establish an industry, they are as good as told that if they do not go to a part of the country to which they do not want to go, they may get out.

Dr. Ryan

Nobody was ever told that story.

Mr. Clinton

I have personal experience.

Dr. Ryan

I have, too.

Mr. Clinton

I have personal experience of a good industrialist recently proposing to set up an industry outside the city where there is a great deal of unemployment, that is, in Ballyfermot. The first problem these people came up against was that they could not get services in Ballyfermot.

Mr. N. Lemass

They could not get what?

Mr. Clinton

They could not get services.

Mr. N. Lemass

Sites can be got for next to nothing.

Mr. Clinton

There are no services. They could not get sewerage services for industry. The people who were proposing to come in here were interviewed. They guaranteed to give employment to 550 people. They were told they would get no grant for various reasons. The first thing they were asked to do was to prove that they could not start this industry in a remote part of the counry. They refused to do that because they knew the pool of labour was not available and they had to close down a similar industry elsewhere because of the lack of a pool of labour.

When eventually I had this matter raised again, we went through the whole field once more. These people guaranteed to come in here and start an industry. They asked for a promise that after two years, having exported all their products—£1,000,000 worth a year and having employed for two years 550 people and shown firm orders for a third year's trading—they would get a grant in advance. They were told by the body concerned that that was an impossibility, that the body concerned could not covenant on that basis. They would consider the matter again and let these people know within a week. Six weeks have passed since then and no communication has been received by these people.

That is the type of thing to which I refer when I say this Government have deliberately put industry out of this country. The only conclusion we can come to in regard to this industry is that there is a vested interest some where else working against us. These people would come in and prove by investing their own money that they can do as they say. However, they have been deplorably treated. I am personally aware of this, but there are many other industries that have gone out of the country for the same reason. Their managers refuse to move to remote parts of the country because the pool of labour they require is not there. They are badly received; they are obstructed from the word "go".

There are three or four bodies dealing with this subject: there is the Industrial Development Authority; there is An Foras Tionscal; there is the export body; and then there are the various Departments dealing with licences. Altogether it is rather a nightmare for people to come in here, especially if they do not speak the language too well, to find their way around and get industries established. There are far too many difficulties in their way.

We have failed to provide a home consumption market and we have failed absolutely through the fault of the Government in their efforts to establish industry. We have also failed to find a profitable export market for our agricultural produce. If agriculture today is getting support which the Taoiseach says is much more than it should be, it is due entirely to the failure of the Government to find a profitable market for this agricultural produce. We have reached the stage when it is a waste of time sending out advisors to assist the farmers to an increase in production. The fact is that every extra unit produced is sold at a lower price. If we question that, we are told they are looking for markets. "Looking for markets" really means making inquiries.

The Governments of other countries who are concerned with the same export problem tackle it in a different way, in the way it should be tackled by us and tackled vigorously. I would urge the Government, even at this late stage and while we can still do it without being restricted by the rules of the European Economic Community, to go into debt, if necessary, to buy our way into the wholesale markets of these export countries. It appears to be the only way to get in satisfactorily. We will not get in merely by inquiring and looking for markets. It is an investment which should long since have been made. We failed hopelessly to find a market, especially for dairy products. There is no opportunity for this country, if we are unable to dispose profitably of dairy products. The supports are high and they are high because we have concentrated all the time on the cheapest possible product through which milk can be disposed of, that is, butter. We have never made a serious effort but the opportunities are there, if we seriously look for them.

I want to say a few words about the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. We know that much more money is required for Posts and Telegraphs. I feel that the whole policy there is wrong. It is wrong because we are concentrating all this money in Posts and Telegraphs at the present time upon existing services, whilst at the same time, we are refusing a limited service to the people down the country. We talk about the backwardness of the farming community. Could they be otherwise? They cannot get a telephone. I think this money would be much better spent if we endeavoured to give these people the limited services essential to their ordinary everyday business. They may only need to get out twice or three times a day but that can be very important. These people can be saved having to travel a considerable distance, and being away from their work for a considerable time. They have been refused that service.

With regard to health, I think it has been demonstrated quite clearly that the enormous burden of rates, as a result of the health charges, could be transferred and borne much more equitably under a system of insurance. The health services at the moment are being dealt with by a Select Committee and we are all hopeful that a change may be brought about. The people generally are quite right to seek to have the health services transferred, as they are completely right in seeking to have main road upkeep transferred, to the Central Fund and away from the rates. The position at the present time in County Dublin at any rate is that all roads should be main roads. They were classified about 28 years ago. The whole pattern of traffic has changed but we still have no change in road classification.

The Minister for Transport and Power referred to the fact that there was an increase in the income per head of the population engaged in agriculture. That would nearly have to come about because there is such a decline through emigration in that sector of the community that we would be almost bound to have an increase per head of the population. I think I have covered all that occurs to me at the moment but I am sure there is quite a lot I have left out.

