I shall not delay the House too long but I think this is an occasion when most of us should avail ourselves of some time to make reference to this annual financial review which gives one an opportunity to look back and look forward with regard to the general state of the economy.
I had, like any other person intimate with the position, hopes of doing as much as possible in my Department of Social Welfare, but when one considers the demands there were and the considerable difficulties the Minister for Finance would have in meeting what would obviously appear to be a good many just claims, a good many cases where extra expenditure was justified, I had to be indeed very satisfied with the position as it was finalised.
When we all talk about securing benefits for this or that service in an annual Budget, we appear to forget the importance of keeping topped up the general pool out of which all this must flow, and I for one must be mindful of that important fact. Every time the economy improves in any particular sector, I must look on it as another tributary to the catchment from which I am likely to draw some improved benefits for the welfare class and if one is lucky enough to secure what one has demanded, what one would desire and what the people who benefit could justifiably claim, it might not ultimately be to the general good of the economy as a whole. The system which has been followed up to now of keeping social welfare in step with the general economic conditions would hardly be regarded as anything out reasonably fair.
I looked at the debate on the 1956 Financial Resolutions and particularly at the subsequent legislation introduced by the Minister for Social Welfare giving effect to the benefits which he derived from the Budget. At the time and in the conditions which then prevailed, they were very slender benefits. He emphasised, however, that they were slightly above what the increase in the cost of living would demand. On that theme, the increases given to social welfare recipients in this Budget are considerably in advance of what would be justified if one were to keep in step with the cost of living trend. The general pattern would justify no more than 2/- a week. The fact that we have given them 5/- a week can be regarded as generous on that score. While every Minister for Social Welfare is always anxious to get more, I can say I am very happy with the acrossthe-board increase of 5/- I have been able to give in present conditions when so many other sections had to be satisfied as well. We also must consider the other benefits, which will ultimately be worked out, in respect of travel and ESB charge reliefs. In that light the increases to old age pensioners cannot be regarded as ungenerous.
Anybody in the House, myself included, and certainly many people outside it would have little difficulty in justifying much more substantial increases but on these occasions we have to take into account the overall position and have regard to what may be necessary in other directions so as not to affect the pool from which we must expect these benefits continually to flow. I know that benefits and assistance from the Department of Social Welfare are very often the football of all political Parties. They are always something which will be listened to emotionally and which will evoke a good deal of sympathy, but a person giving expression to what one would like to give is in quite a different position from the person in the position where the giving has to be done who has to consider the size of the slice of cake which is likely to be available and which has to be properly apportioned to the best of one's ability and having regard to the rights of the different sections.
By every test we have done very well this year. Some people have seen fit to criticise the extension of the EPO, the employment period orders, not so much in the House as outside it. It behoves me to say a few words in defence of that section who are so often maligned as people who receive dole and do not do much to earn a living. Those of us with intimate knowledge of the western seaboard are aware of how important unemployment assistance has been to those living on uneconomic holdings, married couples with small growing children going to school. We frequently hear talk of depopulation, of houses closing up. I can tell the House that many more people would have gone in the past, were it not for the supplementary incomes they derived in this way from unemployment assistance.
Perhaps it may be possible to improve these holdings somewhat or it may be possible to improve slightly the incomes of the occupants if better husbandry and a better system were adopted, but these people are restricted by the limits to which they can go on holdings with such small valuations. There are many ways and means of giving assistance to agriculture. Many subsidies are given for the rearing of pigs, for the use of fertilisers and there are other stimulants to production. These, however, do not get through to the people most in need of assistance. They are a class who cannot often participate in many of these schemes and if there is any way of getting through to them in the matter of assistance it is by way of the supplementary payment of unemployment assistance, now proposed to be extended throughout the year.
