When we reported progress last night, we were recording the fact that 250,300 people have emigrated since this Government took office after the election before the last, and that at the present moment there are something more than 60,000 persons unemployed. Those figures must be taken in association with each other. If one were to take below the line expenditure as well as above the line expenditure, Government expenditure would reach the figure of £235 million this year and the national debt would, for the first time, have topped £500 million. We have a trade deficit for the first time in any year of £100 million.
I suppose the situation would be far more serious if it were not true that the tide is running with the Government. For instance, when one considers the trade deficit, one must consider the flow of money coming into the country because of the fact that we are selling land to foreigners and because of the fact that those 250,300 people are sending home heavy emigrants' remittances. We on this side of the House attempted to have a register kept of the amount of land and property sold to foreigners but we did not succeed in getting that done because the Government decided that it would not be done.
At the same time, there is money coming in here which has been called "hot" money. If there were gross unemployment in Britain, many of our emigrants could be sent home and instead of getting their remittances, we would have a swelling unemployment figure and there would be nothing we could do to stop it. There is also the fact that there is a large amount of semi-public building going on, particularly in the city of Dublin. It is perhaps a coincidence and because of the supposed imminence of the Common Market that many projects in Dublin have arisen in or about the same time. I do not think we will ever again see a situation in which we will see Liberty Hall being built by the trade unions, a huge international hotel being built, UCD being transferred to Belfield and the P.J. Carroll building being built, at the same time.
There is also quite a lot of building outside Dublin, such as at the Shannon Free Airport, and Limerick has its own building spree. We know that when this comes to an end, the Government have a plan to build a 20-storey building to house civil servants at Beggars Bush. That is the reason why there is no crisis in the country at the moment. The Government's policy has produced what could have been a crisis, only for the fact that all the chances went with them and are continuing to run with them. However, there is no guarantee that they will continue to run with them and the Government's remedy for the situation is a wages pause and a sales tax. That can only be defined as an attempt to lower the living standards of the people.
If we are to have wage restraint and a broadly based sales tax, the same amount of money will go a far less distance. That is an admission of the Government's failure. If the policy adumbrated in Clery's Restaurant five years ago of 100,000 new jobs had succeeded even in part, and the Taoiseach admitted yesterday that he was not satisfied with the progress made, we would not have reached the impasse which we have now reached where nothing has saved us from a serious financial crisis except "hot" money, a lot of public building and emigrants' money.
Another factor that has helped the Government is the fact that except for the loans they and the State-sponsored bodies are floating, we have had a general reduction in interest rates. The interest rates of the housing societies have been reduced and they are still getting ample money. The Agricultural Credit Corporation, after the last Act, went on the market with 5½ per cent. Credit Bonds and they are now getting money at 4½ per cent. These factors are all with the Government and yet they have failed to produce any policy of faith or hope for the future and all they can give us is a reduction in our living standards to be caused by a wage pause and a sales tax.
The figures show that local authority housing is virtually at a standstill. The Minister for Local Government has criticised local authorities and said that it is their fault, that they are not producing plans for housing and that they are not pushing forward claims for sanction. That is as it may be, but if the policy which he has laid down is not producing the goods, it devolves on him to change his policy. If a labourer's cottage in my county is to cost 28/- a week and if, by applying for the Small Dwellings Act loan and the usual grant, a man can build the same house for a smaller price, surely there is something wrong with the Minister's policy and housing will remain at a standstill until the Minister stops throwing the blame on local authorities.
The Taoiseach yesterday, and I very much regret his outburst, indulged in a criticism of the farmers' organisations and made the suggestion that farmers were seeking too much of the national cake. He expressed extreme irritation at the fact that there was an agitation for higher prices. One must define the situation in relation to the price of milk. There has been an increase of one penny in ten years. In the case of all other increases given to people who depend on the State for their salaries or for prices for their products, these increases were given in a gentlemanly way, either in the Budget or by way of Supplementary Estimate. A completely new method of doing it was used when the penny was given to the farmers. A penny was put on to the price of cigarettes in a little Budget at the same time and the farmers were told: "Pay your penny for cigarettes and here is the penny for your milk." I know farmers in my area who were not affected at all and they have not smoked a cigarette since. That is Fianna Fáil's way of saying: "Thus far and no further."
