When progress was reported last Thursday afternoon, I was speaking of the responsibility of the Government in respect of this extra taxation. I accused them of letting the position drift from a time prior to the last election so that they now find themselves in this morass of difficulty. I accuse the Government of doing that through ignorance or with intent. If it was done through ignorance, then the Government and the Minister responsible are to be blamed for it; if it was done with intent, then it was fraudulent. I do not intend to repeat all the arguments I made last Thursday but I want to go over some of the points I made because, since then, I have gained additional knowledge to support my statements.
I said that, as a result of the drift and the consequent shortage of money, my own local authority, and, as far as I can read in the national newspapers, every local authority, is experiencing a shortage of money for housing, water and sewerage. Last Monday, Waterford County Council met. What I have said was confirmed by a circular from the Minister for Local Government to the effect that planning for housing and for water and sewerage schemes should continue. We already have a formidable list but, while these schemes are held up at the moment, we must not stop sending more up for sanction. We are now told that while no money is available immediately, we should continue to forward our schemes to the Custom House and that each of them will be dealt with in the order in which the Minister's officials decide. There is no discouragement to the sending up of schemes but when they reach the Custom House there then ensue queries, investigations and inspections rather than an honest admission that the Government have not the money and that, until they get it, they are not in a position to carry out all they would like to do.
I presume the Government would like to see the country prosper, as would all Parties here. No doubt they would like to see housing schemes, water schemes and sewerage schemes. If, through some action or some mismanagement by the Government, there is a halt in that work, then the Government should admit it, claim the indulgence of the House and plead for time. They should say they may not be able to carry out the work this year or next year but that, in time, the economy will recover to the point at which they can resume where they left off prior to the last general election.
I mentioned that I did not believe the statement by Government speakers that the new taxes—particularly the five per cent, which I can only regard as a purchase tax—will not interfere with the cost of living. I cannot accept that view. Although it will not affect foodstuffs and the absolute essentials of life, it will affect the cost of items such as furniture and goods of all sorts outside the essentials of life. It will affect the necessaries of life such as a bed to sleep on, a carpet, curtains, stair-rods, a chair to sit on in the kitchen, or a cooker of any sort, or any type of television set. These things cannot now be classed as luxuries; at least I do not class them as luxuries. Ordinary people of any class or creed are entitled to these things as essentials, the things which make life easier. The five per cent tax is bound to affect them. If it does, what are the people who produce expected to do? Are they to go short because the Government failed to make provision beforehand to ensure that certain things did not happen? Later I will try to suggest why those things happened but at the moment I am dealing with the fact that they did happen. Does anyone think that the ordinary worker, working from 8 o'clock to 6 o'clock for five days a week, is just going to tighten his belt and go without, or is he, through his trade union, going to say: "We are going to seek compensation in some form or other, either by an increase in wages or overtime or in shorter working hours"? In some way or other he is going to seek redress.
All taxation, unless there is some adjustment by the Government in power to hold prices and the cost of living, is bound to be reflected not in advance of increases in prices but following an increase in prices, by a demand from the working people whether they are organised in trade unions, farmers seeking a living from the land, or anyone who works for another person, for a wages adjustment. I suggested last Thursday that much of the high spending which led us into this position was due to an ideal, or call it what you will, in regard to prestige. We had to be a big nation and we had to send troops to the Congo and to Cyprus. We had to send observers to the Lebanon. There are other little countries. There is a small country, Switzerland, which has a record for hundreds of years of having one object in life, promoting peace and promoting activities that would take away from the horrors and hardships of war. I would rather see our country devoting its money and thought to that kind of ideal than seeking to attain the position of America, Great Britain, France or some of the huge industrial countries with empires.
I had the advantage of travelling around the world in my youth and I have been in practically every maritime country in the world and in most of them I found the greatest difficulty trying to explain that I was not a member of the British Empire and that I was not an Englishman. It is true that I spoke English but even if I spoke Irish, it would not have made the slightest difference because they— even our favourite cousin, America— lump us with Great Britain and look upon us as part of a group. Surely we should try to carve out something in proportion to our size and to our wealth? I would prefer to see us devoting our energies to building up prestige on similar lines to other small countries, not necessarily Switzerland, which I mention because I have knowledge of it, but countries whose aims are peaceful. I know that our troops went abroad with the intention of keeping peace and I have nothing but praise for them. However, the Minister for External Affairs said yesterday in answer to a Parliamentary Question that he had been missing for three months solving the problems of the big nations of the world in connection, perhaps, with either the atomic bomb or something else, but surely he would be much better off at home endeavouring to use his good offices to solve some of the problems we have at home?