March is the most difficult month in the life of a smallholder. It is the time when payments fall due and when income is at its lowest and frequently the only income he can glean as subsistence for his family is from the disposal of some of the few livestock he may have when the livestock are least ready for the market. The small allowances which will be received under this scheme will therefore be more than useful as a means of enabling these people to continue and to preserve for a better time their few livestock.
It has been said in the past that unemployment assistance was a disincentive to these people in the proper operation of their holdings. The means of assessing income has been changed since 1st January, 1966. Since that date the means of these people are based on the rateable valuations of their land, leaving them in a position to develop their holdings to the greatest possible extent, to improve their incomes as best they can from the holdings without interfering with their rights to have any adjustments carried out in the amounts they will draw by way of unemployment assistance. This was done for the purpose of negativing any disincentive element, of allowing these people to continue to do the best they can for themselves and their holdings. It is encouraging to know that this has had and is having the desired effect throughout the country and particularly on the western seaboard where most of them are situated.
It is for that reason that the Minister for Agriculture and I are anxious to assist this section. As far as I was concerned with the problem of doing something for small farmers, I could regard these people as being in the lowest bracket. This scheme came directly to the rescue of that section which I was so anxious to assist. At the same time, it satisfied a hope I had of extending social welfare for that category. I think that type of assistance will get through to this section much better than any other thing we could do. Many people have suggested that something by way of an incentive towards increased production might be better for the smallholder, the man on the non-viable holding but, as I have already stressed, an actual cash payment is the most beneficial thing you can give because any extra income which these people receive tends to assist them towards the better operation of their holdings. Nowadays this does not affect their unemployment assistance since means are assessed on the rateable valuation.
Derating is one of the things which is particularly welcome in this Budget because it is beneficial to a similar section of the people, and it reaches a section which is well above the category of those who are likely to benefit from unemployment assistance. Taking the benefits in the Budget as a whole, without dealing specifically with each separate item, I would say that the benefits I have already referred to—derating, tourism and the increased assistance for the establishment of manufacturing industries—are definitely of the greatest importance to the movement which has grown up for the improvement of conditions in the West.
I would not be relevant if I went in detail into the whole question of saving the West, but it is necessary to discuss these problems in a general way in reference to this Budget. This is a courageous Budget and it is an attempt to give the greatest shot in the arm that the campaign for saving the West, as it is now popularly called, has yet got since reference was first made, sincerely or otherwise, to this social and economic problem. While nothing that this House can do will ultimately lead to a final solution of that problem—it will depend on the co-operation of the people who live there—this certainly points the way to a real and genuine attempt to supplement the efforts made by the people in that area.
The commission which inquired into this problem, as the House knows, said that no single solution could be set down as the answer to the problem of the west of Ireland, and that a number of things would have to be carried out or encouraged to ameliorate the position of the people there and ultimately lead to the stabilisation of the population and an uplifting of their standard of living. This Budget hits three or four of the important problems and enables the people in a general way to devote their attention to the overall problem. Many incentives are offered in the Budget to the western seaboard to renew the people's confidence, and this is more important than anything else. A really genuine tangible effort is made in the Budget to assist this part of the country. That confidence has been lacking for some time. Some private people in their efforts to provide and operate schemes for the benefit of the western seaboard have also had in mind the instilling of a new confidence in those people to make them feel that the West is not a bad place in which to live.
If we continue our efforts to co-operate with the people who are doing something worthwhile and who are co-operating with the Government and the various Departments concerned, we will ultimately in the not too distant future reach the stage where the West will be regarded as a highly desirable place in which to live. It is already a most desirable tourist area. The western seaboard has a great potential in tourism and the Budget recognises that important economic factor. Wherever we have the raw materials for anything which will improve the income of the people of that area, we should exploit them to the fullest. There is much leeway to be made up and apart from the direct benefits which will be derived from the provisions of the Budget, it holds out the necessary incentives to people who are prepared to invest private capital in the development of the tourist potential of the western seaboard. That is one of the things we look forward to in the future.
