Appropriation Bill, 1960 ( Certified Money Bill) — Second and Subsequent Stages. – Seanad Éireann (9th Seanad) – Thursday, 21 Jul 1960

Appropriation Bill, 1960 ( Certified Money Bill) — Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Finance (Dr. Ryan)

The Appropriation Bill is a recurrent annual measure and it follows stereotyped lines. The Bill does four things: first, it authorises the issue from the Central Fund of a balance for 1959-60 which was granted too late to enable it to be covered by the Central Fund Act, 1960; it authorises the issue from the Central Fund of the balance of the amount granted for Supply Services for 1960-61; that is, the full amount, less that already authorised by the Central Fund Act, 1960; it empowers the Minister for Finance to borrow up to the limit of the issues provided for above; and it appropriates to the several Supply Services the sums granted by the Dáil since the Appropriation Act of 1959.

The individual sections follow the same pattern as other years, and I do not think I should take up the time of the Seanad in going through them. The Bill gives an opportunity to the Seanad of discussing and raising points on the expenditure for the year. It is the only opportunity the Seanad have of discussing that expenditure. As Senators are aware, the Dáil has ample opportunity of discussing the Estimates for the various Departments. I recommend the Bill to the House.

Dr. O'Donovan

I should like to emulate the Minister and say very few words on this, but unfortunately that is not my duty as I see it this morning. In accordance with your ruling of a few years ago, Sir, this is the second half of the discussion. On the last day we had a discussion on the way the revenue was raised; today it is our business to discuss how that revenue is spent.

I want to repeat some figures I gave to the House in previous years. The oftener they are repeated, the better. I shall not go into any detail but merely paint the broad picture, as I see it, in relation to Government expenditure. When the Fianna Fáil Party came into office in 1951, expenditure on Supply Services, the main part of Government expenditure, was £75,000,000, about one-fifth — scarcely that — of the national income. This year, there is a total for Supply Services expenditure of about £125,000,000 allowing for the increases made in the Budget. That equals one-quarter of the national income. Only two groups of people have been in Government since 1951. As the Minister will recollect, I said a few years ago that I thought his 1957 Budget was not as bad as the 1952 Budget of his predecessor as Minister, Deputy MacEntee. I warned the Minister then that there was not nearly as much slack in the economy at that time as there was in 1951-52. There were ample slack and resources at that time owing to the progressive policy pursued by the Minister for Finance from 1948 to 1951. The incoming Minister had all sorts of resources he could draw on.

Yesterday, that Minister was making an apologia pro vita sua here on different Bills for actions in relation to the food subsidies. It is interesting to think that matter was still on his mind in a serious way but it is proper that such should be the case. The increase from £75,000,000 to £125,000,000 has taken place despite the abolition first by Deputy MacEntee as Minister, of £11,000,000 worth of food subsidies and then by the present Minister of £9,000,000 of subsidies on bread and butter, a total of £20,000,000, an in-and-out transaction. I am certainly glad to hear some of the more conservative people now speaking out strongly in favour of food subsidies in which I am an unrepentant believer and it is worth noting that Professor Pigau of Cambridge wrote a short article in the Economic Journal dealing with the kind of thing that happens when you abolish food subsidies. That, of course, is not an argument in favour of applying food subsidies but it applies if they are in existence. After all it was the Fianna Fáil Party who put them there.

How did the present situation come about here? If one adds on the food subsidies to the value of £20,000,000 the expenditure really becomes £145,000,000 to £150,000,000 by comparison with the £75,000,000. It has very nearly doubled, if you make allowance for that in-and-out transaction from which everybody in the community benefited although we get various views as to whether it was justified or not. The Minister for Health said he wanted to put wages back on a real basis—whatever that means. I do not know what it means. Wages will shortly be on a "real" or an "unreal" basis—I do not know which. For the recipients, it will be a real enough basis. Certain people will argue that the wages are not justified by production or something like that. These "real" and "unreal" terms are, perhaps, understood by those who give much thought to them, but I do understand real production and real output and I think I understand the difference between figures of one sort and another.

In three and a half years, Deputy MacEntee increased Government expenditure, allowing for food subsidies, by £40,000,000. I had some hopes of the present Minister as may be gathered if anybody reads what I said about his programme, but he has fallen away. The longer he is in office, the worse he gets, ending up with £123,000,000 on the face of the Book of Estimates this year, an increase of £8,000,000 compared with the previous volume. When the former Government took off £3,000,000 in 1955-56, they were slated and slandered in the conservative Press but the same newspapers had not one word to say about this £8,000,000 increase. They wrote the usual kind of blatherskite you expect people to write who either do not believe what they are writing or are just doing a job.

I am concerned about the standard of comment that is accepted. Strangely, the two daily papers with the small circulations make the best comment in writing seriously in editorials on the affairs of the community. It is greatly to be regretted that they have not more resources; if they had, I think the standard of comment would greatly improve. When the inter-Party Government were in office, national income increased to £450,000,000 and they took not much more than 20 per cent.—about 22 per cent.—of that for Estimates and so brought down the percentage of national income taken for Government expenditure from the 25 per cent. of the previous Minister. It is now back again under the present Minister to 25 per cent. of national income.

On the debate on the Finance Bill, certain Senators of the Fianna Fáil Party commented on what I said. I have no objection to that but I wonder what do they expect me to do—to weigh in with the Government? However, I seem to have made a convert already according to one of the papers and this is most remarkable, considering the individual concerned. It is some sign of an awakening to reality by one of the commentators.

One of the dangerous fissures that threaten a Minister for Finance is that by increasing expenditure, he does, for the time being, generate demand in the economy. He does so for a year but, in my opinion, it is an incomparably worse way of generating demand than inflation of the currency. I should not expect Senator Lenihan to accept that view. It would require too much to get him round to that; he would have to take a little time over it. The fact is that without any interference from the Opposition Parties, the Government, having a clear majority in the Dáil, have increased expenditure from one-fifth of the national income to one-fourth of the national income, forgetting the food subsidies. If food subsidies are taken into account, they have increased expenditure very much more than that. You cannot do that kind of thing and get away with it.

If I may repeat the note on which I finished my speech on the Finance Bill, some day a Party will succeed the Fianna Fáil Party in office and will not be so kind to them as the previous two Governments were. Certainly, the first inter-Party Government exposed them well and truly when they abolished all the taxation that had been imposed in the supplementary Budget—the great cure-all for the country, in 1947. The new Government abolished the whole thing in eight weeks and cut taxation— income tax and all the rest of it—and engaged on a major economic programme.

Mr. Lahiffe

And abolished themselves in the process.

Dr. O'Donovan

No. I do not think they abolished themselves in the process. I have said in this House that I believe they won the election of 1951 but Fianna Fáil got into office and insisted on sticking in office when they had no majority. That was the cause of the trouble because, once Deputy MacEntee had made his major blunder, the Fianna Fáil Party had to shovel out the money. The figures speak for themselves. I have not concocted them.

An Cathaoirleach

Perhaps we could get back to the expenditure under the Appropriation Bill of 1960.

Dr. O'Donovan

Yes, Sir. I am talking of expenditure; all the time I am talking about expenditure. I have not said a word in respect of any other matter. I have made certain political comments on it, which I think I am entitled to make. Let me take one item of this expenditure which is very sizeable, the expenditure on the elimination of bovine tuberculosis. I was appalled to read the recent full-page advertisement by the Department of Agriculture about the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme. That advertisement told me as plainly as I could read it that in the main part of the cattle economy, where the bulk of the calves are born, the creamery areas, the programme will not really get going for about two years. I shall not throw any particular odium on the Minister for Agriculture about this. On technical advice, mistakes were made by both Governments. I am now going to shoot down the technical advice. That programme should have been tackled in the creamery areas. The first thing that should have been done was that the co-operative societies should have been ordered to put in pasteurising plant. That end of the job is done at last, in the year 1960, a job that should have been done ten years ago, a simple job.

The Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association, these gentlemen, who are dyed-in-the-wool supporters of the Government, certainly have a lot to answer for. Last year, when the price of milk was cut, did they stage a march on Dublin? No. They staged one in 1955 when the cost of living was 15 per cent. lower than it is today. They are an excellent organisation! I am glad to have heard that their finances are not in as good a position now in spite of the famous levy on every gallon of milk that went to the creamery that was supposed to go back to them. That has been taken out from under their feet. I shall come back to the main point. Even still the problem is not tackled.

I understand that technical advice was given not alone by veterinary surgeons in this country but by people from Britain and Scotland who were consulted and their opinions asked. The advice was: "If you do not clear the store cattle areas, that is, the north-west part of the country, they will not be able to take your cattle in Britain," as if the job were going to be done in a week or something like that. Judging by the figures for Sligo, there never was any significant incidence of bovine tuberculosis in Sligo. That is a credit to the Sligo farmers. I am glad to say that they are supporters of the Party to which I have the honour to belong. They must be the best farmers in the country, judging by their six per cent. incidence of bovine tuberculosis as found originally. The farmers in a certain other part of the country, who are such strong supporters of the Fianna Fáil Party, have not such a good record in that respect, although the land is a good deal better. The record is not so hot if you examine the figures—40 per cent. of the cattle suffering from tuberculosis. It does not say much for them as farmers.

There never was a serious problem in the periphery, in counties like Donegal, Sligo and so on. A big number of the cattle were clear unless they were infected. There have been several tests. A cousin of mine who supplies a creamery told me that his calves were clear one year and his neighbour's calves were clear. At twelve months old my cousin's calves had become infected while his neighbour's calves were clear because his neighbour did not send milk to the creamery. It was a perfect example of infection by creamery skim milk supplies coming back to the farm.

There is no Party that ever had the opportunity of clearing the country of bovine tuberculosis that Fianna Fáil had in the thirties but would not stand up to the small expenditure involved. If my recollection is right, it was put to the then Government by the Minister now in the House but he would not get the money. At the time it would have cost only a fraction of what it is costing at the moment. It is another example of concern about things that do not matter. If my recollection is correct, the Minister in the House today put it to the Government some time in the middle 'thirties, when the job could have been done for a song.

I come to the capital programme. I want to make the bulk of my remarks today about the State companies. The capital programme on Table 4 of the Tables issued in connection with the Budget amounts to £54.37 millions. The amount to be provided from public funds is £42 millions. Similarly, last year the amount provided from public funds was £32.8 millions; it was not £44 millions. So far as capital expenditure went, the previous Government, in the year 1955-56, hit a target figure of £43.65 millions of actual expenditure which has not been touched since. I have some sympathy with the remark made by the former Minister for Finance in the Dáil recently that the previous Government perhaps attempted to do too much in that year. I do not think the Government attempted to do too much but perhaps some of the expenditure was not directed into proper channels.

I see Senator Lenihan nodding his head. There is no harm in my specifying. I refer to the expenditure on Córas Iompair Éireann. I think it was excessive. I intend to quote figures in relation to various companies. A great deal of that current capital expenditure is even more ill-directed than the expenditure of C.I.E. However, this figure of £54.37 million is a statistical fraud or, if I might use a phrase from Senator Ó Maoláin, it is a statistical lie.

I want to make it clear that I have no criticism to make of these companies technically. Perhaps some of them are better than others. Certainly the Sugar Company have made great progress and the same applies to Bord na Móna from the evidence I have myself of their progress in overcoming technical problems during the last decade compared with the previous time when I saw their operations. I am not capable of judging anything except what I see with my own eyes, but if you see the same machine being worked by two men and doing a much better job than it was doing ten years ago with five men having to cope with technical hitches, difficulties of bog oak, and so on, you see a great improvement in productivity, and that is the kind of improvement in productivity I can appreciate.

As I say, my remarks will not be directed to the technical end of these things as I am not competent to criticise them technically. The first company I want to speak about is C.I.E. I regret to say my comments will be anything but complimentary to it. I criticise it on a matter of very serious import. I am justified in doing so because some years ago when the management was different, I wrote criticising its antics in relation to the city of Dublin.

In April this year, C.I.E. held two Press conferences. One was in the first week of April in which they stated that they had reduced their losses from £1,250,000 to £500,000 which was the net loss last year. We know how that was brought about. It was done by writing all the capital liabilities off the balance sheet. I do not intend to go into the figures. I am concerned now with the serious matter of public good faith.

The second Press conference was held ten days later. At this conference it was stated that the loss on the Dublin-Bray line was £137,000 last year. If I characterised that properly I would not say it was a lie: I would say it was a dirty lie. The Dublin-Bray line is the most valuable piece of railway line in this country and these people had the effrontery to tell us they lost £500,000 on the whole system of 2,000 miles and that they lost £137,000 on 13 miles of line. How did they fake the figures? My nose led me to this very quickly. They did it by taking out the receipts from Westland Row to Carlisle Pier, by taking out the receipts for four trains every morning and four every night, sometimes eight, ten or 12 trains in a day. On that piece of line the fare is 1/8d. and those receipts would be at least £100,000 a year.