With all due respect to the Minister for External Affairs, I agree that he was moved by the best motives but this must involve cost and there must be for him a feeling of being important. You are going to solve the difficulties between China and America and that is bound to get headlines. You are doing something for prestige motives. I suggest these prestige motives cost money not only in keeping the Minister abroad for three months but also in keeping a staff with him. I thought the Minister was sick during that period but now I know he was away in foreign parts, probably in New York at UNO, or somewhere else, deciding how Ireland could help to solve the problems of Russia, America, China or France, or some of the other big countries.
That is not the function of Ireland in the world. That is why we are in the morass in which we are. That is why housing is short of money, why water and sewerage schemes are short of money and that is why this extra taxation is being imposed on us, to make up for the expenses and losses caused by following these prestige ideas. I could go on to give other examples and in my concluding remarks I will point out why we are following a mirage in thinking that we are a nation which is bigger and better and more important than most of the small nations. In point of fact, we are a very small nation; even when we are combined with our Northern Ireland brethren, we have only four million people.
If one thinks of London or of Greater London, one finds that there are 12 million people there, and if one thinks of the New York Police Force, one finds that in 1953, when I was there, there were 25,000 men in it. Yet in our Army, at its maximum strength, there are only 5,000 men. This gives one some comparison. The police force in one of the principal cities of America is five times greater than our Army. This gives some idea of the place we should be seeking in world affairs. We are a wonderful nation. We have sent out missionaries and educationists and we have done more than our share in colonising many countries, but as a free nation we should understand that it is more important for us to work for the people who live here. They should be our first concern.
I also spoke in a limited and general way on Thursday afternoon last about CIE losses. In particular, I referred to a proposal to close down the railway line between Mallow and Waterford city via Fermoy and Dungarvan. I am informed that this proposal is made because this particular stretch of line is at the bottom of the scale as regards profit-making. When I reported progress, I had reached the stage of pointting out that I thought this was not a forward looking policy because of improvements made on that line in recent years. I instanced the raising of the line within two miles of my own town by five or six feet in order that trains may run unimpeded by flooding. A new signal box was erected at Dungarvan and a new beet loading station was put up at considerable expense. CIE should have been aware that, if they were going to close down the line, this was a waste of money.
If CIE intend to close the line between Mallow and Waterford via Fermoy and Dungarvan, they should remember that this line is of vital importance to these two towns and also to the towns and stops between them. How does this action of CIE relate to the new industrial centre which it is proposed by the Government to establish in Waterford? Waterford Corporation have already acquired valuable land and have earmarked it for industrial expansion. They expect, and I hope their expectations will be realised, that industry will be directed to that area. A school of technology is to be set up in Waterford for the purpose of training people to work in that industrial centre. That has been done by Waterford Corporation and other educational bodies at considerable expense.
Where will the products of this industrial estate, if established, flow? Waterford Corporation have a project for a £2 million extension, of which Waterford County Council have agreed to underwrite £100,000. The Corporation of Waterford have agreed to underwrite a further sum. South Tipperary and south Kilkenny are considering it and certain shipping lines have intimated that they will give grants up to £100,000 to develop this industrial estate and they have agreed to supply a container traffic system from London and the south of England to the port of Waterford in order to distribute the goods to Munster and Leinster.
How are these goods to be distributed west of Waterford it this vital railway link is cut? It cannot be done except by putting the traffic on to the roads. I have additional information since I spoke here on Thursday last and I have learned from a communication from CIE itself that they propose to put on two extra buses over a certain period to deal with passenger traffic and up to five extra buses at peak tourist periods. That will have a strong bearing on the economy of west Waterford, portion of south Tipperary and a good deal of east Cork. There was also a suggestion that seven lorries and three trailers could deal with all the traffic on that particular line. That is an average figure; there would be less in slack times and more in peak periods.
What proposals are being made by CIE to deal with increased traffic either by road or rail which will result from the development of the Waterford industrial estate? There are none. The matter is not even being looked at. It is not even being said that should the industrial estate prove successful, they will increase the carrying facilities. This is a matter that should be looked into by the Government. It has been suggested to me that there are many railway lines which are losing less than the Mallow-Waterford branch line. That has been stated by an association which looks into such matters. I would like that to be contradicted if it is untrue and admitted if it is true. Then we would be in a position to point out what the loss is.
Since last Thursday I have got some further information. Those of us who are interested asked our county engineer in Waterford the cost of the abandonment of the railway line and the re-alignment and maintenance of roads in substitution for that railway line, taking into consideration the flow of traffic likely to be diverted from the rail to the road. Re-alignment in the case of one portion will cost, in the opinion of the county engineer, £500,000. That is a tidy sum. Maintenance will cost something in the region of £8,000 per year, to say nothing of the approach subsidiary roads leading to this main direct route to Mallow and other places. The cost of maintenance of the road to Youghal will be in the neighbourhood of £12,000 to £14,000 extra per year.