The Taoiseach yesterday said other things that I do not like. I quote from the Irish Independent of this morning, on Page 11, Column 4, where he said: “There was also an agitation for a higher price for creamery milk, presumably by way of an increase of 1/- a lb. in the retail price of butter.” I do not think the people who are looking for an increase in the price of milk are looking for an increase of 6d. a gallon or anything like that. We must define the increase in the price of butter if we are to consider what a penny a gallon on milk means. A penny a gallon on a yield of approximately 280,000,000 gallons is slightly less than 2½ a lb on the price of butter and an increase of 2d a gallon would work out at 4½ a lb in the price of butter. Those are the figures. If we are talking about a penny, it means 2½d on the price of butter and if we are talking about 2d, it means 4½d on the price of butter. The Taoiseach was irate at the time he made that statement but such a figure as an increase of one shilling in the lb in the price of butter could not be allowed to go unchallenged.
Further in the same reference, the Taoiseach said: "This agitation seemed largely to be a product of the rivalry between certain farmers' organisations—a product of the struggle for status and power." I regard that sentence in two ways, first, as an indication to his supporters down the country to have nothing to do with any agitation and, secondly, as an attempt to create a cleavage between different agricultural organisations. One of the few hopes for better organisation of agricultural effort and education as far as agriculture is concerned lies in the farmers' organisations. Any attempt by anybody from the Taoiseach down to create a cleavage in these organisations is to be deplored and I regard that statement of his yesterday as a definite attempt to create a cleavage.
Of the two organisations involved in this matter, one relates to the creamery areas and the other covers the rest of the country. If there is going to be a general demand for an increase in the price of milk, it is natural that both organisations should put forward the case for that increase on behalf of those whom it is their duty to represent. It is not a coincidence. It is clearly because the Budget is imminent and that for ten years all they have got is a penny and they need more. The present position cannot continue.
I quote from the same reference and again I specifically want to disagree with the Taoiseach:
Creamery milk production was the most profitable production carried on by the Irish farmer and one in which, by reason of Government action, all element of risk, so far as was humanly possible, had been eliminated.
I do not think any production which was at a sensible figure ten years ago and has had an increase of, perhaps, five per cent in the gross price of its product since could be described as profitable. We know that all the costs must have increased by from 25 to 35 per cent. These increases are so obvious that I do not need to outline them here.
If the Taoiseach, who continued to mention the sum that was being voted in this Vote on Account for the dairying industry, had not adverted so much to that and had not again, almost like the penny on cigarettes, thrown down the gauntlet to the rest of the country and said: "If these people want the penny, it is £1 million" or whatever the figure is; if he had taken a different line and indicated that efforts were being made by the Government and the Minister for Agriculture towards diversification of milk products, if he had indicated that there was a serious effort to get milk out of the low-price product range, butter, and into the high-price product range such as cheese, chocolate crumb and milk powder and that there was a sensible approach to doing that, then we might have seen some sort of understanding on the part of the farmers. If the effort is to get no understanding, to divide two farmers' organisations, on the one hand, and throw down the gauntlet to the rest of the country on the other, saying, "These people want more money and you will have to pay them", there is no hope for the future.
Everybody knows that if we are to market our products well and get the maximum income for our farmers, at the same time seeking to pay the minimum subvention from Government funds, if we can get the money from real prices, there is only one way of doing it, by diversification. There is no indication that marketing diversification is getting the attention it should. When the Government came into office in 1957, one of the changes they made in the Vote on Account in that year was to include £250,000 for agricultural marketing. Since then, Deputy T. Lynch has regularly, every few months, put down Questions to find out just how much of that money has been spent. I do not suggest that spending money alone is good or that it is necessary to spend money to get results, but it is quite obvious that if there is activity in the investigation of markets and production, it must cost money. If no money is spent, it is evidence of no activity. If Deputy Lynch intervenes in this debate, I am certain he will give the replies to the latest Questions he asked on this subject but in broad outline they indicated that all that was spent on the original project was the expenses of the committee which sat for four or five years and then there was a "bit of a fiddle" in that when administration expenses were needed for An Bord Bainne and for the newly-constituted Pigs and Bacon Commission, the money was transferred from the Fund of 1957 into these two bodies.