Mr. Sherwin

I am still an Independent, in spite of the fact that I voted for the Government. As I said before, I merely voted for a Government. I am not subject to Government criticism but I have no intention of recklessly criticising the Government. It is the privilege of Parties here to say things and much of what they say is really phoney. I suppose it is all part of the game. If you are out of power, you demand all sorts of things from those in power. I have a lot of experience on Dublin Corporation. You get the like of what I am talking about where people always want things done which will involve expenditure. When the burden of the rates gets heavy, they go into the rate-payers' lobby. You always get that kind of thing.

I will do my criticising, too. There is an increase of £17 million in this Book of Estimates. We must accept the fact that half of that increase is due to increases in wages. Therefore, that is no fault of the Government. If you are going to criticise the Government at all on account of the increase of £17 million, you must have that amount and ask what the other half is for. Fair enough, they said the other half is required for extra subsidies and grants for farmers and because of the rise in prices. To some extent, that is true, but what we want to ask is whether the Government are spending that money wisely. I have my own opinions and I want to express them.

First of all, I should like to deal with the Common Market. I shall go back to a few other things later on. Up to now, I have held the opinion that the Government are correct in subsidising and encouraging the industrial revival here, even though to some extent it may crash on entering the Common Market. It is not certain yet that we shall enter the Common Market because it is not certain that Britain is entering. Before the election, I expressed the opinion here that we should lobby with those in Britain who wanted to keep out of the Common Market because I believe that if Britain kept out, it would be in our best interests. Whether we like it or not, we depend upon Britain to a large extent. If Britain could keep out and if we could capitalise on Britain, we would do as well as we did in the past. The devil one knows is better than the devil one does not know.

If Britain goes in, we have no choice—it amounts to that. We are just acting in a clever manner. We are entering the Common Market because Britain is doing so and if Britain withdraws, we will withdraw. So as not to be caught on the wrong foot, we are going in at the same time as she is. If we go in, whether we like it or not, a great many of our industries will fold up. It is generally accepted that, agriculturally, we will improve, but our industries will fold up. I believe that entering the Common Market will mean that there will be no further investments in industries here.

Mr. Dillon

Why?

Mr. Sherwin

If industries are in danger of folding up, would people not want to be crazy to invest in them?

Mr. Dillon

Why should they fold up?

Mr. Sherwin

If there is to be a free market as between this country and every country in the Six, will we survive the competition that is likely to arise?

Mr. Dillon

What about Messrs. Guinness, Messrs. Jacobs and Harland and Wolff?

Mr. Sherwin

There are a few industries. I am generalising. Sweets are much cheaper in Britain. I know that you can buy a quarter of sweets for a "tanner" in Britain. The same sweets cost one shilling here. That is a case in point. In many instances, our industries will fold up in the event of the Common Market coming into operation, but at the same time, there will not be any immediate effect. The effect is going to be spread over a long period, but I am satisfied that many industries will go and that will discourage any future investment in industry.

It does not follow that that will create poverty here because I suppose our redundant workers will emigrate to Britain or Germany, so that we shall survive. That will not be the Government's fault; it will not be anybody's fault. It we do not enter the Common Market we shall not be able to export anything so we shall face failure anyhow. We have to take a risk, a calculated risk. Even so far as any commitments with NATO are concerned, we will have to take a calculated risk and, if a thing is worthwhile, it is worthwhile taking a risk. If we were afraid to take a risk about NATO and were kept out of the Common Market as a result and pauperised ourselves, that would be no great attraction. I am just expressing an opinion on this matter. I am no expert, but I have intuition and I read, like anybody else.

I am not impressed by the size of the sum allocated for social welfare in the Estimates. If the people who are on social assistance do not get 5/-a head, it will be worthless to them. When the amount of the Supplementary Estimates is taken out of the amount of the Estimates here, there will not be very much left and if it is the Minister's intention to keep social benefits within the ambit of the amount left in the Estimate, he is not going to give very much. I shall be very disappointed if that is the case.

Within the past few months, a large number of Dublin tenants have been informed that their rates are going up 2/- a week. If people on social assistance are to get only 2/- increase, that will be swallowed up by the increased rents and there will be nothing left to meet the other increases. I will be disappointed if there is less than 5/- all round for those on social benefits. I am not going to vote for the Government on one issue and vote against them on another. It is at least a Government and I am satisfied that it would be foolish to have a change for some time, so I shall vote against them only on certain issues. If I thought the people who are on social benefits were to get only a miserable amount, I would not vote for the Government.