They did something else. They proceeded to charge up all kinds of depreciation, interest, etc., they did not charge at all on the other figure. That is discreditable to the people concerned. It is a disgrace for them to indulge in that kind of behaviour. If anybody wants to know why I say this line from Dublin to Bray is the most valuable in the country, let me ask: what is the most valuable line in America? It is the New York Central Railway. Before the nationalisation of British railways, what was the most valuable line in Britain? It was the Southern Railway around London. That is why I said my nose led me on to this. It is disgraceful that a public company employing 20,000 people should engage in those tactics.

The people concerned are aware I intended to make this statement this morning. I told them so. I wondered at one stage did they want to make economies on the Dublin-Bray line and were they telling the public only what they thought was good for the public. In other words were they making propaganda? But they denied that to me and said they would do no such thing. I do not know what the House thinks of that kind of thing. On the basis of the loss of £500,000 on the whole system, the Dublin-Bray line last year lost no money whatever. If the figures were calculated properly there would be no loss on the Dublin-Bray line. Anybody who wants to disagree with that can do so, if he is fool enough.

There is another company I wish to deal with. Strangely enough from the financial point of view, by far the worst of them are the transport companies, whatever it is about transport. I have seen a statement by the Chairman of the air companies that these Government companies should not be expected to pay dividends. He then went on to say that of course they should pay their way. All I can say is we shall wait a long time before we get even interest on the capital from the air companies, even one per cent. a year. If you compare them with Bord na Móna, they got a lot of free money over a long period of time but at least they are repaying their capital. They may not be able to repay the whole of the money—I would not blame them for that—but they are repaying the capital and paying a moderate rate of interest. I would not expect a high rate of interest from this kind of organisation, particularly from Bord na Móna which had to do a great deal of original research, the kind of thing into which big private companies in other countries put huge sums of money. Bord na Móna are to be complimented on the manner in which they have done it.

What is the position about the air companies? According to Table 4, we have to give them £6.37 million this year on top of £2.5 million given to them last year, and then that £2.5 million last year does not include the repayment of an overdraft of £1,000,000. I see there is a reference to overdrafts in relation to various companies: Irish Shipping, the air companies and, this year, the Agricultural Credit Corporation as well.

There may be technical reasons but I cannot understand why these companies raised, with a great flourish of trumpets, an overdraft from one of the British banks a couple of years ago because the very next year the moneys were provided by the State to repay the overdraft. Again, I think that is a form of fraud on the public, faking figures.

We have not heard a word in recent times about the transatlantic air service. We were told it would lose £800,000 the first year, £200,000 the second year and would break even in the third year. The very fact that we have not heard anything about it recently brings my suspicious mind to certain conclusions! There is a fundamental question to be asked in relation to this £6 million to £7 million worth of aircraft from a foreign country. It may be said that it brings in people to the tourist industry that would not otherwise come, but does the credit equal the debit or is it greater than it? This is one of these problems in economic analysis that I certainly am incapable of solving and I frankly admit it. Very often expenditure of a social kind does not pay for itself financially but it does help an economy as a whole. Whether this expenditure on aircraft is of that type, I do not know.

I am speaking mainly about credit, the creditworthiness of the people concerned.

I do not think it is reasonable in any way to speak in terms of these companies not being expected to pay dividends and then to say they should pay their way. Nobody expects them to pay dividends in the sense of paying the State 15 or 20 per cent. on the money invested, although one can take the good example of the Sugar Company where at the time an investment was made in the four factories of £2 million and which are now probably worth £10 million. They would be justified in paying a dividend of 20 per cent. to the State and putting that to their costs, readjusting their costs accordingly, if a different approach were made to financial operations. They pay, I think, 5 per cent. which most people feel is reasonable enough.

Among these companies I come to an old favourite, the Agricultural Credit Corporation. In the Programme for Economic Expansion, it is stated that £½ million a year would be put into that organisation by the Government from 1959 to 1964. Last year in the Budget, it was stated that there would be an expansion of £1 million. What do we find? In fact we find a remarkable thing, that is, that expenditure, so called, in the capital programme last year was £.84 millions. From their own internal resources they spent £.51 millions; in other words, the greater part was from their own resources, lending out again the money that came back from repayments or using money which was lying by. Then there was a sum of £.33 millions which they got by way of bank overdraft or something of that sort. They got nothing from the Government. There was a great big blank.

On the other hand, the Industrial Credit Company although they did not come up to expectations got £1,500,000 from the Government. When we got the tables of Receipts and Expenditure this year, I saw an element of honesty there and nothing was included for the Agricultural Credit Corporation in below the line issues. That piece of honesty, however, did not continue in the statement which was issued with the Budget and we find: Agricultural Credit Corporation, £1 million, blank from public funds, and £500,000 from internal resources—that is to say, lending out the money which came back —and £500,000 from other sources. Even the new chairman—I remember the time of his appointment when I said I would reserve judgment on the appointment and that I was not going to condemn it right away—apparently has failed. Why? In my opinion, and anybody who likes can say that this is a dangerous suggestion, you will never get the agriculture of this country, individual farmers, properly capitalised until you have a system of making money available to them without their having to mortgage their homes. No businessman is expected to mortgage his home. All that he has to do is to set up a company, either private or public. A large number of them set up private companies and then their homes are safeguarded.

There is no reason why the farmers should be expected to mortgage their homes to get capital for their business. That is a grave reflection on the financial system. It is all right to say, as the Minister will probably blandly say, that the banks lent them £9 million last year. Yes, at the end of 1958 when cattle prices went sky high. The same banks would not lend them a shilling in 1956 when cattle were dirt cheap. The banks were not lending them much then. They lent it only in the second half of 1958 when prices were astronomical. It is an old story and it is typical of the way in which the commercial banking system operates.

I think it is a fraud, and I use the word deliberately, to put in Table 4 of the Tables issued with the Budget the sum of £1 million for agricultural credit as estimated expenditure. Of course there will not be any expenditure. The Minister is not going to give them any money. Last year he gave them nothing and he is not going to give them anything in the coming year. Of course the Government will not get down and tease out this problem. It is not such a difficult job.

The Senator will now come away from that matter.

Dr. O'Donovan

I have finished with it and I was not going to name the people involved but the Minister tried to get me to name them and I am glad to say that——

A Senator

The Senator is out of order.

Dr. O'Donovan

There is provision for £1 million and I am not in order in discussing it? It is part of the expenditure.

I shall end on this note. I want to assure the Minister, with regard to his interruption, that it was not political pressure that was brought to bear, in case the Minister wants an assurance of that kind. That may well be why he interrupted. The pressure brought to bear on the American who made a report on agricultural credit was not political.

Dr. Ryan

Or Civil Service?

Dr. O'Donovan

Or Civil Service, but pressure was brought to bear on him.

Dr. Ryan

We do not know if it was Fine Gael pressure. It may have been Fine Gael pressure, for all we know.

Dr. O'Donovan

In view of my assurance that last remark of the Minister's is a dirty cheap remark.

Professor O'Brien

This debate deals with the question of public expenditure. I dealt with that question to a large extent on the Finance Bill, and I do not intend to repeat what I said on that occasion but, at the same time, I think it my duty to call attention to the fact that public expenditure in this country is very high, and is rising. The Seanad have so few opportunities of discussing expenditure, that we should draw attention to the fact that, taking the three classes of public expenditure, the Central Fund services, the Supply Services and the capital expenditure of the Government, we find that all these three categories are rising at the same time, and all are up this year.

It is only fair to say that the capital Budget this year is probably inflated by certain non-recurring items and, therefore, we should expect that the capital Budget in future years will be lower than it is in the present year. There is no sign of any easing in the rate of increase in the Central Fund services or in the Supply Services. A point which I think is not sufficiently appreciated is that, from the point of view of the effect of Government expenditure on the general economy of the country, the distinction between current and capital expenditure is of comparatively secondary importance. Government expenditure has to be paid for whether it is above or below the line. The mere transition of an item of expenditure from above to below the line may ease the current Budget situation but, at the same time, it does not prevent the Government from having to find the money somewhere to pay for the item on which the money is spent.

It really is the same distinction which applies in private life between a man who buys the things he wishes to consume and pays for them by cash and the man who buys on hire purchase. It is quite as imprudent for him to spend too much on consumer goods which he pays for by hire purchase, as it is for him to spend on similar goods which he pays for by cash. In fact to spend by hire purchase is more imprudent because it involves more spending in the future. It involves tying up his own freedom of expenditure for future years.

It is the same in relation to the Government. If the Government pay for anything except strictly self-liquidating assets by borrowing, the effect on the national economy is precisely the same as if they paid for the same object out of taxation. I shall not go into the question of the social or economic justifications of Government expenditure, either current or capital. We must assume that the Government believe there is some justification for every type of expenditure which they undertake. In the same way, an individual will not buy anything for himself unless he wants it, and believes that it is worth buying and worth the money. Therefore, I am quite prepared to assume that every individual item, both of current and capital expenditure in the current and in the capital Budget, has an economic or social justification.

That is a matter on which I am not prepared to argue. I am prepared to accept that each Government expenditure can be justified, taking it in isolation. What I am trying to suggest is that merely to transfer an item from current to capital account, merely to take it from above to below the line, may ease the Minister's current Budget problems, but it does not essentially change the real nature of the transaction, which is that the Government have spent a certain amount on some object or other and that the purchasing power for the spending on that object must be withdrawn from the private sector of the economy either by taxation or by some form of borrowing.

If some self-liquidating productive asset is bought, it pays for itself and Government expenditure of that kind is in the same nature as private expenditure by farmers or business men, because it means income-producing assets. No one can quarrel with that. It is a legitimate object of borrowing and should be encouraged in the case of the Government and of the individual. But in the case of any other object, whether it is socially desirable or economically desirable, whether it is paid for out of taxation or paid out of borrowing, the mere fact that the Government have to pay for it means that a certain amount of national resources has been diverted from the private to the public sector, and that, other things being equal, the private sector of the economy will have less to spend than it would have if the Government had not made that particular expenditure.

Sometimes that is masked by the fact that the Government borrow from the banking system, by Exchequer bills, or borrow in some other form from the banks. If the Government borrow from the banking system, other things being equal, it means that the banking system has less credit available for its private borrowers. The fact that the Government do not borrow from the public but from the banking system does not invalidate my argument that it cuts down the borrowing power of the public. The banks are able to extend less credit to the ordinary customer.

What this means is that the public has either to spend less or save less than if the Government expenditure had not taken place. In the case of the great majority of the public, the propensity to spend is higher than the propensity to save. If people find themselves with less purchasing power, they are inclined to retrench on saving rather than on spending. This tends to be accentuated by the fact that a great deal of modern taxation tends to transfer income from the saving to the spending class. In so far as taxation is redistributive, it tends to transfer purchasing power from the people inclined to save to the people inclined to spend. Unless some fundamental change has taken place in the situation as a result of a large importation of foreign capital or for some other reason, the result of a heavy increase in Government expenditure on current or capital account is to reduce the amount of private expenditure and still more, the amount of private savings and the amount available for private investment.

If increased Government expenditure results in indirect taxation which puts up the cost of living, there is a heavy pressure by way of demand for increased wages, with the result that there will be further inroads on the saving of the public. There will be an increase in wages and this factor will sooner or later cause inflation. In this country, where we have a rigid exchange link with an outside currency, the only way in which the inflation can show itself is by pressure on the balance of payments.

It is certain that, unless there is some outside alleviating force such as the importation of foreign capital, continued high Government expenditure, especially if financed by indirect taxation, will produce an inflationary impact which will be shown by trouble with the balance of payments.

That will have to be corrected sooner or later. The corrections that take place in such a balance of payments situation can have a very disturbing effect on the employment situation. That is why this country should regard it as an essential plank of its economic policy to avoid inflation. The correction of the effects of inflation in the balance of payments will lead to unemployment and emigration. That is a sequence of events which has taken place in the past and will take place in the future if a check is not kept on public expenditure.

There is nothing peculiar in our situation in this respect. It has come to be more and more one of the diseases of modern democracy. Totalitarian states are able to curb private spending by brutal methods. By means of heavy taxation, rationing and control of prices, they are able to force a great deal of saving on the community. They are in a position to force saving on the community. They can disregard public opinion and they have powers which would not be tolerated in a free democratic community. The free democracies today all over the world are trying to combine high private consumption with expensive public services. This combination, except in the case of a very rising national income, can be financed only by reductions in saving. This reduction in saving means a reduction in investment and that creates still further difficulties in the balance of payments situation because export markets are so competitive that the exporting businesses need a continual investment of new capital. If there is a shortage of new capital, the competitive position abroad becomes more difficult and the balance of payments situation runs into further difficulty.