We know they have administration expenses but I am rather loath to accept the definition of a fund for investigation of agricultural marketing and production as the administration expenses of these two excellent bodies. That indicates to me that the Government in five years have done "sweet Fanny Adams" about the things that matter and so long as the Taoiseach indicates that his line is to pay off the farmers with the minimum, always telling the rest of the country what it is costing and without any effort at leadership or diversification or any effort to get more for the farmers without going to the Exchequer, then so long will we have a disgruntled agricultural populace who will not give their best. I believe their best would be a wonderful thing for the country.
The other matter associated with marketing and diversification is efficiency in processing. The only thing done about creameries over the past five years has been the completion of the installation of pasteurisation plants. That will help the bovine TB scheme but there is wide scope for rationalisation. There are creameries which should amalgamate with other creameries even though that may be distasteful to other people, even to certain groups of farmers. This is 1963 and we must face facts. We must get the best possible for the farmers and make the best efforts to see that it does not come, if possible, from the Exchequer. If rationalisation must come, let it be so.
The Taoiseach did not refer to the question of housing on the farms and nothing has been done about it. If I may compare this situation with the bovine TB eradication scheme, you had in that scheme something that was sometimes described as three-quarters necessary and one-quarter an international veterinary racket. Whatever it was, every farmer had to produce his clear-herd certificate and is on the way to doing so. Whatever it cost had to be done. I am not sure that if free trade comes in any of the forms we expect, we may not have to adopt a minimum standard of housing for dairy cows on farms. The Government have done nothing about that and will be caught on the wrong foot. If I indicated quite recently my worries in that regard, the misrepresentation of some of the less lucid Fianna Fáil backbenchers did not worry me or change my resolve. If the Taoiseach does not accept the dangers that lie in that situation, the Vote that he parades here now as the reason why he should throw out the farmers without any efforts to lead them to better production will be doubled, trebled or even quadrupled without any advantage to the farmers and at the same time with very considerable effect on the Exchequer.
I believe the Government, whatever they say and whatever the Book says, have failed in their efforts as far as industry and commerce are concerned. They failed because whatever is written in the Estimates, industries have not succeeded in availing of grants and loans to bring them up to the efficiency standard which is so necessary if we are to enter any form of free trade. It may appear on the face of it, if you read the prospectus of the Industrial Credit Company or if you read the hand-outs from An Foras Tionscal in relation to grant loans, that everybody is regarded as equal. But I have no doubt that the way it is working out is that an industrialist from abroad, with no commitments to any commercial bankers, has a far better chance of availing of the maximum subvention than an old-established industry here employing male labour for generations. We have to face the situation of the old-established industry which may be doing well but has given debentures to commercial banks. That is the main reason why these industries have not succeeded in availing of grants and loans with the same facility as good industries from abroad. Until the Government succeed in getting a large proportion of financial assistance to these old-established industries, they will be a failure. It is not much good if you get nine or ten new industries established at a fantastic cost per worker, when, with the advance of free trade, old-established industries have to let five times as many workers go.
We have reached the stage when it is necessary to take stock and wonder whether or not, for the expenditure involved, it is worth while to establish an industry where the capital cost per worker is as much as £20,000, apart from the trading capital. I know you cannot have a rule of thumb for that. The old figure 15 years ago of £1,000 per worker is out of date. The average today is perhaps £5,000 per worker. It varies from one industry to another. If we had all the money in the world, we could take all these industries. One of the things that must guide us in the acceptance of industry from abroad is the degree of capital investment we are making by Government grant or loan per worker to be employed.
While it would be quite wrong for anybody in the Opposition to indicate individual industries that would not seem good value, perhaps, as far as workers employed are concerned, it is wise to bring it up here in a general way. I do not intend to go any further with that. Any criticism of that kind of individual industries might affect their prospects in the future. We have a duty to see that such does not happen, and the Government have a duty to see that their responsibility as to whether the money is well invested or not is carried out to the full. We in the Opposition can only leave that duty to them.