The Government have accepted the principle that everyone is to get an increase and for that reason they are to introduce a Bill to increase judges' salaries. I want to ensure that these other unfortunate people living on fixed pensions and on social benefits will get an increase. I will not be satisfied with a "bob" or two.

Mr. Kyne

Tell us about the judges.

Mr. Sherwin

I am not afraid of that issue, either. I suppose that when the case comes to be argued, it could be argued that the judges are entitled to it as well as everybody else, and the T.D.s, too. There are a few human beings among them, too. They are not all millionaires. Some of the millionaire T.D.s are against increases for T.D.s because of the effect of public opinion, but there are some, like Murphy, who had to run away to America because he was starving here. I am only pointing out that if the principle is accepted that there should be a general wage increase, there is no reason why it should not be extended to the Taoiseach and the Ministers because, in my opinion, they are the worst paid people in the State for the full time job they have to do. The rest of us can come and go, can attend to our businesses and make a few "bob" on the side, but the Ministers have to give their whole time to the job. I see no reason why they should be pilloried because certain dogs in the manger outside have to have a crack at the politicians. I will say that no matter what Government are in power.

I believe that the Government should be criticised but I also believe that they are often unfairly criticised. It is all a part of the game. I will fight for certain types of principles but I am not going to be irresponsible in this House. I have plenty of savvy, whether others think it or not.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Earlier today, when this debate was in progress, we had what is becoming a rare thing in this House, a speech from the Fianna Fáil benches. The person who spoke was the Minister for Transport and Power who said many things in the short time he was speaking but he delivered himself of this pearl, and we are accustomed to this particular Minister casting his pearls in this House, that, in his judgment, having travelled throughout the country and met the ordinary people of the country, like Deputy Leneghan from Mayo, there was now a far better spirit in the country, that the people were more confident with regard to the future. Listening to that, I wondered whether my ears were deceiving me. Then it occurred to me that the Minister's peregrinations throughout the country must have been in very confined and secluded areas. He seems not to have been aware that in the past three or four weeks in every part of Ireland, there is at least a definite section of our people who have been endeavouring to make it known to Government Ministers and to all and sundry that they are not pleased with the present situation and that they are not confident with regard to the future.

Ten days ago in my constituency—I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands has had a similar experience—some 3,000 farmers marched through the county town. They included the old and young, the rich farmer and the small farmer, the Catholic farmer and the Protestant farmer.

Mr. Lenihan

You had marches in the Thirties, too.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

They were marching, carrying banners and posters, in order to emphasise that, so far as they and the industry they represented were concerned, they saw in the present situation no hope and that they had little confidence for the future. Is that just to be wiped off the slate as if it did not occur? Have we in this House so lost touch with the people that we shrug off the fact that in the last six weeks 100,000 farmers in the west, east, north and south have marched to demonstrate the fact that they have a particular concern in relation to what is happening to the agricultural industry?

The Minister for Transport and Power does not even recognise that fact. According to him, farmers do not count. He says there is a far better spirit in the country and a feeling of confidence among our people. As long as we have Ministers who, in circumstances such as the present, talk the puerile nonsense we have heard from the Minister for Transport and Power, in my view the only solution is a quick general election to get that Government out. It is bad enough, God knows, that a section of our people should be driven in 1962 into marching through the county towns whenever a county council is meeting to strike a rate—and the situation that brings that about must be a serious situation—but if that situation is met by absurd Ministerial complacency, then a very serious problem faces this country.

When I say "Ministerial complacency" I am being kind. We had from the Taoiseach the other day not complacency but a type of aggressiveness that used to be popular at one time in certain countries in Europe. The Taoiseach came out to attack the farmers. The National Farmers' Association were sneered at by him from his sheltered position in this House——

Mr. Lenihan

That is not true.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

——as some group of malcontents. The National Farmers' Association were irresponsible and they were doing wrong, and no matter what is done for the farmers, no matter how deeply we asked the general taxpayer to dig into his pocket, we will get nothing in the way of thanks from the farmers—that is the Taoiseach speaking at Column 1203, Volume 193 of the Official Report. That was an effort by the Taoiseach to create, not immediately but perhaps some time in the future, a certain political advantage out of the present situation in the country. He was anxious to try to turn town against country. He was anxious to create, if he could, in this Dáil and outside it a section of people who would divide themselves into pro-farmer and pro-town. Doing that he hoped that he might, if this situation developed, in some way stake a future for his Party in the days that lie ahead.