Most of the traffic will be main road traffic and Waterford County Council will have to get therefore a 60 per cent grant. If you take 60 per cent of £14,000 or £15,000, plus a capital grant of £500,000, which is a 100 per cent grant for main road re-alignment, underpinning bridges, and so on, for the next 20, 30 or 40 years, the loss on the line between Mallow and Waterford via Fermoy and Dungarvan would not be in any way equal to the expenditure with which the Government will be faced within the next five to ten years if they go ahead with their present proposal. Coupled with that, the community will suffer at least a 50 per cent loss of service, to say nothing of a possible added danger to life.
The Minister for Local Government goes around screaming about road safety and appealing to local authorities to hold meetings, bring out propaganda, and do all sorts of things to save life. With the railway, the only danger is possible accident, but the Minister intends now to divert all the traffic normally carried by the railway to the road. The roads will be unable to bear this traffic and their maintenance will in time amount to far more than would a subsidy on the railway line. That may be slightly away from the main matter at issue, but we are dealing here with State money. These are the things which are causing increasing taxation. When the Bill comes before the House, I shall deal with this aspect at greater length; I understand the Minister is in such a hurry for his Bill that he cannot even wait until we finish this very crowded session.
I referred to the need for investigation of matters like this by a Committee of Dáil Éireann. In Great Britain, there is a Special Committee appointed by the Government to scrutinise all details of expenditure in the case of semi-State or other bodies to which the Government give a subsidy. It does not matter whether it is the purchase of a hammer or a railway engine, a steamboat or a chisel, all expenditure must be accounted for. Some of us have had the privilege of serving on the Committee of Public Accounts and we know the advantage that Committee is. If the information sought is not available at the meeting, the accounting officer has subsequently to make it available. The Chairman of that Committee is normally a member of the Opposition. Immediate results have shown themselves following on the examination and investigation carried out into Departmental accounting. I sometimes think it is a pity the newspapers have not enough space, and perhaps not enough time, for reporting in full what happens at meetings of the Committee of Public Accounts, the queries raised, the answers given, the investigations carried out.
In his own interests, the Minister for Finance should seriously consider setting up a Committee on the lines of committees in other countries to investigate these State and semi-State bodies. The mere fact that such committees are in existence would be a deterrent to unnecessary and useless spending. The Minister is responsible for these public bodies, such as CIE, Bord na Móna and Irish Shipping. In reply to queries here in connection with the everyday working of these bodies, or indeed expenses incurred by these bodies, the Minister answers with the simple statement: "I have no function." Either he is right or he is wrong. Perhaps he is quite right. Perhaps legislation is so arranged that he has no function and he has not the power to intervene. If that is so, then I suggest it should be altered. If the Minister denies he has a function and he has, the Minister is guilty, but if he has no function, there is no use in Deputies in the Opposition blaming the Minister for something for which he has no responsibility. I suggest to the Minister for Finance that that is a matter that requires attention.
In regard to the taxes on petrol and on cigarettes, the Labour Party offered, through me as a Deputy, a long time ago—so long now that I find it difficult to trace the year, but I am sure I could get it from newspaper records—to support an increase on cigarettes, on drink and on petrol, provided all the money derived from those taxes went to improve the situation of what is known as the social welfare group. We stated that and have stated it repeatedly since.
I was impressed by a newspaper report of a statement by the Taoiseach which I understand was sent mainly to Fianna Fáil Deputies and Senators, in which he said, following the Presidential election and the very near defeat of the new President by Deputy O'Higgins, that a new look was going to be taken at social welfare benefits. My interpretation of his statement—I do not know whether I am right or wrong—was that a standard of living would be given to the social welfare group, to the aged, the widow, the orphan, the unemployed and the disabled, not as a percentage of what the economy had produced but as a necessity, as a minimum, and that the ways and means of finding the money to produce that standard would be accepted by the Government and introduced by the Government.
I thought quite honestly that the mini-Budget would provide that through increased taxation perhaps on cigarettes, petrol, drink or other non-essentials or through what I could call luxury taxes, a dancehall tax, for instance. Such taxation would have received the support of the Labour Party, provided the proceeds were earmarked and earmarked in full for the people in that group. Unfortunately we know that is not the case. I am not permitted to deal with the Social Welfare Bill, and I do not intend to do so, but may I say that while we welcome the provisions of that Bill, which has been introduced, as an improvement, it is only a little step forward, and it does not deal with the situation in the comprehensive way that we members of the Labour Party would desire and would fully support.