We must remember in thinking of the small holdings in the West, that apart from assisting the occupants of these holdings to improve their lot, or to increase their income so far as possible by intensifying their agricultural production, by rearing and breeding pigs and sheep and other things which are suitable to small holdings, there is nothing which will so amply give them the necessary support, confidence and impetus as an industry where the farmers' sons and daughters may find employment in the local town or village. This type of income coming into a small holding gives the owner the necessary encouragement to make the greatest possible use of the holding. With all the incentives and assistance that can be given, let us be quite clear that there is nothing half as beneficial as an industry started in an area to serve the hinterland or the surrounding district. One has only to look at the towns that have been fortunate enough to get a few industries since the Undeveloped Areas Act was passed, and one has only to look at the small holdings on the perimeter of those towns to appreciate the importance to these people of being able to find employment in their own area and bring home a few pounds each week to assist the father and mother who have such a struggle without that supplementary income.
It is not possible to have an industry at every crossroads but we should aim at having one in every town and every village so far as possible. If the local people, when they come of age, cannot find employment in the local village or town, they go to the larger provincial centres or to the capital. That is why we find places like this city growing abnormally and people talking of wild plans for future development. It is only part of the emigration that is taking place. We must bear in mind that the fare from Mayo or Donegal or such places to Britain is very little more than the fare to Dublin and that, to the person contemplating emigration, there is not a great deal of difference between one strange city and another. It is more difficult now to solve the problem of emigration than it would have been 50 years ago when, for economic reasons, people were driven to find employment elsewhere. Those not familiar with the problem in the West can hardly appreciate the present position, when they meet some young man or girl about to emigrate, compared with that which existed 50 years ago. They have now many things in those areas that they could not dream of having 50 years ago. In fact, the standard of living has increased out of all proportion and this is a factor stimulating emigration because once people learn to enjoy a better standard of living they are not so readily prepared to continue an existence on a backward holding in a remote area. It is their desire for better standards of life that urges them to find more remunerative employment. For that reason, we should continue to press for the establishment of more industries on the western seaboard which, ultimately, is the real solution to the stabilisation of the population in those areas. I am not extravagant in my views when I say that this Budget is a definite step in that direction.
I think that people who do not come from the West or who may not personally be familiar with the problems in that area will not grudge any contribution that the more highly-populated and better-off industrialised areas may have to make towards the improvement of the lot of the people in this particular part of Ireland. We have referred to it as being congested and it is true that many holdings there are not viable or are totally uneconomic. The Minister for Lands has a programme and a policy for the structural reform of holdings as far as possible in that respect. An effort has been made in this Budget towards a good start in that direction and, on the overall, every individual must admit that the Budget is a step in the right direction.
I said that this is a courageous and bold Budget because it has taken many factors into account. While the temptation would be to give assistance in particular directions—particularly to my Department—it is important that the Budget should encourage production and the expansion of industry which, though slowed down in the past year or so, is now showing signs of revival. If we neglect this important aspect of our programme, we cannot expect benefits to flow from the economy and that is why it is so necessary to assist and to provide the necessary stimulus to progress at a greater rate in our economy.
Many Deputies, particularly the last speaker, have referred to the award made last year to old age pensioners and compared it with this year's award which is an overall increase of 5/- a week without any means test. Last year, the 5/- increase was given only to the less well-off sector of the pensioners. As I have explained here on other occasions, only a limited amount of money is available. We know that some old age pensioners are infinitely worse off than others and, in this Budget, special provision is made for them as regards ESB current. The effort last year was to get through to the most necessitous old age pensioners. It is possible to draw very pathetic pictures in relation to borderline cases and on many occasions I have been pressed at Question Time in this House about means assessment such as assessment of a small amount in respect of the occupation of free lodgings, and so on. There is not much one can do except to make provision where a very scanty means might be the cause of depriving some people of the award. There will always be marginal cases so long as a means test exists. I am frequently reminded that the means test should be removed altogether. My answer to that has always been, still is, and must be, that while our economy has not yet reached a stage where we can discard the means test, then if I had the money to provide pensions on the non-contributory scale without a means test, I should prefer to use that money to increase the amounts those already in receipt of pensions are receiving. In saying so, I am possibly recognising the importance of giving more to these people whenever circumstances permit.