That is bad. Throughout the years in this House we have had our difficulties, our problems, our differences, our disputes. We have had changes in Government, difficult decisions have had to be made by different Governments. But we have always maintained, at least so far as the major Parties are concerned, a concern for a broad national outlook. We have never permitted the situation to arise here in which politics are to be dictated by sectional interests, by a group representative merely of one particular section of the people. It would be a very serious thing if Deputy Lemass as Taoiseach—he is a city man, a man whose horizon seems to be limited by the boundaries of Dublin city—set out to try to turn the legitimate protest of Irish farmers into a movement in which our people were to be divided into pro-town and pro-farmer. I hope that good sense will take the place of the kind of exhibitionism we saw last Thursday and that the Taoiseach and his Ministerial colleagues will appreciate the fact that farmers are driven into these protest marches because they feel, rightly or wrongly, that they have a grievance. They have a sense that they are being wronged and they feel that some measure of recognition of their complaints should be countenanced by the Government.

After all, I wonder do we here sometimes forget our beginnings? It is true to say, although apparently it is not said often enough, that this country is primarily an agricultural country. There are people who, apparently, would like that not to be so. The plain fact is that it is so. The plain fact is that the Lord Himself, in his providence and wisdom, so created this country that our main source of wealth is the land we own, the soil we possess and the industry which flourished in that land and on that soil. It surely must be a matter of concern that pretty well every farmer throughout Ireland at present, whether he is a small farmer or a big farmer, an old farmer or a young farmer, whatever his creed or outlook, is complaining about the state of his industry. That surely should lead to some concern amongst the members of the Government but apparently it does not.

On Thursday, the Taoiseach said that farmers were in effect being spoon fed at the expense of the taxpayer, that subsidies of one kind or another were being doled out to them and all the rest of it and that they were a pampered, petted section of the community. I wonder do Fianna Fáil Deputies share that view with the Taoiseach? He went on to say in effect, that in the last decade, farmers have done well and that in the first half of the decade, their incomes increased out of proportion to the increase accorded to workers in industry and that what is happening is merely the making up of lee-way by industry. Is that view shared? I should like to assert so far as the midlands are concerned, if Deputy Leneghan will permit me to speak about that part of the country——

Mr. Leneghan

I shall not interrupt the Deputy as much as he interrupted me.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

It is not merely a question of the average farmer in the midlands having had in the past five years a proportionate increase in his income. The fact is that in the past five years, each year his income has gone down steadily. The average farmer in the midlands, and I think it is true throughout the country, finds since 1956 the price of everything he has to sell is substantially less, while the cost of everything he has to buy has advanced. If the Taoiseach is correct in saying that in the first half of the last decade, when Deputy Dillon was Minister for Agriculture, farmers experienced a substantial increase in their income, it is equally true to say that in the past five years during which Deputy Smith has been Minister for Agriculture, an effort has been made to take back from the farmer what he got in the first half.

I would express the hope, in any event, that the Government will take stock of the present situation. After all, we are told that we are about to enter —some day, somehow, some time—the Common Market. It is difficult to know what is the view of the Fianna Fáil establishment on the Common Market nowadays. We find different speeches being made by different Ministers. It is hard to know precisely what they see in that Market, whether it is a challenge or whether it is going to lead to a situation in which all our difficulties and problems will be solved. We never know now whether "Mr. Europe" on the Fianna Fáil front bench is the Minister for Lands or not, but whatever problems are in store for the country in relation to the Common Market, it is right that we should have some stocktaking ourselves. Mark you, if the Common Market is to be an unlimited market, let us not forget that for the past 40 years, we have had available to us an unlimited market with free passage of men and money and material.

Mr. Leneghan

And eggs.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

We have had eggs. It has been available to us but it was not prized and was not appreciated.

Mr. Dillon

What do they know?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

At one time, the Fianna Fáil Government could not see beyond their noses because they were willing to give loud huzzas and hoorahs—when Deputy Leneghan wore a blue shirt—and——

Mr. Leneghan

It faded.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

——and to declare that the British market was gone and gone forever.

Dr. Ryan

Who wore the blue shirt?

Mr. Dillon

Your colleague.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Your colleague, Deputy Leneghan. They have learned since but I wonder if they have learned very much because what has happened the market which used to be ridiculed by the Fianna Fáil Government and which for us was unlimited? We have gradually priced ourselves out of it in relation to practically everything we sell and were it not for the sneered at bullock we would not be doing very much trade with Britain at the moment. We should not fool ourselves into thinking that our existence is going to be in any way easier, if we add to the 80 millions, living on the island of Great Britain, some 200 millions, or whatever the number is, living in Western Europe. If we could at the moment supply the British market with all the goods they require, we would have no need to be concerned about a Common Market in Europe, but we have not been able to do it and therefore we must examine the reason why.