That is the reason I should like to bring to the attention of the House a remarkable new book by Graham Hutton. It is called Inflation and Society. The Times, in reviewing the book made the following observations which I think are relevant:

Inflation and Society could be read with advantage by most modern economists. Some public benefactor should arrange daily readings from it to her Majesty's Ministers. No Member of Parliament of any Party should fail to study its one hundred and sixty one pages.

In view of those remarks in The Times, I do not apologise for reading one or two short passages on the assumption that, while this House does not contain one of her Majesty's Ministers, it does contain a Minister of our own Government and a number of people who can be properly described as members of Parliament.

On page 113 of Hutton's book, the following passage occurs:

Democracies are now confined to Western Europe, North America and to isolated industrial societies elsewhere, like Japan, South Africa, and Australia. All of them, without exception, have shown—most of them show—the same inflationary manifestations.

On page 118, Mr. Hutton explains the reason for this situation. He explains it in the same terms but in very much better language than I used to explain it when speaking on the Finance Bill. I had not read this book at the time of that debate but I am going to quote a few lines now to illustrate the point I was trying to make:

The built in weakness of a democracy—and it has always been so —is its proneness to pressure from vested economic group-interests. These latter seek specially advantageous treatment from representative governments in return for their votes. The more equal the opposing political party forces in a democracy the greater the temptation—the less resistible—to angle for the votes of these organised vested interests. Their votes, as in ancient Athens or Rome, go with their pressure. Their pressure is exerted on governments for their own specific, peculiar, particular, material gain. Taxes, tariffs, subsidies, rewards for public servants, costs of State services—these are the more obvious means of sectional material advantage. They are used to benefit such pressure-groups by weak democratic governments at the cost of the whole society or of those large parts of it who pay the enhanced taxes, tariffs, subsidies, and prices of State services.

Thus a great part of the national income... becomes a happy hunting ground for raids by democratic governments in favour of booty for privileged pressure-groups; and this at a time when the days of privilege and class are supposed to have been superseded by democracy itself. Such material corruption of the spirit of democracy, such perversion of its principles and practices alike, pervades the Left as much as the Right, agriculture as much as industry, management as much as trade unions, and officers of the State as much as ordinary citizens.

That is one of the passages from Mr. Hutton's book which I think could be read with advantage by or to Ministers and members of Parliament. May I suggest that, in the interests of avoiding inflation, it is the duty of democratic government to resist pressure groups? A Government cannot successfully resist pressure for higher wages by the trade unions if they indulge in extravagant expenditure themselves. A Government cannot expect the masses of the people to be prudent if they are an imprudent spender. We still are a comparatively young State. A young State can be likened to a young heir who has succeeded to an inheritance. It is the duty of the people who have the interests of that young heir at heart ot see that he does not dissipate his inheritance in overspending.

I do not wish to weary the House with more quotations but there is a very strong passage in Mr. Hutton's book in which he says that the primary duty of democratic Governments today is to teach society to live within its means and not to encourage it to dissipate its resources. That is not a popular lesson to have to teach, but I suppose that the task of the people who have to look after the affairs of rich young men who suddenly inherit an inheritance which they may squander is not always a very pleasant one.

I feel that it is the duty of the economists in the Seanad to say these unpopular things and to impress on the Government that they have a duty to do unpopular things. It may be that the whole future of the country, the whole freedom of our democratic institutions, may depend on the avoidance of inflation. It seems generally agreed by economists and financiers that inflation is absolutely hostile to economic progress. But what is perhaps even more important, endemic inflation may be incompatible with democratic institutions. If democratic Governments cannot resist inflation for themselves and their communities then sooner or later the corrective measures may have to be of the brutal totalitarian kind which take place in many countries today and are so effective and so much to be deplored.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

This Bill gives us an opportunity of discussing Government policy and surveying the economic field. It is gratifying that the economic background to this year's Budget is healthy and sound and that there has been a definite and progressive trend in the country's economy since this Government took office three years ago. Exports rose from £108.1 million in 1956 to £130.7 million in 1959, an increase of £22.6 million— and that, despite the fall in the price of cattle that we have heard so much about and that some members of the Opposition made so much political capital out of during the recent elections. In fact, they went out and told the people that the fall in the price of cattle was due to Government policy, a statement which was designed to mislead the public.

Everybody knows that the price of cattle is governed by what the British think they are in a position to pay. No Government here can have any control over that. I made the same statement a few years ago when I was on the other side of the House and when another Government were in office. I said that these are factors over which no Government here can have control.

It is also very satisfactory to know that income from tourism has been steadily increasing during the past few years. That is an indication that the measures, legislative and otherwise, taken by the Government have borne fruit. It is only right and proper to pay a tribute to Bord Fáilte for their efficiency and imaginative approach to the tourist industry. With Bord na Móna and the E.S.B., Bord Fáilte are rendering a great service to the nation and the people appreciate that fact.

I have referred to the increase in our exports. This increase is due mainly to increased output from our manufacturing industries. We can now see that the industrial policy of the Government, which met with so much opposition in its initial stages, is bearing good fruit. It is true, of course, that our agricultural output has not kept pace with our industrial output but, as I have said, that is due to some factors over which the Government have no control. The fall in the price of cattle I have already mentioned is one of the factors, but despite the fact that our agricultural output has not kept pace with our industrial output, it must be admitted that the Government are doing what would be reasonably expected of them to stimulate greater effort in the agricultural field.

In that connection, perhaps, I should refer to a few of the remarks of Senator O'Donovan, when he spoke about increased expenditure. There is, of course, increased expenditure, but if Senators examine the Tables which the Minister for Finance issued with the Estimates for this year, they will see that a good many of the increases are for the improvement of agriculture, apart entirely from the amount earmarked for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, £1,872,000. I pointed out that there has been over the past couple of years a rapid growth in our industrial output and in our industrial export trade. During the three year period between 1956 and 1959, our exports of industrial goods have almost doubled. At the end of last year, that is, the year 1959, according to statistics, exports of industrial goods were running at a level of 80 per cent. higher than 12 months earlier. This is, indeed, very satisfactory. It is a very healthy trend for not only does increased industrial output contribute increasingly to the national income but it also helps to keep the international balance of payments in order.

There has been a boom in our industrial exports. That boom is gaining momentum, it is very satisfactory to note. I must say that great credit is due to our industrialists for the way in which they have risen to the needs of our economy. They have made such a success of their businesses generally that it is true to say that an investment now in these industrial concerns is as sound an investment as a person could make. People who invested their money in these Irish industrial concerns can now reap good dividends. That is very gratifying and a very satisfactory state of affairs. Industry in this country has gone ahead by leaps and bounds. For the comparatively short time that these industrial concerns have been in existence, they can compare favourably with corresponding industries across the water.

I must come to a few remarks which Senator O'Donovan made in connection with this Bill. He complained about the increase in expenditure. I said before in this House on another occasion that while the size of the bill which the Irish taxpayers are called upon to pay is very important, of much greater importance is the way in which the money is spent. If the money involved is being spent for the better development of our economy, which indeed, is the case as I have pointed out, then it is money well spent.

The Senator drew a comparison between the Estimates of 1951 and 1957 and the Estimates for the present financial year but we well remember in the last year of the second Coalition régime that the state of the finances, especially towards the end, was such that the Government were not able to meet their commitments. They had not budgeted for all their commitments. If they had, I venture to say that the difference between the amount of the Estimates for last year and the amount of the Estimates for this year would not be so great at all, that is, as I have said, if the Government of that day had budgeted for all their commitments, which they had not, as everybody now knows.

Senator O'Donovan also criticised the lending policy of the commercial banks. He said that in 1956 they were not prepared to lend money when, as he said, cattle were cheap. In 1958, when cattle were dear, he said the commercial banks were prepared to lend any amount of money. That, of course, is quite true. In 1956, the people had lost confidence in the Government of the day, and the commercial banks were well aware of that.

Mr. Carton

What Government were in office in 1956?

Mr. Lenihan

A bankrupt Government.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

Mr. Murphy

I did not intend to intervene at all because I think, frankly, this debate comes at a most inopportune time. The Dáil has finished and the Seanad is about to rise. We find ourselves faced with this Appropriation Bill which is supposed to afford us an opportunity of discussing all the services provided by the Government. The balance sheet is set out in the Book of Estimates. I think this debate should be held in the autumn and I hope that some arrangement will be made in the future to enable the debate on the economic situation of the country to take place in the autumn rather than at this time of the year. It is unreasonable that the Minister for Finance should come to the Seanad at the end of July, or the beginning of August, having had three months of practically continuous debate in the other House, following upon the Budget, and involved to a certain extent, I take it, in the debates on the Estimates for the various Departments.

With reference to the Book of Estimates, might I ask that in future the rates of pay will be shown in precise figures as against this present practice of providing for percentage additions, flat additions, etc.? I know it is possible to discover the precise figures by going through all these flat additions and percentages and I do not suppose this method has been adopted in order to confuse people, but it certainly succeeds in doing so. I have had experience of changes in salaries and percentage additions and I cannot see why it should not be possible to set down, as is done in other undertakings, the exact figures applicable.

Senator O'Donovan's intervention in this debate prompted me to rise. I maintain, as I have always maintained, that the problem in relation to C.I.E. will never be resolved if C.I.E. are made the plaything of politics. At the moment there is a good atmosphere in relation to C.I.E. Great progress has been made and, generally speaking, there is co-operation between the management, the staff and the trade unions representing the staff. Joint consultation has been introduced and is working satisfactorily.

I said great progress has been made. It is true, as Senator O'Donovan said, that the loss on rail services last year was reduced to £500,000. He went on to say that there was some kind of clouding of the position because at one press conference that was the figure given as representing the loss on rail operations generally and, ten days later, at another press conference, a figure of £127,000 was given as representing the loss on the Bray line. I quite agree with him that that does seem to be an extraordinary situation. It is odd that a small section like the Bray line should suffer a loss of over a quarter of the total loss on rail services as a whole.

The position with regard to the operation of this section was discussed with the trade unions and, while I have not got the papers before me, I can be very exact as to the position. I can say with authority that C.I.E. informed the trade unions and the public, through press conferences, that the Dublin suburban services from Dublin to Greystones had an operating loss of about £127,000. I emphasise "suburban services". Senator O'Donovan now pretends to discover something which would show that the expenditure and receipts on the services between Westland Row and Carlisle Pier were not taken into account. In dealing with suburban services, one would not of course take that service into consideration. It is a boat train service; it is not a suburban servce. There was never, so far as I know, any proposal to discontinue that boat train service or the rail service between Dublin, Wexford and Rosslare.

As far as I can remember, what was said was that the difference between operating the Dublin suburban services —that is providing and running the rolling stock—and the actual receipts taken in on those services was approximately £127,000 per annum, and that was without taking account of overheads, maintenance of the permanent way, depreciation and such charges. What was disclosed was simply the difference between operating the suburban services and the receipts taken in on them.

It is a fact that the suburban services had not been well supported, and I fail to understand why there was not a curtailment of them over the years, and why they were run to the same extent as they were up to this year. Anyone who looked at the trains running practically empty all day between Westland Row and Greystones can readily appreciate why there should be such a big loss on operating that service. However, what I have said is not an attempt to explain the figures, but I think I can say that it is not an attempt to mislead, as Senator O'Donovan inferred. What was said, as I have pointed out already, was that the Dublin services were losing £127,000 and that, of course, would have to include the receipts and the expenditure on the boat train services.

As I said already, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, and I hope that in future we can make better arrangements for the debate on the general economic circumstances of the country at a different time of the year.

Mr. Lenihan

The Appropriation Bill gives us the annual opportunity to discuss all aspects of Government administration but, before going into a discussion on it, I should like to say that there have been certain happenings during the past six months which are very much to be deplored. They concern the habit of certain Fine Gael spokesmen, both in this House and in the other House, who attack institutions of repute and standing in our community. We had one of them in the Seanad on the University Bill when the Leader of the Opposition saw fit to inpugn the Judiciary, the independent Judiciary, and particular independent judges, for views they expressed. We also had it here a fortnight ago on the Finance Bill when the directors of the Central Bank were described by Senator Dr. O'Donovan as henohmen of the Fianna Fáil Party.

That sort of ill-founded, irresponsible comment is not the sort of comment we expect from people in the second largest political Party in the State. We have the Judiciary attacked liberally by the most prominent spokesmen of that Party, and we have the directors of the Central Bank described as Fianna Fáil henchmen because of the very important and strictly impartial statistical views expressed by them in their annual report.