Sometimes the amount being given is referred to as "a miserable pittance" while other people will say that it is a reasonable effort. Non-contributory payments come under the category of assistance and they are just what the word implies and are never intended to be something which will give those people a high standard of living. We are always hopeful they will get whatever assistance is possible from their families or relatives. We hope that the human respect and the spirit which existed in our society in the past and which was the sole means by which these people received any benefit, still exist to some extent and that the assistance we give them will ensure that they will never be entirely bereft of a reasonable means of living.
The progress we have made in our time towards bringing that state of affairs about is something of which one need not be ashamed. I hope we will be able to maintain and continue that trend in the future. I can only assure the House that in so far as the economy will justify it, it will always be my desire, as long as I am Minister for Social Welfare, to endeavour to get the greatest possible allocation for the weaker sections. However, in doing this, I must be mindful of what is due to others and mindful also of the source from which it is being drawn. We cannot kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Nowadays many people have become sufficiently aware of, and have an appreciation of, the importance of the welfare classes and they do not grudge paying a few pennies extra for their packet of cigarettes or the drink they may enjoy in luxury, so long as they know that they are assisting that particular section of the community. That growing awareness in what may now be regarded to a great extent as an affluent society is the greatest hope, in the field of social welfare, for the future.
We may have to create a better standard all round, sooner perhaps than we think. Our advent into the European Economic Community is something which is not yet predictable, but when it comes about, it will impose on us an obligation to harmonise our social welfare standards with those obtaining in countries which are already members of the EEC. We are already examining this in my Department and while I am prepared to admit that there are some anomalies and some voids, on the whole the comparison is not so bad. Indeed, in some respects we can boast that we are ahead. When it comes to bringing in what one might describe as a comprehensive scheme to harmonise with those other countries, it will be found that there are not so many gaps, not so much leeway to be made up.
One of the things which we must face up to in the future is the question of reducing the age at which old age pensions are granted. We are one of the few countries which do not grant these pensions until the age of 70. In most countries where the pensions are granted at an earlier age, they have the employment clause whereby the person may continue in employment without opting for the pension at the particular age. However, we are living in a community in which the number of contributors for the contributory pension, the number of insured contributors, is relatively small in proportion to the entire community and the greatest number of pensioners are on the non-contributory side, so that any reduction in the age level would impose a very heavy extra drain on our resources. I would hope to reach the stage at which we would have more contributors than we have at present and the gap would narrow between these two categories. In that context, one could see more easily provision for the granting of old age pensions at reduced age becoming a less difficult problem in relation to our resources on the whole. While I do not want to be taken as promising something or raising false hopes, it is only fair to point out what most Deputies already know, that this must ultimately come and if we are to proceed with our harmonisation scheme of social welfare in respect of the Common Market, this is one of the problems with which we will be faced.
There are quite a number of other matters which are not relevant to this debate but which I will have the opportunity to raise when my Estimate comes before the House or when we bring in a Bill to give effect to the improvements which have been carried out, but I want to say that on the whole I am very pleased with what the Minister has been able to do to meet my desires in regard to the requirements of the social welfare classes. People who were anticipating the Budget and endeavouring to create an impression of better things, were advocating 10/- a week increase and nobody would have been more surprised than they if we had granted that amount. In fact, many people were afraid that we would not have been as generous as we were in the knowledge that a certain section of the community, the agricultural community, were in line for some benefits, as they were, and they took up a considerable amount of what the Minister was able to provide.