I noticed in the past 12 months that much attention, and rightly so, was paid, particularly prior to the last general election, by the Government to preparing industry for the Common Market. That was very right and very proper, but I wonder what care and what attention have been devoted to preparing our major industry for that market? Surely in the past 12 months the penny might have dropped or somebody might have told the Minister for Agriculture that some effort might be made to organise agriculture to make it aware of the problems that might arise from the Common Market and prepare the way for agriculture in that Market? Possibly somebody may have said that to the Minister for Agriculture. Possibly the Minister for Agriculture may have been preparing blueprints of one kind or another, but so far as the Irish farmer is concerned, he does not know what has happened. All he knows is that every week he has fewer pennies in his pocket to jingle and that every year the toll and tax upon him is greater and that he is driven this year into marching in protest with his friends and colleagues in each county.

That is poor preparation for the Common Market and seems to indicate in relation to agriculture, as indeed in relation to many other things, that there is little evidence that the Government have any settled policy or clear programme to follow. The Government introduced the Vote on Account last week and asked this House to give them, on account, a sum of money to fill a bill of £148 million. I have listened to speeches made on behalf of the Government in relation to that large bill and genereally speaking, I think it is fair to say that, having announced the figure, Government Ministers, from the Taoiseach down, said: "So what?" and challenged anybody who even raised his eyebrow at the size of this Bill by suggesting: "Well, do you think we could do anything about it?"

It was only five years ago—not a very long time in the life of a parliament, not to mind a country—that the Budget figure was £109 million.

Mr. Lenihan

And one-third less for agriculture.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Five years later, it is plus £50 million, if we take into consideration the food subsidies.

Mr. Lenihan

And three times as much for the farmers.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

They have increased the cost of Government at the rate of £10 million a year. That means that if they are in office, and if Deputy Leneghan does not get a cold in the head, we will read a Book of Estimates close on £200 million in five years' time. No doubt, a Government Minister defending that situation will again say: "So what."

I should like to know where this country is going. It costs close on £150 million, according to this Book of Estimates, to provide necessary services in the coming year. Five years ago, when Fianna Fáil came into office, the present Minister for Finance said, as he had to say, of course, after their election promises, that taxation was too high—£109 million was far too much to take in taxation from the people. Deputies who were here then will remember the said he was going to do something about it.

Mr. Leneghan

And he did.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

He certainly did—he put it up by another £41 million. He said he was going to prune the Civil Service.

Mr. Leneghan

And send them to England like the Deputy did.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

He said that the cost of the Civil Service was to be cut. There was to be a new scheme for organisation and method—bright boys were to be brought into every Government Department; there was to be a removal of red tape and green tape and the number of hands in the Civil Service was to be substantially reduced. They were brave words five years ago when the Minister for Finance was concerned with the problem of finding £109 million with which to run the country. We can remember the Minister announcing his schemes for the pruning of the Civil Service. He did his first effective pruning by removing the subsidies on bread, butter and flour and putting up the price of these essential commodities. He saved £7 million by doing that.

Dr. Ryan

The figures were there waiting for me.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I know—I quite agree.

Dr. Ryan

They were ready for me.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I remember my sympathy for the Minister when he said the figures were there, that they were ready for him and that he had to find the money due to the fault of his predecessors. But he asked us to watch next year when, after pruning the Civil Service, we would see some result. Well, he has had many years since and we see the results now —plus £50,000, £10 million each year. Not bad going for a Minister representing a Party that declared five years ago that this country was being bled white because taxation ran at the level of £109 million. Mind you, in the course of those five years £7 million disappeared somewhere. People in Mayo, in the south, in the north and in the east, have had to pay more for bread, butter and flour in order to give more money to the Minister for Finance. I wonder where that money has gone.

Mr. Leneghan

No one will commit suicide over it anyway.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I remember the concern of the Minister five years ago over the cost of Government and I remember the present Taoiseach issuing a very solemn warning, worth recalling now, when he referred to the problem facing the Government and all the money they had to find. He said taxation pressed too lightly upon the land and indicated five years ago to the Irish farmers: "Look, be careful, because we are going to have to tax you."

Mr. O'Malley

On a point of order, Deputy O'Higgins has purported to quote the Taoiseach. Would he please give the reference?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I am quoting nothing; I am asserting——

Mr. O'Malley

On a point of order, the Taoiseach never made those remarks. Either Deputy O'Higgins will withdraw them——

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Or the Parliamentary Secretary will leave the House?

Mr. O'Malley

Yes.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I want to assert that the Taoiseach made that statement quite clearly.

Mr. Lenihan

When and where?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

That taxation pressed too lightly on the land——

Dr. Ryan

Where did he say it?

Mr. O'Malley

The Deputy purports to quote the Taoiseach. Could we have the reference?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy says he is not quoting.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Deputies should bear that in mind when we find that because farmers have apparently had the impertinence, in the minds of the Fianna Fáil Party, to express their concern, they are attacked by the Taoiseach who suggests that the leader of their organisation is irresponsible, the Taoiseach who says that no matter how deeply the Government ask the taxpayer to dig into his pocket, you will get no thanks from the farmer. Does that indicate that we are to face in the future a new threat from this Government, headed by the Taoiseach, to impose fresh taxation upon the farmers?