I am quite certain that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance was sent in here last night to waste time. The purpose was to make sure there was no great number of contributions from elsewhere that might vie with the Taoiseach for the newspapers this morning. The Parliamentary Secretary is a very amusing man and I like him. He is a good friend of mine. It was quite an interesting performance. He adopted the line of asking us were we objecting to the money being voted. He took individual figures and asked us were we objecting to them. Our function here is not to do that. Our function is to indicate whether or not that money is being spent in the right way. We do not have to pick up an individual figure and say we object to that. We reserve the right to say: "There is a Vote. We believe we could get better value for that."
If the Parliamentary Secretary likes to read the debates afterwards, he will find that is largely kind of criticism that has been forthcoming from these benches. There is not criticism of the money spent in individual instances. That is a good way of losing votes— and we have to be careful about that. When the Parliamentary Secretary asks us are we objecting to increased social welfare benefits or the increased vote for agriculture or when he tells us money could not be got at the time of the Coalition—when he says all these things, he is only using political catchcries. We feel we have a right to criticise on the basis of how the money is being spent. We do not have the information available only to the Cabinet in this time of change. If we are to behave as a responsible Opposition, we must say to the Government: "We have the gravest misgivings, but yours is the responsibility. Later we will talk about whether or not you have lived up to that responsibility and met it fairly."
The question of our tourist industry is one that has agitated many minds over the past year. While I did not intervene in the debate on the Vote passed here recently, on a previous Vote, I made the case to the Minister for Transport and Power that too many grants were being availed of by luxury hotels. The Minister came back with an exact parallel of the statement of the Minister for Industry and Commerce that small, old-established industries have as good a chance as anybody coming in from Germany or elsewhere. He said the small family hotel had just as good a chance. I come back with the same sort of statement I make in relation to grants for industry. It has not worked out that way. The Minister for Transport and Power has rather changed the set of his sails in that regard. He would need to. I do not think the luxury hotel has a great future here. I see that in the Inter-Continental Hotel in Dublin bed and breakfast will cost 117/- Perhaps there will be sufficient millionaires floating in and out of Dublin Airport to keep it full. I do not profess to know the figures for that. I am certain that the small local hotel, providing good food and accommodation—a thing rare enough in this country—has not availed of the grants available to any great extent. The Government, therefore, have to do what the Minister for Transport and Power said he is doing—I do not know if he is—that is, reset their sails in this matter.
The Taoiseach has always nailed his flag to a high-cost economy. It is not today or yesterday that he said he had no objection at all to Government expenditure increasing. It was yesterday that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands said that he was sorry the figure in the Vote on Account was not £200 million and that if it could be afforded, he would be very glad to see it at that figure. That is a philosophy and it is interesting to note what the Taoiseach, then Deputy Lemass, felt about that matter as far back as 6th March, 1961. I quote from the Dáil Debates, Volume 124, column 1166 where he said:
If we, as representatives of the public, or the Government, or the Deputies supporting the Government, can persuade people that it is better that they should have less to spend at their own discretion in order to increase the amount of Government spending, then nobody need have any complaint. Five shillings and fourpence out of every £1 of private income is now being spent by the Government, taken from the public through taxation or rates, and spent on the public services. If we want to increase expenditure on the public services, we have got to persuade people that instead of giving 5/4d. out of every £, they should give 6/- or 6/6d. or 7/-, persuade them that it is better for themselves that they should spend less at their own discretion and let the Government do their spending for them. But that issue should be put fairly to the public. They should be told, not merely what their choice is, but the consequences of any particular choice.
Anyone who wants to read the entire speech from which I have quoted and then would like to read in the newspapers of today what the Taoiseach said yesterday will see the exact parallel. The Taoiseach's line is that we should have a high-price economy. We on this side of the House believe that while giving all the services that are possible and keeping a mindful eye on the question of good housekeeping, an eye which Fianna Fáil have never kept, and that is their record, we should get out of the lives of the people as much as possible. Fianna Fáil want a completely organised State, a State in which the people will be persuaded that they should spend less and the Government should spend more for them.