In these circumstances and having regard to the importance of bringing in a Budget designed to stimulate expansion generally, we have done very well. If the prospects for the years ahead are to be realised, and I have no doubt that they will, particularly those in relation to tourism, industry and agriculture, we can look forward to this Budget being above all others a very definite springboard to higher standards, higher levels and greater benefits in the years to come.
In regard to industry, there are many people ready to offer advice to industrialists nowadays. This is the job of the Minister for Industry and Commerce who is well able to do it and who frequently has been advising them and giving them counsel from the specialised advice available to him, but there are many others who are so often glibly admonishing our industrialists that sometimes they must feel weary. People who could make no advance in any industry themselves are always ready to tell our industrialists what they should do and what they should not do. We know that industrialists have a difficult task but I have no doubt that they are quite capable of coping with it. The fact that they increased industrial exports in the past year in the face of adversity and in most difficult times, is proof that they are capable of raising themselves to the greatest possible heights and that they are aware of what is necessary, if they are to become competitive in competitive markets.
They require little advice from anyone in order to play their full part in raising the economy, so far as their sector is concerned, to the highest possible level. Indeed, they were criticised for sheltering behind tariff walls in the past, reaping the advantage of protection at a time when we were struggling to get an industrial nucleus established here, at a time when we were completely bereft of any industrial system. That was the time when we were setting the stage for the expansion in industry which has taken place and which manifested itself last year in the greatest export increase we have ever witnessed from the industrial sector, at a time when world conditions were not conducive to industrial expansion.
When we take it on ourselves to give advice and sometimes criticise and warn industrialists about the future and what they should do, we should remember that many of our industrialists are quite capable of competing with the best anywhere and will rise to the occasion. It is the task of the Minister for Industry and Commerce who is quite capable of undertaking it, and I think the various bodies such as Córas Tráchtála, An Foras Tionscal and the Industrial Credit Company and various people concerned with the matter also possess all the knowledge and experience and expertise necessary to advise industrialists in any way required in the more competitive years ahead. Their performance in the past gives no serious cause for alarm or fear that they will not be able to do a good job in the future. I wish that the agricultural sector could be similarly confident in the future in regard to improved methods necessary to reap the maximum benefit from agriculture now. I should not like us to reach a stage when we would merely sit back and feel that any losses incurred from year to year should somehow be made up by the Exchequer. One might say that agriculture is a precarious industry. Certainly, it is subject to a good deal of change and fluctuation depending on the factors of supply and demand and weather conditions and many other things but there is much that agriculturists can do to ensure their income will not drop below a particular minimum.
There is much they can do to increase it considerably and to reduce costs of production. It would be a great pity if they would come to regard their lot as one in which, if things do not go right for a while, the Exchequer would make it up, because in every industry the better years must stand by the worst years. Every industry experiences fluctuations and unfortunate setbacks which, while they may not frequently recur, are inevitable in any concern facing the chill winds of market competition whether in the sphere of manufacture or agriculture.
I do not think I should go into any other aspect of this Budget which, more than anything else, gives hope and confidence in the future. It is a courageous Budget because it undertakes to make generous provision in many directions at a time when many people would be inclined to proceed with caution. It makes a bold effort to give a necessary fillip to an economy which is showing signs of rapid recovery after sliding back to a slow rate of progress in the past couple of years. It is just the right time to give that shot in the arm to the economy and the right time for the Minister to get the tiger in the tank of the economy in order to make it move faster when it is already gaining momentum.
In these circumstances, I am very happy that the Minister has seen fit to be as generous as he has been to the social welfare classes. I should be happier to have got more but taking all the circumstances into consideration he has done reasonably well. What is best in the Budget is that it will provide the necessary basis to stimulate the economy so as to enable us to get more for these people in future so that our standards generally will improve and we shall reach a stage when people will stop drawing adverse comparisons between ourselves and other similar countries and what they have been able to do and are doing. We have shown most of the world that we can do almost anything as well as they can and many things better and I think we shall have reached the stage very soon when we shall have completely eliminated the inferiority complex, even from the Opposition.