Dr. Ryan

How does the Deputy make that out? How does the Deputy prove that?

Mr. Lenihan

That is not going to happen, and the Deputy knows it.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I am very glad to hear that and I accept that, if it does happen, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands will resign from the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. Lenihan

That is a hypothetical question.

Mr. Dillon

Nota bene! The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands will not answer a hypothetical question.

Mr. Lenihan

That is right.

Dr. Ryan

How does the Deputy reason that out? He does not reason. I want to know how he reasons it out.

Mr. Dillon

It is making the Minister uncomfortable anyhow. The Minister's reactions are the most interesting thing in this.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

There is little doubt that at the moment the people——

Mr. Leneghan

Were never better off.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

It is patently true that at least one person feels himself better off now than he did 12 months ago when he was a Fine Gael county councillor and he is obviously going to take great care that he will remain in this House so that he need not fear meeting the people of Mayo.

Dr. Ryan

There is no need to be personal.

Mr. Lenihan

An honest man who saw the light.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

We, on this side of the House, are concerned, and that concern we have endeavoured to express, and will continue to express. There is at the moment a definite inflationary spiral in existence.

Mr. Lenihan

Could we apply Deputy Sweetman's corrective measures?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

In the past three years, there has been put into circulation a very marked increase in purchasing power. That makes the Government's task of raising money at the moment, perhaps, somewhat easier. It is easy to raise money when everything is going up, when incomes are expanding for almost everybody in the State, except the farmer; in those circumstances, it is comparatively easy to apply a short-term solution to budgetary problems. But that is merely stacking away trouble for somebody else some other day, and this inflationary spiral we are facing at the moment will have to be paid for some day somehow. We are concerned as to how it has come about. I do not think there are many people outside this House who have any doubt as to the cause of it. The cause of it, I assert, has been weak Government in the past three or four years—a Government incapable of making up their minds. That goes in relation to certain——

Mr. Lenihan

Trade unions?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

——trade union efforts, and there is no doubt about it, unofficial strikes and other efforts directed against trade unionism.

Dr. Ryan

That is right.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

This is the Government who summoned this House in high drama last August, and then showed the white flag and ran for shelter, the Government who do not know their own mind, the Government who have been incapable of making up their mind in the past three years.

Mr. Lenihan

We are not anti-trade union, anyway.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

We know the history of Fianna Fáil in relation to trade unionism—we know all about it. I am perfectly prepared to deal with that at any time. We know all about the standstill on wages. We know all about the efforts made in the past——

Dr. Ryan

This is a turnabout now. We had the courage evidently.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

At one time, but certainly not in the past three years. Where has the courage gone? I want to assert that the eighth and ninth round of wage increases, now deplored by the Taoiseach and by the Minister for Finance——

Dr. Ryan

It is not deplored by me.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

——came about because of Government weakness and Government indecisiveness.

Mr. Leneghan

Was it not time the people got a decent wage? What is the Deputy talking about?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Everybody on these benches certainly agrees with the Deputy as far as decent wages are concerned. What we are concerned about is what is happening now. We are concerned about the fact that a spiral has been started. In one of the evening papers today, there is a bannerline "Prices jump angers housewives".

Dr. Ryan

What paper is that?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

It is not the Evening Press.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would the Deputy give the reference?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

It is the Evening Mail, 13th March. We are concerned with what will happen now if the increase in wages that has taken place is to be offset by a further increase in the cost of living. If that happens, then the situation for the ordinary people will be very much worse. It is both very easy and very simple to tide oneself over a temporary problem by saying wages will be adjusted all over the country. That is what this Government have done, but they have not had regard to any financial policy, any fixed programme. They have not had any consideration as to what the future is likely to be. In 12 months' time certainly, if we take into consideration recent experience, the cost of living will be up another ten points. We will then have to face the tenth round of increases.

Dr. Ryan

The ninth round.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

That will have to be paid. Then we will have the old process of wages chasing prices all over again.

Dr. Ryan

Back to 1956!

Mr. Lenihan

We will not have Deputy Sweetman's corrective measures.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

So far as corrective measures are concerned, the harvest was reaped by the present Government.

Mr. Lenihan

Mass unemployment in 1956.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

That is absurd.

Mr. Rooney

We did not beat Fianna Fail's record of 140,000 unemployed.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The situation is as I have suggested, and the troublesome and worrying thing about it is that the Government apparently do not give a damn about the future. So long as they can maintain their present position in this House and get men from Mayo and a few other fellows behind them in the Division Lobby, it is all right, but someone else will have to clean up the mess, some other day, some other time.