This question, I think, goes to the root of a lot of things in our society. One cannot expect public opinion to have any great respect for Parliament and the institutions of State we seek to establish and have well regarded, if prominent people in our society, whom the public, for good or ill, regard as responsible people, express views of that nature in which impartial people in the administration of the law, and impartial people connected with the economy of the State are attacked, no matter what Government may be in power—a Fianna Fáil Government, a Fine Gael Government or a Coalition Government.

Over the years the Judiciary and the members of the Central Bank, people who give public service in an impartial manner, upholding the country and its institutions, have been attacked, and I do not think respect for Parliament and public institutions is advanced when people engage in that sort of irresponsible talk.

I think the economic situation of the country was dealt with fairly fully during the debate on the Finance Bill. Our record is plain to see. Anyone who reads the report of the Central Bank can see it in every paragraph. Our balance of payments is in equilibrium. In fact, the import excess for the first six months of this year is £4,000,000 less than for the corresponding six months of last year. Real national income is up by three and a half per cent. Price stability has been preserved. There has been virtually no change in the cost of living index number since early 1958, a period of two years. The total number of people in paid employment is higher than last year. In fact, for the first quarter of this year, the weekly average number of people in employment was running at 20,000 higher than in the equivalent quarter of last year. Industrial exports are up, and so are savings.

All the figures indicate a trend of progress. Senator Ó Ciosáin has told us about it already, and the independent directors of the Central Bank have declared their faith and optimism in the future of the economy of the country. The record of the Government in that respect cannot be challenged. However, there is no point in sitting back in a complacent way and regarding that record as a be-all and end-all of our problems. It is not, and the Government are fully aware that it is just a beginning of an upward trend. We all hope it will continue so that eventually the main problems of the country, such as absorbing more of our people in gainful employment at home, will be solved.

There are two fundamental problems which, in commonsense language, can be said to lie at the heart of our economic struggles. The first is to provide more industrial employment for the inevitable surplus from the land, and the second is to tackle the problem of the small farm economy. In regard to providing more gainful employment in industry, there is a whole apparatus of incentives, grants and tax assistance, available to any risk capital that seeks to invest in this country. The problem is now only a promotional one—to get risk capital interested in investing in industry here. Over the past few years, the Government have provided tax incentives, grants and credits. The whole scheme is there to provide all the capital necessary for industry and it is now only a matter of getting promoters to push ahead with more projects.

Business suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Mr. Lenihan

As I said before the adjournment, reduced to simple terms what is needed in the challenge facing our economy is, first the provision of more industrial employment in our towns and, second, making the income from our small farms sufficient to enable a substantial proportion of our people to live on them. All our problems can be reduced to those two propositions. In regard to industrial employment, the Government have made available a scheme of grants, loans and general assistance, and it is now merely a matter of getting the promoters and getting the projects going in order to have a sufficient volume of industrial employment in our urban areas.

The food processing industry presents a challenge to the economic branch of the Department of Finance, An Fóras Tionscal and the other organisations dealing with the financing of industry and other assistance to industry generally. Every effort should be made in the economic planning branch to push for assistance for any projects related to the food processing business. There is tremendous scope for development there, as was referred to in the Grey Book, Economic Development, at chapter 17, page 167, paragraph 2:

This country is so close to the British market that most of our exports of fruit, vegetables, etc., can reach that market in a fresh or virtually unprocessed condition and thus attract good prices. The main development possibility here seems to lie in improved production, marketing and distribution techniques in the agricultural sphere. There should be some scope—in association perhaps, with the freezing and processing of fish—for the development of a substantial processing and export trade in fresh-frozen, canned and bottled fruit and vegetables, fruit juices, soups, sauces, jams, etc. Such exports are at present relatively small...

It goes on to give the figures for 1957, and I do not think there has been an improvement since that year. All the resources at our disposal should be geared towards providing finance and assistance for private promoters who may wish to go into that line of development.

It is a welcome thing that Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann Teo., have taken on the task of developing an export market in frozen foods and frozen vegetables in particular. They have announced plans for an extension of the existing sugar beet factories for that purpose, and their managing director has shown that they are looking for export markets and have an eye on Britain in particular. Apart from the Sugar Company, I feel there is also scope in this for private firms, and we should give every assistance to those prepared to engage in that business. That type of industrial development based on raw materials at home is particularly relevant to the other problem facing us, the problem of the small farm.

At the moment 75 per cent. of the farms in this country are under £20 valuation and roughly 50 per cent. are under £10 valuation. The farmer under £20 valuation, and still less the farmer under £10 valuation, cannot fit in with the type of farming involved in raising crops, and grazing cattle and sheep because they cannot make from the land the profit they are entitled to make. That is the right which more and more farmers are demanding today, and they are right in doing so. The Irish farmer wants a standard of living equivalent to what can be obtained in industrial employment either here or in Great Britain. The present pattern of farming cannot give him what he so rightly demands.

I feel that the challenge of the small farms, represented by the fact that 75 per cent. of them are under £20 valuation, is a very important factor in our economy and the solution of our problems. It is linked up with the question of quick-freezing and processing industries based on agricultural raw materials. If you have a large food-processing business based on vegetables and fruit, you can then have producers who can get a profitable income from small holdings of under £20 valuation. The small farmers can get a high profit yield from a low acreage by growing vegetables— carrots, peas and beans—and by growing fruit, raspberries, apples and various other fruits, and having them processed in industries here at home. That guarantees the farmer on a low valuation a decent profit.

That small farm problem is particularly acute in the west of Ireland, in Roscommon, Galway, Mayo. In the south of Ireland, you have creameries bringing in regular cheques to small farmers. That is of great assistance to these farmers in counties like Tipperary, Limerick and Cork. It enables them to "get by" but in the west, where you have small farms with low valuations engaged in the type of extensive farming I mention, the owners often go for six months without getting money into their pockets. There are very few creameries in the west of Ireland and I feel this type of intensive horticultural industry can give an income to the farmers in that area. There is great scope in that direction. It links up with the problem of providing more industrial employment in the towns by stimulating processing industries based on the raw materials produced by small farms in the locality going in for this intensive production of fruit and vegetables.

I am glad to see in the Estimate for Agriculture that a sum of £900 is being devoted to that type of development in the Athlone area of south Roscommon, an area with which I am familiar. In that area, the Department of Agriculture have appointed a special instructor for that type of horticulture and his sole work is to encourage and advise the producers and to ensure that there is proper marketing of the vegetables grown in the area. County committees of agriculture and the Department could do more in that direction by selecting congested areas where there are low valuation farms with boggy soil and by sending instructors there with the sole task of advising farmers who go in for that type of development and grow vegetables and fruit. That sort of horticultural work is of an expert type in which the farmers must be trained. They must get constant advice from instructors trained for the job. It is in that direction that we can do something towards making life on the small farms worth while.

Small farms will never fit into the extensive type of farming—cattle, sheep and corn raising. If we are to concentrate solely on that line of business, the small farmer will go to the wall. In the southern areas, we must go in for more intensive dairying production and in the western areas, I think we must go into the vegetable and fruit raising business.

The other type of farming that can help small farmers is pig rearing and it is a very welcome development to find that the Government are setting up what I feel will really be a proper bacon marketing agency to ensure a continuous supply of pigs to the British markets and to ensure that a constant market will be available so as to maintain prices. We await the formation of this very welcome body. It is another development which should assist the small farmer of less than £20 valuation.

Another aspect of Government administration which has shown the Government to be right is the question of external affairs, and the conduct of our foreign policy. Over the past three years, the Government have quite properly seen to it that in the Council of Europe and the United Nations Organisation, we have taken up an independent, uncommitted stand. We can be proud that this attitude has been taken; we have not been bag-carriers to any of the big blocs. We have taken a stand based on honesty and Christianity, a stand which has indeed been maligned and attacked by people at home who show no realisation of the respect and regard that stand has brought us throughout the world. If we continue to adopt that attitude in the United Nations and in the Council of Europe, we can ensure at least that the hope of peace with which the world is preoccupied today will be achieved.

The United Nations Organisation is a considerable advance on the League of Nations in its effectiveness. Only this morning, we passed a Bill enabling our soldiers to be sent to relieve tension in the Congo. If that situation arose in the Thirties—the situation in the Congo—I have no doubt we would be practically at war at the moment. But for the fact that the United Nations police force, provided by small nations like ourselves, is in the process of being dispatched to the Congo, we would be faced with a conflagration there. We would have Russian paratroops fighting against Belgian troops in the Congo. Undoubtedly, that would have occurred but for the prompt action of the United Nations. That prompt action was possible only because there were a number of uncommitted countries with no axe to grind who could supply personnel for this really humane job of preventing a major war in the heart of the African Continent.

There can be no doubt that this country was selected by the Secretary General of U.N.O. along with Sweden and others, for this task solely because of our foreign policy. It is only because of that policy that we were selected by the Secretary General of the United Nations to send our troops to the Congo. Were it not for the fact that we are regarded by the United Nations Organisation as an uncommitted country, a country genuinely dedicated to the cause of peace and the preservation of peace in the world, we would not be in the position of being asked to undertake this major charitable and Christian task to preserve peace in that great Continent.

The fact that Mr. Hammarskjoeld called on our Government to make such a tremendous contribution—600 men—from our Army, which is the highest percentage contribution asked of any Government, is the direct result of Government policy consistently followed by our Minister for External Affairs in U.N.O. and by our delegations in the Council of Europe. If we were regarded as being tied to some bloc or associated with colonial Powers. we would not have been asked to send troops to the Congo and would not have been able to take part in that tremendous action of which we are privileged to be a part in Africa today.

It is perhaps significant that the countries that have been selected are small countries with no axe to grind and no particular commitment in the trouble in the Congo and no particular commitment in regard to any of the colonial or big Power blocs which may have differences in the United Nations Organisation. The plain fact of the matter is that the job small countries can do today is to speak the truth. They can stand up in the United Nations and the Council of Europe and speak the truth because they are not committed or involved. That is the particular function that small countries have. I do not say it in criticism of the bigger Powers but, inevitably, Britain, the United States, France and Russia, when they speak, have to speak with reservations. We have no big commitments, no empire. Therefore, being uncommitted, we can speak the truth. Because we have been doing that consistently, with integrity, over the past few years, we can step in to the bearna baoil when a crisis comes and take a part in preserving peace along with other uncommitted countries. It is a particular part which small nations can play today and we are taking an honourable part in that regard.

It can be said that the very attitude that we are adopting today is consistent with the attitude adopted by our President in the 1930's in the old League of Nations. It is in direct continuity of that policy which he projected as President of the League of Nations in 1930. On that occasion, as Senator O'Dwyer said this morning, we saw the futility of the League of Nations when it was faced with the Abyssinian crisis and could do nothing. Now we have a situation in which the United Nations Organisation can do something and is doing something and we are playing a part therein. It is the direct result of the consistent policy adopted by Fianna Fáil Governments since the 1930's, by the President at that time and in the past few years under the previous Taoiseach and under our present Taoiseach, of taking a dispassionate stand in the councils of the world.

I should like to say, in conclusion, that both in regard to the economy of our country and in regard to external affairs, there has been a wind of change over the past few years. There is confidence and optimism. There is a feeling among people that at last we are going somewhere, following definite goals in regard to economic progress and a definite path in regard to external affairs, a positive path in regard to our overtures to the people in the Six Counties, a positive path that will undoubtedly bring results in time. There is clear evidence on aspects of administration that the Government know where they are going and when people realise that the Government know where they are going, confidence is created.

Today, whether the people like us or not, they know where we are going. They know that positive steps are being taken. It is in real contrast to the drift that we had during the last Administration. In economic affairs, foreign affairs—on all fronts—this Government are taking steps and making moves. The previous Government stayed still and did nothing. There was a period of drift. That situation does not obtain today and the people of the country know it well.

Mr. Barry

I am sorry that Senator Lenihan took the line he has just taken on this matter of the Congo expedition. I do not think the Taoiseach will be grateful to him for what he said because the Taoiseach did take a different line this morning and did let us know that he appreciated the support that all Parties have given to this decision. He acknowledged that very gratefully. The only real strength of our position in this matter is the fact that it represents more than a bipartisan agreement. It represents agreement by all of us. I do not think Senator Lenihan's contribution was a good one. Senator Lenihan has been long enough in public affairs now to depart somewhat from his pigeonholing of everything in colours of black and white. There are intermediate colours; there are intermediate kinds of thinkers in this country. We do not all feel obliged to rush into the bearna baoil, as he described it, to defend our Party activities. Do not let us say that the Party opposite to us is actuated by bad or stupid motives. This is the kind of lecture I hate giving. It makes me feel pompous but Senator Lenihan did offend me in the last few sentences of his speech.