I have mentioned the causes of strikes. None of us in the House can but regret that the economy of the country has been so disrupted by strikes, whether here or in the neighbouring country, Britain, over the past six or seven months. It is a matter of regret for any intelligent member of any Party that the need for strikes should arise and that there are no good offices or no means, apparently anyhow, successful in preventing them. I have been actively connected with the labour movement for a long period, right from 1942, actively as secretary, and prior to that as a member of a trade union for a further 20 years. Therefore, I can claim first-hand knowledge of trade union matters, of their grievances and of their difficulties over a period of 40 years.
What has happened over the past 12 months? I think I know. The new boy coming into productive employment, the new fitter, the new millworker, the new machinist, the new road worker, has arrived in an educated state. He has had, thanks to an improvement in the economy, a better chance of education, of going further than sixth standard in the national school. He has got a year or two additional, and television, radio and lending library services have all contributed to bringing his standard of education higher than that of his father or mother.
These workers realise that manpower in industry is much more important than machinery or administration, that the factory hand who takes the cow skin in the tannery and, with the help of his fellow workers, turns it out at the other end in the form of leather to be exported to Great Britain and elsewhere, is doing more for the economy than a fellow who writes down on a sheet of paper a record of how that was processed through the factory. Productive workers, due to their education, have now decided that they are no longer going to take the small portion of the cake but are going to demand, and strike, if necessary, and for as long as they possibly can, in support of their demands, until the difference between the wages and conditions of the administrative staff and their own wages and conditions are so adjusted as to recognise their claim to be as important as, if not much more important than, that of the administrative staff.
As far as the labour movement is concerned and, in particular, as far as I am concerned in the labour movement, they do that with my blessing, with my help and with my encouragement. Even if they have to wreck the country, it would be much better to see the country wrecked and then rise like a phoenix from its ashes recognising equality and the sharing of profits for workers, rather than have the present system whereby those who produce more are paid least and those who administer get the full profits of industry.
Employers and Government must realise that this is a pressing problem and must be dealt with on that basis. That is why the Labour Party took the action they did in regard to the ESB dispute. We did not want to have the dispute continue, have the country deprived of electricity and have all the workers suffer; but we knew that for every battle there must be a price, that in every fight, there must be casualties. Whatever casualties there are will be worthwhile, provided in the end we secure the desired victory. That is why we will oppose any repressive legislation and fight tooth and nail any effort to compel workers to do things they know are against their own interests.
I can warn the Government it is waste of time endeavouring to legislate for people against their wishes. I know the Government have a responsibility to legislate for the good of the majority. You can legislate. We will not violate the law. We simply say that nobody can make us work if we do not wish to. Even if we have to starve to establish that principle, I can assure the House there are in the country now educated working people who understand their power. They do not want to break any law. You can pass any law you like here, but you cannot force them to work, unless you do a Fascist act like Franco in Spain. But even if you put them to jail, they will not be available for work.
There is one sensible way of dealing with this matter. In times of peace, employers and workers should get together. I was a trade union official in my area for 20 years and during that time we had only one strike. That was in 1944. We never had one since. I convinced the employer that he should not meet his workers only when there was a dispute but should meet them at all times. They should have socials and mutual aid societies. The managing director and the manager have a responsibility to get to know their workers. They should give the workers' children at very little cost a Christmas party where the parents would meet the employers. All employers are not bad. There are good and bad employers. It is the distrust, uncertainty and—the new phrase—lack of communication that cause the trouble.
Now the workers are educated to a point where they will not accept compulsion from anybody because they know they can defeat it. That is the reason why the labour movement fought the Electricity Bill and will fight any legislation impacting on the workers unless there is consultation with them. I understand from the Minister there is to be consultation in this case.
I should like to say more on this motion but it would be unfair of me to deprive other Deputies of the opportunity of putting their views. I should like to conclude by expressing surprise at the failure of the Government to give a lead on the question of economy. Over the past two months, we have seen extraordinary lavishing of money on pageants, guards of honour and ceremonies of all kinds— people in tall hats and tailcoats. It is all far away from the bainín talked about when Mr. Cosgrave established the State. Whether people wear tall hats, tails, dinner jackets, white ties, black ties or bainín is a matter of indifference to me. But if the Government want to bring home to the people of this country, particularly the workers, that they must tighten their belts and economise because the country is in a critical state, then they should be more careful about the type of pageant they are promoting. I would recommend to the Minister for Finance an examination of his conscience and the conscience of the Government in regard to their future conduct.