Dr. Ryan

We had to do it in our time.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I want to say that there is one section of the community which cannot just suffer on. When speaking here the other day, the Taoiseach threw a sneer across the floor of the House at the Fine Gael Party with regard to a Fine Gael motion designed, he said, further to increase the cost of government and the cost of the other services in the country. It is true that there is a motion on the Order Paper, put down by Fine Gael, asking the House to express the opinion that, in view of the steep rise in the cost of living and the difficulties created thereby for all pensioners, the whole question of pensions should be reviewed as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Lenihan

Now for the tears.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

There will be plenty of tears. Despite the smiles of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands, there are pensioners in this country—

Dr. Ryan

Will the Deputy give me the column at which the Taoiseach said that?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

—who are in the situation that they are the eggs that are being broken to make the Fianna Fáil omelette.

Dr. Ryan

Will the Deputy give me the column?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I am not quoting the Taoiseach.

Dr. Ryan

I thought the Deputy was.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I should like to suggest to the Minister and to the smiling Parliamentary Secretary that they should have a little bit of Christian charity in their make-up and have regard to the fact that, despite the laughter of the Parliamentary Secretary, there are unfortunate State pensioners—people who have left the Civil Service, people who have left the postal service, people who have left the local government service, former teachers, former Gardaí, former Army men— who are existing on small pensions which at one time might have been thought to be adequate when the cost of living was some 20 points lower than it is now, but who are now feeling the pinch, while Fianna Fáil allows living costs to soar, to the amusement of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary.

Dr. Ryan

No; we are amused at the Deputy, not at that fact.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

These people have to suffer—

Mr. Lenihan

We are amused at the Deputy's theatricals.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

We, on this side of the House, are concerned about that section of the community because they cannot suffer on. The rest of the community—and even the hard-pressed farmers who have had to go through worse times under Fianna Fáil in the past—will be able, in one way or another, to struggle through, but there are many pensioners who will not, and who will be driven in despair into absolute abject poverty. We make no apology for the fact that, as the main Opposition Party, we have tabled a motion drawing the attention of the House to that problem and to that section of the community. It will be debated in due course, despite the sneers of the Taoiseach.

Dr. Ryan

Where did he sneer?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Despite the sneers of the Taoiseach and the smiles of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary——

Dr. Ryan

Where did the Taoiseach sneer at them? Will the Deputy quote it for me, please?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The Minister will have a chance to reply.

Dr. Ryan

That is the ordinary Fine Gael practice—tell lies and get away with it. The Deputy goes away from it now.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Does the Minister mind if I make my own speech?

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy is quoting the Taoiseach and will not tell us where he said it.

Mr. T. Lynch

Just like yourself.

Dr. Ryan

That is Fine Gael all over.

Mr. Lenihan

He is the greatest play-actor in the place.

Mr. T. Lynch

The man beside the Parliamentary Secretary is the best play-actor in the place.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Higgins.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

This debate is availed of each year for the purpose of discussing, and endeavouring to find out, the current policy of the Government. We are availing of the debate for that purpose. This year, the debate takes place some six months after a general election, and at a time when concern is being expressed by many sections of the community in relation to what the Government are doing. That concern is moulded by the fact that there is little evidence nowadays of any clear Government policy. I have already referred to the protests about the rates.

It is well to remind the House that only eight months ago, on the eve of the general election, the country had tremendous evidence of the concern on the part of the Fianna Fáil Party with regard to the rates and everything else. At that time, prior to the general election, the Taoiseach was a busy man going around, with the Minister for Finance occasionally accompanying him, talking about how concerned the Government were about the level of local taxation. Finally, on the eve of the general election the ratepayers throughout the country were exhilarated to see that the Taoiseach had sent to a committee of experts the whole question of rating and the incidence of local taxation. Was that an election gimmick? Is it not rather interesting that we never heard anything more about it? It is now forgotten, and the rates are taking their place, as they always have, as just one of the white man's burdens, but is it playing fair with the people——

Mr. Lenihan

That is nothing to your Irish stunt.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

——that prior to the general election the ratepayers should have been codded into believing that Fianna Fáil, at last, would devise some new form of taxation which would wipe out the rates and reduce the burden on the people throughout the country? But that is gone as is much else of what was said on behalf of the Government in the general election. Speeches were made and promises were held forth. They all disappeared, and today we do not know what the Government are doing. We do not know what their policy is. We do not know whether we are going into NATO with the Minister for Lands and the Parliamentary Secretary, or whether we are staying out with the Minister for External Affairs. We do not know whether the Common Market is a challenge, or whether there is an era of prosperity for us. We do not know what the policy of the Government is, because the Government themselves do not know it. They are now in the position that they are a caretaker Government, dependent on the good wishes of Deputy Leneghan and Deputy Sherwin. They are marking time until such time as vacancies in this House have to be filled, and the very moment vacancies fall to be filled, this caretaker Government will disappear——

Mr. Lenihan

Hope springs eternal.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

——because a general election must be held and the moment it is held, this Government and all they stand for will go.