Before I deal with what I intended to refer to in this debate, I was reminded of a matter by Senator Ó Ciosáin. He referred to the success of Irish industrialists in export matters. It reminded me of something that I could usefully raise here now. There is reason to be gratified in this regard but I have heard recently of another aspect of this matter which is disturbing. I know of at least two manufacturers who are neglecting the home market for the export market. Those industries were given their opportunity in the home market by the Irish people who did endure high prices and did endure frequently, at the beginning, bad quality, in order that they could provide high tariff walls to enable these industries to be established here. Some of these now very solvent and firmly established industries have grasped too avidly at the tax concessions that have been made to exporters and in some cases their attitude is "to hell with the home market".

I know one national product which enjoyed a home monopoly for many years and I know that home consumers now find it quite difficult to buy that article in this part of the country and one wholesaler very indignantly told me that there are ample supplies of this product to be had in Belfast and in England. That is a disturbing trend and I do not think it is part of any pattern designed by any Government. It is irrational and wrong. The first purpose of our getting into industry was to supply our own needs. If the attraction of tax remission is to enable some of these manufacturers to neglect the home market and to get into the export trade at the expense of the home market, the Minister should examine it and I shall be glad to give him details later. I do not want to mention the names of the firms.

This time 12 months when I spoke on this Bill, I started by saying I was not going to talk politics and the Minister said that he was naturally distrustful of such an introduction. To-day I hope to convince him that the subjects with which I shall deal are completely non-political in content. Therefore, he will not have to be on the defensive and perhaps he will be more receptive.

There are three matters about which I wish to speak. The first one to which I referred last year is the expansion of our library service, which is very important. Any advance in literacy amongst our people is of the utmost importance for all of us and particularly for the next generation. We have got everything almost right now in the matter of providing a good library service. The 1947 Act was an excellent measure under which the Library Council was set up and arrangements were made for subventions from the various local authorities running libraries. It stopped at that and vague reports were issued which pointed out what we all know: how unsatisfactory the situation is; how many of our branch libraries have not enough books; how many bookshelves are empty.

There is a case to be made in respect of this state of affairs because the purpose of that Act was that a library adviser who would plan properly for the country should be appointed. I was disturbed last year when after quite a lapse of time, no appointment had been made but I am glad to say that since this time 12 months an appointment has been made. I am in a very good position to say that the appointment made is an excellent one; in fact, the man appointed was the city of Cork librarian. I have very intimate contact with him because I am chairman of the Cork City Library for a longer number of years than I care to remember. The new appointee, Mr. Dermot Foley, is probably the best librarian in this country.

We have the Library Council and we have the adviser. Where do we go from there? Now that the Minister has the machinery, I would ask him to put steam in the engine and let it go ahead. Libraries do require some subvention from the State and I would agree that that subvention should be allied to the local contribution. If that is done, with the good machine we have now in existence, there is no reason why we should compare unfavourably, as we do now with Great Britain, Northern Ireland, Denmark and other countries that spend six times as much as we do on this service per head of the population.

When the Minister examines the situation, he will find that the financial requirements are not great. We could double the stock of books in all the libraries for the cost of building six miles of the Cork to Dublin road. If we had to endure six miles of bumpy travelling on that main road in order to make that investment, we would find it would be more valuable and fruitful in the long run. If we got even 1,000 thoughtful people out of the next generation as a result, no one could measure how valuable they might be to us. I should be glad if the Minister would see that that service is at least put where it should be and is no longer left behind the door.

The second point I wish to make is in relation to the Arts Council. The Arts Council has been a remarkably successful experiment. I am glad to note that the Taoiseach is only waiting for a case to be made for increased financial support for it and I beg the Minister to press that case. It is one of the greatest pump-primers in regard to local cultural activity as well as local spending. It has encouraged in every part of the country a flowering of the different arts—drama, theatre literature, painting and the allied graphic arts. This is a very good kind of investment for the Irish people because although we are a very small race, we are people of imaginative character and we could make ourselves felt in the world. We have done so in the past but this kind of encouragement is necessary and the Arts Council has been one vehicle for doing it.

In the ten years since it was established, the Council has had three excellent chairmen. The present man is as good as either of the other two. We are spending £20,000 for this purpose. In the Six Counties, they get approximately £34,000. In Great Britain, expenditure is something in the region of £2,000,000. On the basis of the British expenditure, we should be spending something over £100,000 for this purpose. Apart altogether from the future of the arts in Ireland and the widening and enriching of our children's lives, it is a very good investment even on economic grounds. The Minister would be very well advised to examine this question which involves the most sensible expenditure we could undertake.

My third case is a new one in this Parliament. It is time we established a small civil list in Ireland. This State has been 40 years in existence and it is a national shame that some world-esteemed figures have been compelled to accept outside bounty in the hard years that came to them at the end of their lives. I do not want to mention names but the names will occur to every one of us. I mean this to apply only to those who bring honour to this country through the arts. They are the kind of people whose devotion to the arts has generally been at the expense of their economic existence. They have often arrived in the later years of life with very little comfort and very little money. We should no longer earn the reproach that those who have served this country well are neglected by us. What I am asking for will add very little to the nation's balance sheet but will increase our cultural, our real assets. All we need do is contribute what befits our size and our dignity as a nation.

The final point with which I wish to deal—this struck me on reading an English newspaper—is in relation to television. I would ask the Minister to have a discussion with his colleagues on this. I am going back to the Television Bill introduced by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. I still think the decision to adhere to the old British 425-line standard was wrong and that this is the time for second thoughts about it. There is a great deal of expenditure envisaged not by the Exchequer but by the people who are going to spend £8,000,000 or £9,000,000. That should induce us to reconsider the question at this stage. The British have very ruefully decided they have to change to the 625-line standard and would love to be in our position of starting a television service. The costs they are facing are terrific. There will be a transition period of ten years. They are going to erect the new centres beside the present ones sending out simultaneously from them. The change-over will take ten years and something in the region of 10,000,000 television sets will have to be changed. It is difficult to understand why we should abide by such a decision, in view of the British experience. I shall not examine the technicalities of the matter or the obvious benefits to our manufacturers.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The Senator forgets that our transmitter is a dual purpose machine.

Mr. Barry

Yes, I am aware of that. The Minister did give an undertaking that we are going to send out primarily on 405.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

For the time being.

Mr. Barry

I want to save the people from spending this fantastic amount of money on receivers which are obviously obsolete. It is not too late to take that decision. The people should not be allowed to buy these receivers which the British intend to discard, I think the whole thing should be reopened before an expensive mistake is made.

Mr. Carter

Senator Barry made a nice speech and touched on the subject of fine arts, communications and cultural and educational matters.

Mr. Barry

I tried to keep off politics.

Mr. Carter

I do not propose to speak on the subjects on which the Senator spoke so eloquently but intend to address myself briefly to different matters. First of all, going back a little in the debate, I think it is a pity that certain speakers should depress the level of debate here. I say that for this reason: during the debate today, a certain speaker referred to remarks alleged to have been made to him in the course of a private conversation with a well-known visiting personality who was invited here to investigate the granting of credit facilities to farmers. The speaker implied that the visitor was alleged to say that, in effect, he was asked not to issue an adverse report, or a report which might be taken as a reflection on Government policy. I submit that the allegation is untrue. The visitor who issued the report paid a compliment to the various Ministers, Departments and others for the help he received. Without going into the merits or demerits of the report, I should say that it did not reflect in any manner on our method of distributing credit.

The Chair in this House always preserves a high degree of impartiality and for that reason I deprecate the reference which, as I said at the outset, was alleged to have passed between the visitor and the speaker. If we wanted to reflect for a moment on that report, we could say that there is no parallel between the conditions obtaining in America and here in the provision of credit in the farming sectors. It is not uncommon to find a small farmer in, for instance, South Dakota, in far more depressed circumstances than his counterpart here. I shall confine myself to those remarks in the hope that when speakers refer to certain subjects, at least they will have the courtesy to produce evidence of the case they put forward.

One other comment which I want to make before going on to some other remarks is that I was intrigued when listening to Senator O'Brien. He is a man from whom one can learn a good deal in regard to economics. It is his special subject and he is a leading professor and lecturer in that field. He quoted from a recently published book which was reviewed in The Times on 15th July, 1960. While the paragraph which he quoted is admirable in content, and I suppose every one of us could subscribe to the views expressed in it, nevertheless it is not strictly applicable to our circumstances at present. We are not putting on the brake; we are trying to accelerate. If we were trying to put on the brake it might be applicable to our circumstances, but when we have the foot on the other pedal, one can say with some degree of certitude that it is not applicable to our economy at present. We are showing no signs of inflation. We are not in a position to provide sufficient jobs for those seeking them. Inflation only works where you have two vacancies for every applicant. It might be said in certain circumstances to apply to Britain at the moment but certainly the paragraph could not at all be related to our circumstances.

The Appropriation Bill gives us ample scope to cover a fairly wide field in our remarks and always on the Appropriation Bill Government policy comes in for a certain amount of criticism and otherwise. There is no doubt whatever that the general overall economic picture has improved. We could start off by saying that the Government by issuing the Programme for Economic Development gave a lead in outlining and devising methods to solve the difficulties which were there to be met and to be surmounted if economic and fiscal progress were to proceed on sound lines.

That progress has been made. Nobody will deny that the Government's effort has been directed towards bringing about an improvement in social conditions. The target must be social aims which will arise and expand as a direct result of economic policy. During the course of the year, plans were devised, and administrative proposals to give effect to them were proceeded with in both Houses of the Oireachtas. I think they were an earnest of the Government's concern to eliminate the causes of poverty and unemployment, to cut down emigration, and, in general, to raise the living standards.

I presume that is why in recent months the Taoiseach and various Ministers have been preoccupied with the subject of national production. The social measures which were passed through the Houses of the Oireachtas in the past few weeks—and from which incidentally half a million people will benefit—flow directly from the degree of expansion achieved during the past couple of years, or at any rate, during the past three years. We have facts and figures to prove that home to the hilt.

There is no need, therefore, to labour the point about the record of the Government's intention in this respect. It is to be assumed that the people will understand the underlying principles of the Government's plan. Otherwise, we would not have been able to record an increase in the national income and see that income shared amongst the various sectors of the community. Those who assert that the present Administration are indifferent to the social problems should advert to the fact, as I say, that during the past fortnight, we were engaged on social legislation. If those critics had another look at this matter in any sort of reasonable manner, they could not, in all reason, attribute unworthy motives to those responsible for the Government's policy and, indeed, some critics did advance a number of unworthy motives. Few of us would enter into public life if we were not motivated by a desire to uplift and expand the social, cultural and economic aims.

On those grounds, therefore, it is good to be able to record that unemployment has decreased, according to the figures prepared by the Central Statistics Office, and that compared with, say, June of last year, the number of unemployed is down by something like 11,500. It is, therefore, in my opinion, of some importance further to record that those conditions were brought about by improving economically the framework of the country which is going ahead at an even faster rate than was foreseen in the Programme for Economic Expansion. In that Programme the annual rate of expansion visualised was about two per cent. but, in fact, the Budget statement revealed that the figure was 3½ per cent. in real terms. It is also a good advance that the gross national product has grown by £29,000,000 from 1958 to 1959—that is, by five per cent.—and it must also be noted that this growth has been accompanied by a sound monetary policy.

That, in itself, is an indication that there is every reasonable chance of its continuing. There has been no strong pressure on outside payments and there is every hope that a degree of price stability in consumer goods will be maintained. The monetary reserve held well at home and abroad, and the assets of many financial concerns increased during the year. Though there was a gap in the current trading account, the outside account, it was amply closed by the net inflow of outside funds which made up for any shortcomings in that direction.

All that goes to show that, despite the campaign of defeatism which has obtained during the past few months, despite the arguments that our Administration would end in failure, and despite the predictions by some of the prophets, we were making some headway in our economic effort and in our effort to expand the economy in general.

It should be stated that the industrial sector did well. Those engaged in industry not only drove up exports but increased the manufacturing capacity of old and new concerns. That was accomplished in the face of some severe competition in the British and European markets. The need for productive investment which was emphasised in the Programme for Economic Expansion and, incidentally, in the Grey Book which supported it, played a good part in this effort.

It can be taken then that further use of private savings in productive investment will, in the future, play an equal part in this drive for expansion of our exports. A further point I should like to make in this regard, and I think it should be made in view of this wave of criticism regarding the number of people who emigrate, is that that criticism made no impact on those who were anxious to play their part in whatever way they could towards reaching the production goal. I say that of these people who invested money here, no doubt to make money, but also in order to help the country.

Reference was made during the course of the debate to certain aspects which affect our economy at present. Some speakers more or less sought to misrepresent the position with regard to our economic expansion and the instructions issued by the Government. It is generally recognised that our main difficulty is that the level of economic activity is not increasing fast enough to provide work with adequate pay for our population. On the face of it, it looks now as if this trend will be reversed.