Dr. Ryan

We are always hearing that story. I have been hearing it for the past 30 years.

Mr. T. Lynch

Big Bill Thompson got back three or four times in the Twenties.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on the Vote on Account.

Mr. T. Lynch

He got back by the same methods. I mentioned that and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle thought I was talking about Fianna Fáil, but I was talking about Big Bill Thompson.

Mr. Crinion

I am glad to see that in the Book of Estimates there is an increase of £3,000,000 in the amount for agriculture. If we look back to 1953 we see that the over-all estimate for that year was £13,000,000. Five years ago, it was £17,000,000 and last year it was £36,000,000. That alone shows we are not forgetting agriculture.

Last year the Taoiseach, realising that the rates position was getting beyond farmers, set up a committee. He set up a committee of experts to examine the whole rates position. As we all know, it usually takes quite a long time for such a committee to issue its findings. We are hoping for the report in this case in the not too distant future and we trust the committee may be able to suggest a solution to the problem. The Departments of Local Government and Finance have examined the matter and would now like an outside opinion. We have realised that that trouble exists. We have set up another committee to examine the plight of small farmers and the findings of that committee are expected shortly.

In the past five years there has been a subsidy in respect of fat cattle slaughtered in England. If that subsidy had not been forthcoming two years ago, what would have been the position in the spring of that year? Take a man who bought four cattle, subject to passing the 14-day test, three of which passed the test, the fourth failing it. The man was fined £14 for the beast that failed. Such cases were widespread. It was out of that that the fat cattle subsidy had to come to guarantee a support price for the reactor cattle, the cattle that would not pass the 14-day test. Very little credit is given for that.

Now that most of the store cattle going to England are passing the 14-day test, it is admitted that one can travel the country and find fewer reactors than the number of fingers on your hand, so to speak. That subsidy was needed for the intervening time as, otherwise, the farmer with reactor cattle would suffer very severely.

We have given good support to pigs. If we can maintain the quality, breeding and selection we shall be able to command a fair percentage of the English market. The Munster Institute has been set up for the progeny testing of pigs. There are some results coming from it and we hope to get our place on the English market. Our main competitors there are the Danes who have been in the trade for a very long time. We cannot expect, overnight, the results we should like to see achieved. I am convinced that, in time, we shall achieve the best results.

It may be said that the prospects for pigs are not too secure at present. I have never known it to happen in competition with foreigners that if we produce really top quality produce the market is not there. We are beginning to see that already from our Grade A Special which is selling very well on the English market. Hotel people in particular are buying that bacon which is a few shillings a ton cheaper than the Danish product. When more of that Grade A Special is available we shall find our place on the English market and be able to compete successfully with foreigners.

I should like the Department of Agriculture to sponsor a television programme. It is one of the best ways of putting their policy and ideas before the farmers. As time goes by, there will be a wider audience for programmes on Telefís Éireann. Very good work has geen done on sound broadcasting and a regular television programme on agriculture, sponsored by the Department, would bear excellent results.

The Agricultural Institute has been established only a short time and already we are getting some very good results from it. A surprising piece of information which it has given us is that the yield per acre for grain crops on small farms is lower than it is on large farms. One would imagine it would be the other way round as the smaller man would be able to give more attention to his crop. However, with machinery and fertilisers, the larger man can achieve a higher yield.

We have been rather generous about the subsidy for artificial fertilisers and that is helping to secure higher yields. According to the figures supplied by the Agricultural Institute, the increase per acre is quite noticeable over the past eight years.

I hope the Department of Agriculture will sponsor winter farming schools to an even greater degree. That is a service which is much needed by our farming community. It provides advice on farm management. A great deal of information which the Agricultural Institute is assembling percolates to the farming community but, definitely, it is necessary that farmers should have more advice available to them.

I notice with pleasure that there is an increase of £.3 million to the tourist industry, bringing the amount for the coming year up to £1,000,000. In my view, it gives the best return for money invested—a return of over £40,000,000. It is well that we see the possibilities and are developing that industry. I live near the main road to the West of Ireland and in the Summer it is difficult to get across the road because of the flow of traffic to and from the West. There is a greater circulation of money. The visitors have to be fed and that represents an invisible market for agricultural produce. In that way, we are capitalising some of our natural resources. We have always been noted as a friendly people and are very friendly to visitors. The people who have come here have always been impressed by our friendliness and have returned. We have encouraged this industry by grants to hotels because visitors must have some place to stay.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.