The Government made no attempt at any time to conceal the facts—the very opposite is the case. Anyone who takes time to examine the position will discover that there was a genuine desire on the part of the Government to publish all the facts as widely as possible. I feel that the House will accept that the aim was to get people to understand the position so that the necessary energy and determination could be aroused in order to tackle the tasks confronting the country.

We all know that it is a prerogative of Parties to criticise but destructive criticism can be harmful. If I may digress for a moment in that connection, I may say that figures floating around the House regarding the incidence of tuberculosis in our cattle will not be helpful to the country. We have the basis of a very sound cattle population and we can claim, without boasting, that we can turn out the best beef in the world. Let it be said here and now that in this campaign to wipe out tuberculosis in our cattle, the Government have provided all the help at their disposal. If we keep on making the progress we have made in the past two years, we should soon see an end to it.

Various other points were raised in the course of the debate which I do no propose to cover. I shall merely end by saying that we have made certain progress. If we plan intelligently ahead, if we subscribe to the view that we can make progress on our own initiative, that we can produce the labour and the technical knowhow to turn out the finished product, either in the agricultural or industrial spheres, we shall arrive at the stage at which some of our problems will be solved.

Mr. Cole

We had this morning a very interesting summary of the position, as he saw it, from Senator O'Brien. I feel that I should emphasise a few of his remarks that directly agree with my view of the situation. He apparently thought that the cost of Government is expensive for the size of this country and he suggested that it would be very hard for the Government to resist the demands of the trade unions if they themselves were over-spending or indulging in higher wages for State employees.

While one must agree that wages are low enough in this country if you want to keep the people here, one feels that there has been, over the past year, a substantial increase in wages to practically every section of the community here. Senator O'Brien went on to say that it was the duty of the Government to teach the people to live within their means. That is a very important statement. It is very true and it is more true today than it was even 12 months ago because so many invitations were issued in the past few years to farmers and everybody else to accept loans— loans or hire purchase, call it what you will.

It is all rather on the principle of inviting them to live perhaps outside their means, outside their income. Sometimes I feel very worried by that trend, particularly in the farming community. In a great many instances, loans have done much good to farmers. There is a lack of capital in the farming community but sometimes I am worried lest there is too much pressing of loans on them and that they will burden themselves and their families for a great number of years to come when the prospects may not be as bright as they are today.

I want to quote from the Parliamentary Debates of the British House of Commons, Vol. 612, Column 862, of 3rd November, 1959.

I would describe the central problem falling upon representative government in the Western world as how to persuade the people to forgo immediate satisfactions in order to build up the economic resources of the country. Let me put it another way. How can we persuade the ordinary men and women that it is worth while making sacrifices in their immediate standards or forgoing substantial rising standards to extend fixed capital equipment throughout the country? This is the problem and it has not been solved yet.

In the first instance, one might not expect to hear a statement like that in a recent British House of Commons debate as they claimed at the last election never to have had it so good. Having been uttered, one might perhaps expect it from a member of the Tory Government or a "Right-wing Tory," to use a phrase used in this House. It was not said by a member of the Tory Government. It as said by perhaps a Left-wing Socialist. It was said by that great man who recently passed away and whom I think we all mourn, Aneurin Bevan.

That a statement like that should come from such a source should be a warning to us in this country. Yesterday, we probably completed a round of increased benefits to practically everybody in the country to whom these Houses could give increases when we gave an increase in benefits to pensioners, widows and such people. I am sorry to have to say that it seems to me that the only people left out of all this are the farmers, particularly the small farmers.

I give full credit to the Government for their industrial policy. They have been successful and more successful than I would have thought 12 months ago. I am not blaming the Government in any way but, as Senator Lenihan said, there is a challenge to us to increase the standards of our farmers and particularly the small farmer, who is disappearing from the country.

I had occasion to speak to a man a few days ago in a neighbouring county to mine. Part of his duty was in inspect empty houses. Under his supervision in that area there were six electoral divisions. He claimed that in those six electoral divisions, there were practically 200 empty houses. That is a challenge we must face. People are leaving. Bits of land are being joined to larger farms. They do not support more people. They just support a little better the family that buys them.

I agree with Senator Lenihan that there is a challenge to us to do something for the small farmers. I agree with his constructive remarks about the processing of vegetables, meat, and so on. Somehow progress seems slow.

One reads reports of various meetings and of the activities of the Marketing Board. It would seem that if we could produce cheaper and market the commodity in a more suitable way, we would gain more markets for our meat, vegetables, and so on. How can we achieve that cheaper production? To my mind, there are two very important steps that might be taken. One is a better education for farmers' sons. I have mentioned this before and I shall continue to mention it. We should start our agricultural education in the national schools.

The other day I was given an interesting book. Unfortunately, I cannot give the title because the cover was lost. It was a Reader used in the national schools of this country in 1880. From the date on the fly-leaf, the man who used it said he must have had it when he was 14 years of age. I was very much impressed by the contents of the book. They were all on agricultural subjects. Some of the articles compared very favourably indeed with, present-day leaflets of the Department of Agriculture. It struck me that a copy of many Department of Agriculture leaflets, in a slightly different form, would be a very useful addition to a teacher in a national school. Even that would be a start.

Agriculture is not a science that can be picked up off the road. I am sorry very little has been done in promoting it in our national schools. There is absolutely no limit to the amount of pigs we could produce and to the amount of vegetables we could produce. We are still a long way from the number of cattle we could produce. Take a 5-acre or a 10-acre farm. There is practically no limit to the number of pigs that could be produced on such a farm if we had the market and a fixed reasonable price so that the farmer could hope for a reasonable profit.

That is the task the Government must face. The tendency seems to be in that direction. They have gone so far this year as to try to link our cattle prices with the prices obtaining for British home-produced cattle.

As a second step towards improving the lot of small farmers, we should try to fix a reasonable price for produce a reasonable period ahead. I do not know whether it would be a very expensive proposition for the Government to face. I do not know whether they could fix in respect of animals coming from any one farm that a certain price would be guaranteed to the farmers for the first 50 pigs and after that they would have to take the market price. Some such fixing of prices should be the aim of the Government, if not at once, then in the reasonably foreseeable future. Better education and a sure margin of profit will ensure in themselves cheaper production and a deeper appreciation not only of the land problems which the Government have to face but also the problems of production on the land. As Senator Carter said, we produce probably the best beef in the world. I think we could probably produce it a great deal cheaper with a proper outlook and a proper guarantee.

We are asked to produce more on the land. I should like to relate to the House an instance. A neighbour of mine had three calves for sale, almost yearlings, in 1956, 1957 and 1958. He got roughly £106, £107, and £105 each year for the three calves. The next year he thought he might be able to feed another calf and so he bought another calf and reared it to the same age. The result was that he got £109 for his four calves.

Again, I do not blame the Government for that. I feel that if the farmer could get some guarantee that he will receive a reasonable return from his extra production, there is an unlimited supply of agricultural produce available. It would be an enormous help to our export trade.

Mr. McGuire

I was interested in the remarks of Senator Barry about the Arts Council. I heartily agree with his sentiments and also with his suggestions that it should be given additional funds to carry out its excellent work. He also made reference to the Taoiseach's statement in the Dáil on Tuesday last in connection with the fund for the Arts Council. The Taoiseach is reported to have said that for some time past consideration had been given to the general question of the suitability of the existing arrangements for the promotion of cultural activities and to the possibility of improving them. I was glad that there seemed to be a general measure of agreement amongst all Parties in the House that something should be done in regard to the whole question of the encouragement of the Arts and the co-ordination of the work of our art institutions.

I am sorry to say that up to now we were sadly slow in taking action of a comprehensive nature in regard to the Arts and our art institutions. In the Bodkin Report, which was issued, I think, in the year 1949 or thereabouts, Dr. Bodkin refers to this lack of interest and action in connection with the Arts and our arts institutions over a long period.

He quotes Thomas Davis as being one of the few patriots who expressed any concern about the Arts. From the time of Thomas Davis right up to the Treaty of 1922, very little, if anything at all, was done about the whole question. In 1922, Dr. Bodkin wrote apparently to the Minister for Education at that time who happened to be the present Senator Hayes, on the subject. The Minister at that time promised that something would be done about the matter and professed his interest in the whole matter but then, owing to the outbreak of the Civil War and to the complications of setting up a new State, the matter was again shelved. It is, therefore, of more than ordinary interest that we should see the Taoiseach referring to this matter again in the Dáil the other day. It is to be hoped that this is not a mere reference as we had in the past but that it is an expression of concern. We hope that on this occasion something positive and tangible will be done in the matter. As regards the Arts Council, Senator Barry expressed views with which I would agree.

I should like to deal more generally not only with the whole subject of art but with that of our historic buildings and historic relics. I feel that the Government should take action before it is too late to make those buildings part of our modern life and to weave the best artistic traditions of this country into the art life of the present day.

Most of our historic buildings are of the Georgian period, that is to say, they are really Anglo-Irish. They were built by the Anglo-Irish in Ireland. This is not in any way to decry their excellence, their artistry or their historical interest. We are all very proud of them. We are all very proud of Georgian Dublin, Georgian Cork, Georgian Limerick and Georgian Waterford. We have many relics of that Georgian period. We must not forget that we have a great historical tradition and heritage which goes back more than 1,000 years before the Georgian period. We have this great period about which we talk so much but of which we have so little tangible evidence.

I should like now to quote from the introduction to the Bodkin Report a reference by Miss Elfrida Saunders in her standard work on English Art in the Middle Ages. She says:—

Meanwhile in a remote outpost of Christianity, the island of Ireland, art and learning were flourishing side by side during the whole of the sixth and seventh centuries. Scholars from Gaul and Germany came to learn from the Irish teachers and theologians; and in the monastic schools of the island, craftwork and particularly the art of illumination, reached a standard, in its own idiom and within its limits, which far surpassed that of contemporary work on the Continent. Ireland, like other countries, derived its decorative motives ultimately from the Orient. but they had been transformed and elaborated into something new and specifically national, and owed nothing to Roman or early Christian traditions. This Celtic art was to be exceedingly fruitful, and to exert its influence, not only over the neighbouring island, but over many of the countries of Europe during the succeeding centuries.

What have we got strewn around the country illustrative of that great period in our history? We have a series of ruins. We have old monasteries, from Cashel, which is the biggest one, down to the smaller ones like the Priory in Cong. They are ruins. What is left of them is roofless. The insides are overgrown with grass.

I have here a booklet dealing with the history of Cong. It is called The Glory of Cong. When we open it, the first picture we see of the glory of Cong and the priory there is a few ruined walls, overgrown with grass, and labelled on the side: “This is a national monument”. No attempt is made at restoration or preservation. The most that seems to be done is to put a bit of mortar between some of the stones where the rain is getting in. The grass grows unchecked. This is not confined to Cong alone. It is pretty common with all the monuments that have come down to us from that great period in our history.

We have, too, our magnificent historical castles which were the homes of the great Irish families. So far, only one of those has been restored. I refer to Bunratty Castle. It was Lord O'Brien, of course, who started work on Bunratty Castle originally. We have no classic home in which we could show how the great Irish families lived in the early days of the century. Justifiably, foreigners refer, in a jocose sort of way, to the Irish kings of old as if they had lived in a most primitive way in mud houses and were more or less brigand chieftains. We have made no effort to prove that that was not the position, apart from the restoration of Bunratty Castle.

The Taoiseach has said that he intends to marshal all the facts and material he can get, with a view to doing something about our cultural traditions. I suggest we should get down to restoring our ancient monasteries and castles and putting them in such condition as will readily convey to those who visit them the cultural basis on which the nation survives today. Not only should they be restored, but they should be turned into museums in which could be displayed pictures and other objects depicting the history of the area. Perhaps reproductions might be made of them.

In Cong, for instance, the Cross of Cong should be reproduced and reerected in Cong. Cong, instead of being a derelict village, should be a museum piece. The ruins of the priory are still there. I have an excellent book here which tells the history of the priory. As Senators are aware, Cong has one of the best, if not the best, hotels in the country. It is visited by visitors from all parts of the world. It is full of historical features. Apart from its primary association with the ninth century, a certain amount of later local history could be written in; we know that Captain Boycott lived in Cong. It also has associations with Oscar Wilde.

Some co-ordinated, planned programme should be drawn up in order to restore and preserve these ancient buildings. I know that will take money but I think we should make every effort to do this work. All of them need not be restored simultaneously. They can be done one by one. The churches should be made living churches. In Italy, you find a tortella near Venice. You also find churches going back several centuries, which are living churches, filled with relics of the ages. Not alone are they churches but they are also museums.

I should like to say a word of praise for the excellent restoration work carried out at Bunratty Castle. It has been exquisitely furnished. I saw in the papers last Sunday that already some 8,000 people had visited the Castle. Visitors are highly appreciative. Irish people are full not only of appreciation but of pride. An attempt has been made to restore Reginald's Tower in Waterford and convert it into a small museum. It is still a bit short of material but it is only a matter of time before that need will be supplied. Once people begin to take an interest in these things is is surprising how collectors and public spirited people generally come to the rescue. That has been clearly proved in Dublin by the number of gifts to the Municipal Museum.

Dr. Bodkin was commissioned to report on the arts of Ireland in 1949. I would direct the Taoiseach's attention to that Report and also to the fact that at the first meeting of the Arts Council one of its first actions was to prepare certain recommendations with regard to our art and cultural institutions, to ensure co-ordination in their working. That was sent to the Taoiseach's Office. To my knowledge, it has never been heard of since. Perhaps the file might be resurrected now and the Taoiseach might take a look at it. A great deal of work was put into that Report of the Arts Council.

One of the members of that Council was the Director of the National Gallery. So, too, was the Director of the National Library, Dr. Hayes. These men advised as to the necessity for increased space for the National Library, the National Gallery and the Museum and for the co-ordination of the working of all our different art institutions, not only in Dublin but in the Provinces as well.

A point I should like to make at this stage is that a particularly neglected institution, although it is beautifully kept within its limits and limitations, is our national museum, but it has always been understaffed. The personnel of the staff, however, is excellent. In my opinion the shortage of staff is due to the fact that we are not offering the right terms or salaries to retain our best people in such institutions and to attract the best people to them. We have excellent men in the National Museum at present and I feel some of them could really do better for themselves outside the country. Indeed, there is a very large degree of patriotism in the fact they are working here at all.

I should add that, under statute, there is supposed to be a Board of Visitors for the National Museum, comprised of representatives from many of our cultural institutions. That committee was originally intended to keep in touch with the activities of the museum and, although the members had no powers of action, they had powers of recommendation. I was a member of that committee and, to my knowledge, it has not met for the last eight or ten years. This should be rectified because the statutory obligation is not being fulfilled and everybody is turning a blind eye to the situation. I do not think I am giving away any inside information when I say the Committee felt no attention was being paid to them and that they were being regarded as nuisances when they made their recommendations. I believe there should be set up a proper board of governors for the museum, such as we have in the National Gallery where that arrangement works so very well. In the National Gallery there is an excellent board of governors, the members of which are highly qualified people for the particular job they have been given, and I feel a similar board could be a great help to the museum.

I should like to refer to the Taoiseach's statement the other day in which he referred to the proposal to remove the matter of industrial art from the Arts Council and transfer it to Coras Tráchtála. I have been on both the Arts Council and the Cultural Relations Committee and from my experience I can say that is a good suggestion. The Arts Council have found it very difficult to make a satisfactory liaison with industry, but whether this is due to a sort of latent distrust on the part of industry when they hear the words "art" and "Arts Council" I do not know. Anyhow the efforts of the Arts Council to stimulate an interest in industrial design have met with little success and I feel Coras Tráchtála, which is more in touch with the day-to-day requirements of industry and can see the necessity for the very best in industrial design in the modern business world, will be in a better position to make headway in the matter of industrial design, and in getting the co-operation of the industrialists and commercial community.

There is just one point connected with that. Recently the Arts Council offered a very fine scholarship of £800 to any student who could show sufficient qualifications and aptitude to merit such scholarship, to be used in studying at any institution abroad which would be approved of by the Arts Council. The response was practically nil and that, I think, is the final example which justifies the Taoiseach's taking the control and promotion of industrial art from the Arts Council and giving it to Coras Tráchtála.

On this occasion I have avoided pointing out the importance of the restoration of historical buildings and the improvement of our cultural institutions from the point of view of tourism because I feel that if too much stress is laid on that it will be found that the wrong point of view will be taken of my words. On this occasion I want to stress the artistic and cultural importance of these things primarily to our own people. The tourist side of it is secondary, but nonetheless it is something which must be mentioned as of the greatest financial importance to the country because people coming to a country like Ireland do not come to it for sunshine. They are not going to get it, and they do not come here for night clubs because we have not got them. They are much better served in that respect in Paris and other places.

We are told that tourists come here for the scenery but scenery is not enough. Anybody who travels abroad knows that people want to see the museums and art galleries of the countries they visit, and they want to learn about those countries. When they come to see Ireland they want to know about Ireland, and we shall not show them our history by taking them down to see the Lakes of Killarney and Blarney Castle where they kiss the Blarney Stone. There is too much of the stage Irish about that. All the recent songs about Killarney have rather cheapened it. The time has come when we have to get away from concentrating on Killarney, Blarney Castle, dudeens, and things like that. We have things to show them, things which link the past with the present, tangible things like our abbeys and castles, but if we do not do something about them soon they will not be in existence much longer. They have reached an advanced stage of decay. Even in Cong there is only one porch still standing to show the architecture of its time. That is pathetic.

I know certain people in the architectural world actually maintain it would be unaesthetic to restore these places and say they should be left as they are. That is like the school of thought in the nineteenth century which held pictures should be dirty and dusty to be appreciated for their value. They held that old Dutch masterpieces should be left dirty and brown, and should not be touched by restoration. Now all great pictures in the galleries of the world are cleaned and restored and we can see them as they were painted by the artist. It may be that a little paint was taken off here and there in restoration but these are only little blemishes. Things are blemished all over our own country, and I say it is a pity the buildings on the Rock of Cashel should be left open, roofless to the sky. I am rather ashamed of that and I never take visitors down there myself. Instead of these places being dead tombstones they should be living buildings linking us with the past.

Mr. O'Grady

I should like to congratulate Senator Cole on his contribution to the debate this evening. I think he is a very keen observer of matters around him and I believe that a lot of the suggestions be put forward to remedy the lot of the smallholder are very sound. There is only one observation I should like to add to what he has said, and that is to suggest that any movement to be helpful to the smallholder must be founded on a co-operative basis because, without full co-operation, I cannot see how a smallholder can compete with his larger brother. The man with the few acres cannot compete with the man with several hundred or several thousand acres unless on a co-operative basis.

The Senator also referred to another matter of interest to farmers—a certain old school book about which we heard something in the other House. In the old days there used to be a book on agriculture available to pupils in the fourth standard in the national schools. About 50 years ago the then Department of Education changed the books being used by pupils in the national schools with the idea, apparently, of imperialising education. Instead of this very useful book on agriculture, they brought out geographical readers telling the pupils all the virtues of residence in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and all the places the British flag was flying at that time. I do not want to go back over these old matters but I recall that Deputy Dillon, when Minister for Agriculture, promised to reintroduce that old book "decorated," as he said, "with buttons and bows." We have not seen the buttons, the bows or even the book since.

I hope it will be possible for the present Minister to do something more practical by issuing in a bound volume all the pamphlets issued by his Department. I do not ask for free circulation either. The majority of farmers would be very glad to pay a reasonable price for such a vast mine of information and help. I have an old copy in my possession but, like myself, it is a little bit worse for the wear. I should like to see it brought up to date and bound like the new telephone directory we are promised.

Mr. Carton

I hope the print will be bigger than the directory.

Mr. O'Grady

Up to the present year the Department made available for the benefit of farmers an accounts book which sold at about 2/- or 2/6d. That cannot be got now. I tried in vain to get a copy. I would not mind paying eight times that price if I could get it. It was very useful and enabled the ordinary farmer, who can scarcely be expected to be an up-to-date book-keeper, to keep his accounts in an intellegent way.

Things in this country are now beginning to look up. At long last we seem to be getting on the right road. The reports of the improvement in our industrial production and exports are very encouraging indeed. It was a long, hard, up-hill fight but upon the foundation of the recently-published White Paper and five year plan our manufacturers are showing their ability to compete on the world market. That has not come too soon. Some of us who have been supporting home industry all our lives were beginning to wonder would we ever see the day when our own manufacturers would be able to produce and sell in competition with the manufacturers of other countries. It is pleasing to know that the day has now come, and I hope this improvement will continue.

The outlook would be even brighter if, side by side with industry, agriculture was keeping its place. The reasons that has not been brought about are, in my opinion, largely the unfortunate weather conditions of the last two years. In 1958 we had an unprecedented rainfall which made harvesting extremely difficult and heavy losses were suffered by the farming community. Last year we had the very opposite. We had a period of drought, the like of which I cannot recall during my lifetime. The only other year in which we had such a drought was the memorable year of 1921. That was almost as dry, but not quite as dry, as 1959. This year is looking more favourable and if favourable conditions continue for the farming community, if industrial improvement continues and also the situation in which people with money are willing to make capital available for every worthwhile project, I think there is a brighter future ahead for the country than has been the case for many years.

I did not catch that remark. Perhaps it is that the acoustics here are not as good as they should be or else I am getting a bit deaf. I should like to direct the Minister's attention to an outstanding grievance in my part of the country. I am referring to the fact that a semi-State body, the E.S.B. are exempt from paying rates in county Clare. The valuation of the land taken over by them was considerable and there is also the valuable asset of the fisheries. The valuation of the land taken over at Ballyglass, where the Shannon power station is located, was £267 10s. and the valuation of the buildings thereon was £280, making a total of £547 10s. On the present rate in county Clare that means they should be paying close on £1,000 per year. In addition, the riparian owners were compensated with vast sums, in some cases up to £30,000. These are now contributing nothing to the rates in county Clare. The total amount lost is a vast sum, taking it over a period of 30 to 32 years, a total of approximately £50,000 to £60,000.

May I mention the much-derided morass in which Shannon Airport was erected? It was once described by a prominent member of the Oireachtas as a rabbit-warren or a place that would be a rabbit-warren in the future. It is now contributing to the rates of county Clare no less than £20,131. What a contrast! If it is right that the buildings and property erected on what was once wasteland should be contributing that big sum to the rates, which the people of Clare fully appreciate, why should not the injustice of the past be redressed and compensation paid for the £50,000 that has been extracted from the people of Clare as a subsidy to the E.S.B.? It is a gross injustice.

Pádraig Ó Siochfhradha

Tá ábhar ar leith ar mhaith liom caint air. Bhí dhá ábhar agam le caint orthu go dtí gur labhair an Seanadóir Maguidhir. Bhain sé ceann acu díom. Aontaím ar fad leis an méid adúirt sé agus ba mhaith liom mo ghuth a chur leis chun tathaint a dhéanamh ar an Rialtas na rudaí a mhol sé sin a chur chun cinn.

I leith na seana-iarsmaí sin, níl mórtas a dhóthain á thógaint againn astu in aon chor. Is baol liom nach bhfuil aire go leor nó aire fé mar atá tuillte á thabhairt dóibh. Ní fada ó shoin a bhíos i gCorca Dhuibhne thiar agus chuas isteach thar claí chun. teampall Ghalarais a fheiscint. Lá fliuch a bhí ann agus an tseachtain roimhe fliuch agus nuair a chuas isteach an doras beag cúng, do bhí leath-throigh uisce ar an urlár sa teampall, rud nach ceart agus nach cóir a ligean a bheith ann mar níl seod chomh luachmhar leis sin san Euróip. Tá sé ina sheasamh ansin ón 7ú nó an 8ú aois agus é go buan slán fós. Is dóigh liom gur cheart cúram i bhfad níos mó a dhéanamh dá leithéid sin ar fud na tíre.

Do dhein an Seanadóir an scéal a phlé go hiomlán agus ní bhacfaidh mé leis anois.

Rud eile a bhí i gceist agam ná an Ghaeilge. Tá baint mhór ag an Rialtas leis an obair atá ar siúl le haghaidh na teangan. Tá moladh mór tuillte ag an Rialtas as ucht na hoibre atá déanta. Tá an Ghaeilge anois ag na mílte míle daoine gur beag a bheadh eolas acu go raibh sí ann mura mbeadh obair an Rialtais agus saofhar na múin, teoirí sna scoileanna agus sna coláistí. Is ceart an Rialtas a mholadh i leith na hoibre sin, bíodh nach bhfuil ann ach dualgas agus dearbh-dhualgas an Rialtais a leithéid a dhéanamh. Tá siad a dhéanamh sásúil go leor.

Chuige sin atá mé chun caint anois. Cad ar a shon a bhfuiltear ag múineadh na Gaeilge? Níl aon chiall leis sin ach chun go n-úsáidfí an Ghaeilge ina rud beo, ina teanga dúchais bheo i mbéalaibh daoine agus ar theanga agus ar intinn daoine. Sin é an cuspóir atá leis an obair, sin é an cuspóir atá leis an saothar atá ar siúl ins na scoileanna, saothar maith.

Tá ní eile á dhéanamh ag an Rialtas agus ba cheart é a mholadh arís. Ní glactar daoine óga isteach sa Státseirbhís anois gan cuid mhaith Gaeilge a bheith acu, cuid mhaith eolais ar Ghaeilge acu agus cuid acu cliste go maith sa teanga. Cad chuige bheith ag iarraidh ar na daoine Gaeilge a bheith acu? Níl ach aon chúis amháin. Is é sin chun an Ghaeilge a chur á cleachtadh agus á úsáid arís. Níl ciall ar bith le coinníoll de choinníollacha na Státseirbhíse a dhéanamh de mura mbíonn sé sin mar chuspóir ag an Rialtas. Sin é an ní atá i gceist agam.

Nach mithid go mbeadh Roinn éigin den Rialtas agus an Ghaeilge amháin ar siúl inti? Is mithid é sin agus do mholfainn go dtosnófaí le Roinn ar leith, Roinn áirithe. Do mholas é sin dhá bhliain ó shoin agus ceithre bliana ó shoin, gur mithid Roinn éigin den Rialtas a bheith ag déanamh a cuid oibre ar fad as Gaeilge. Is í Roinn í sin ná an Roinn Oideachais. Níl cúis ar bith le bheith ag úsáid aon Bhéarla sa Roinn seo. Tá fhios agam go n-úsáidtear mórchuid Ghaeilge.

Is é ní atá i gceist agam go mbeadh sé le aithint agus ar eolas ag an phobal, ag íseal agus uasal, údaráis agus lucht leanúna gurb í an Ghaeilge teanga na Roinne. Is fíor agus ní féidir a bhréagnú, gach duine a bhfuil baint aige le hoideachas, le bun-scoileanna nó meán-scoileanna in Éirinn, go bhfuil eolas ar Ghaeilge aige. Ní rud nua dóibh í, ó bhainisteoirí agus príomh-oidí go dtí cúntoirí agus go dtí mic léinn féin. Tá Gaeilge ag beagnach gach uile dhuine acu agus nach mithid tosnú úsáid a dhéanamh den eolais atá acu?

Ba cheart a chur in iúl don phobal gurb í an Ghaeilge an teanga oifigiúil agus bheadh cead ag daoine nach bhfuil an Ghaeilge acu Béarla a úsáid ach gheobhaidh sé na freagraí agus eolas sa teanga oifigiúil. Ba mhaith liom é sin a mholadh. Mholas cheana é. Is dóigh liom gurb í an Roinn Oideachais an Roinn is feiliúnaí chun an obair seo a chur idir lámha agus a chur mar chomhartha aitheantais ar dháiríreacht an Rialtais san obair ar son na Gaeilge.

Tá Roinn eile, Roinn na Gaeltachta. Is dóigh liom, nó tá de cháil uirthi gurb í an Ghaeilge a húsáidtear ansin ach cloisim gearánta anois is arís ins an Ghaeltacht go mbíonn an iomad Béarla á úsáid fiú amháin ag an Roinn sin. Níl fhios agam an fíor sin. B'fhéidir gur lucht cáinte agus naimhde an Rialtais adeireann é sin. Pé scéal é, ní ceart go mbeadh sé ann ná go mbeadh aon bhonn leis.

Ba mhór-thábhachtach ar fad an rud é dá bhféadfaí a chur ina luí ar an Roinn Airgeadais níos mó feidhm a bhaint as an nGaeilge mar sin í an Roinn is cumhachtaí agus is mó go bhfuil stiúradh agus smacht ar gach aon Roinn eile aice. Is dóigh liom gur ceart dóibh sin a tosnú agus an comhfhreagarthas idir iad féin agus Ranna eile a bheith i nGaeilge mura mbíonn cúis an-speisialta ann nuair a dhéanfadh sin trioblóid. Is dóigh liom gur féidir feidhm a bhaint as an méid Gaeilge atá múinte sna scoileanna ó 1920. Tá sí ann agus d'fhéadfaí í úsáid dá mbeadh ócáid chuige.

Tá ní eile, gur mhaith liom a chur in aigne an Rialtais. Sin é an pobal a mhúscailt maidir leis an dualgas atá orthu úsáid a bhaint as an Ghaeilge. Múintear an Ghaeilge don aos óg agus moltar í in óráidí agus ins na páipéirí ach níl éinne ag dul i measc an phobail chun iad a ghríosadh agus a chur in iúl dóibh go bhfuil sé ina dhualgas orthu an Ghaeilge a labhairt mar theanga bheo. Is mór, dar liomsa, an chailliúint é sin ar éifeacht na hoibre eile atá ar siúl nach bhfuil gríosú á dhéanamh ar an bpobal chun feidhm a bhaint as an teanga atá múinte don aos óg ar mhórán costais agus saothair. Ba mhaith liom a mholadh don Rialtas gur socróidís le cumann, dream nó eagraíocht éigin go bhfuil baint aige le Gaeilge agus leis an bpobal, go mbeadh daoine uathu sin ag dul tríd an bpobal, ag teagasc an phobail, ag gríosú an phobail agus á chur i n-iúl don phobal cad iad na buntáistí atá anois acu i leith na Gaeilge agus ag teagasc an phobail sna dualgais atá orthu féin i leith na teangan.

Nuair thosnaigh gluaiseacht na Gaeilge faoi Chonnradh na Gaeilge bhí a éifeacht ar fad, dar liomsa, ag braith ar an inneall, an gléas, an eagraíocht a bhí ag Connradh na Gaeilge le timirí agus múinteoirí Gaeilge ar fud na tire. Bhí 15 timire ag taisteal na Tíre taobh amuigh de Bhaile Átha Cliath. Bhí suas le 150 múinteoirí ag taisteal. I ngach paróiste nó gach dá nó thrí paróiste bhí ranganna agus cruinnithe, ar siúl gach Domhnach, duine éigin ag geata an tséipéil ag caint leis an bpobal díreach, mar is é an pobal a chaithfidh an obair a dhéanamh.

Ba mhaith liom a mholadh don Rialtas in aon chaidreamh a bheadh acu le cabhrú leis an nGaeilge go molfaí dóibh dul ar ais ar an seanghléas agus timirí a chur ar siúl agus dul i measc an phobail arís. Ní i seomraí i mBaile Átha Cliath a spreagfar pobal na hÉireann chun úsáid a dhéanamh den Ghaeilge.

Sin iad na nithe ar mhaith liom tagairt dóibh san díospóireacht seo má tá ar lámha an Rialtais i bhfad níos mó a dhéanamh ná mar atá déanta fós, agus tá an rud seo ann, gurb é cuspóir na hoibre atá déanta go dtí seo go mbeadh toradh ar an obair sin agus go mbeadh aigne an phobail claonta chun an chríoch deireannach agus an bua deireannach a bhaint amach don Ghaeilge.

Mr. Burke

So many direct and insidious attacks have been made on private enterprise, particularly during the past 12 months, that I feel that anyone who has any knowledge of the problem should raise his voice against this uninformed criticism that is becoming so widespread in this country. The first gibe that one hears when anything goes wrong with the economy is that private enterprise has failed. The critics have not a sufficiently honest approach to the problem to investigate the reasons. If our balance of trade becomes adverse, it is alleged that the reason is that private enterprise did not export sufficient goods. Such criticism perturbs me and I fear that, through lack of information, people will continue to suggest solutions for our problems which are not real solutions.

The transport and other industries during the past 20 years have been approached in a doctrinnaire way. The names of the railway companies were changed from Great Southern and Western, Midland Great Western to G.S.R. and then to C.I.E. Pope said, and I believe him:

For forms of Government let fools contest

What e'er is best administered is best.

That can be applied to business as well and as truly and as effectively as it can be applied to the economic ills of a country.

Very often the solution of our problems would be a question of management, of minding our own business and of doing it properly rather than looking for too much and, when too much is not forthcoming, suggesting that the people who resist the excessive demands have failed the economy. Sometimes the attacks come from the trade unionists. At other times, they come from people who are glib and loquacious. These people should read the little book written by Senator O'Brien 15 years ago. The Phantom of Plenty. The phantom of plenty is always with us. We can make that phantom less real by contributing more to the economy rather than by suggesting that the elimination of private enterprise will help the economy.

There are many today who clamour loudly against the most hardworking and the most industrious section of the community. They suggest that if we had State-sponsored enterprises, the economy would be better served. Take any of the great industries we have here today. Do you think the economy would be better served by nationalising or semi-nationalising them? Take the industries that are giving us the improvement which has taken place in our exports. If they were nationalised, it would mean that everybody in those industries from the managing director down to the porter outside the door of their impressive premises would be better paid and required to give less service. These so-called State sponsored industries have exported literally nothing; they make no contribution. Yet there are people in this House who at every available opportunity praise them as a sort of panacea for our economic ills and for the disadvantages our economy has.

It can be well demonstrated from instances which we have that the only safe method of securing life and vitality in the economy is to allow the greatest possible freedom to private enterprise. We have made many mistakes in the past 30 years. I believe one of the mistakes made was in relation to the dairying industry. The dairying industry is almost a complete monopoly and any improvement that has taken place in the past few years has been achieved by the indirect injection of some of the stimulus of private enterprise. The so-called chocolate crumb industry was the result of marrying to the co-operative industry the enterprising capacity of firms like Fry-Cadbury, Mackintosh's and other groups that have established factories in Rathmore, Carrick-on-Suir and in other parts of the country.

If private people were allowed to make butter, to market it and to handle milk and milk products, the drain on the Exchequer and the pressure that can be put on the Exchequer in this regard through the co-operative movement would be less strong and we would be very much nearer to finding a solution to these problems. What shows the ineffective way these industries have been handled is that large sections are still held by the Dairy Disposals Board, that body holding on behalf of the State which has not seen fit even after 30 years to hand these industries over to the co-operative movement because they are afraid if they do they may become a further burden on the community and on the economy. When the private enterprise section of the community were competing and selling their products under proprietary brands in Britain and other countries, there was little or no loss to the Exchequer in the promotion of those industries.

Lest it may be thought I am against the co-operative movement, I should like to tell a story. A few years ago, I happened to meet in Holland at an international conference a Dane and a Dutchman. Both of these gentlemen were representatives of the co-operative movement and I felt overpowered at having to sit down to lunch between two men who had sworn allegiance to the co-operative movement. Both the Dane and the Dutchman reassured me and I continued my lunch without the apprehension I felt when I first sat down. They said: "We believe that the co-operative organisation is the best if you can make the co-operative organisation efficient by not denying private enterprise the opportunity of competing with that industry." I believe I could go to Holland or to Denmark and as a private industrialist start a factory to handle milk or milk products, or start a bacon factory or anything of that nature. I would in no way be restricted because they believe that brings life and vitality to industry. It raises the jumps for the co-operative society and the whole economy is better and more effectively served than it could otherwise be.

We hear much today about marketing. There was a Question asked in the other House yesterday about the way the pig producers were being exploited; the Question went on to suggest that that product was not properly processed, in the first place, and was not properly marketed in the final analysis. If that is so, why does the State-owned factory in Tullamore not do all these things? Why does the State-owned factory not pay the farmer adequately and justly for his pigs? Why does it not produce the product in a way that will be a credit to this country and also market it in the way people are supposed to market goods today? Large sections of that industry which are propped up in the economy by paying no tax would have swallowed up the inefficient private enterprise element of that industry years and years ago if they were as inefficient as was suggested by yesterday's Question, and also by many of the publicists and others who are giving ill-considered solutions for some of our industrial problems.

I want to give another example of what can be done by private enterprise. In the 1940s, the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, the present Taoiseach, made arrangements to have coal exploited in the Slieveardagh area. That coal was mined at an uneconomic price but there was no proper measurement of what was an economic price during the war period. At the end of the war period, a mineralogist was engaged and he made certain borings. Shortly after that the first inter-Party Government came in and they accepted the recommendations made by the mineralogist appointed by the previous Minister for Industry and Commerce.

All during that period the coalmines were losing money and about 1943, the mines were sold. Since then, they have brought more life and more prosperity to that depressed area in Tipperary than it enjoyed for at least 150 years. The man who is running these coalmines today says that he is principally hampered by difficulty in getting sufficient workers. I would say he pays an average of about £15 per week. I believe that if that industry, were left with the Government, whether this Government or the previous Government, the industry, would have, remained moribund and that effort by the present owner to develop these mines and to export a considerable amount of the produce of the mines would never have been made.

I could go on ad nanseam describning the various solutions made for economic problems by various private enterprises but I should only be delaying the House unnecessarily because we told the Minister we would let him take over at about 5 o'clock.

I should just like to summarise what I have said in my few remarks. I believe that all this uninformed criticism we hear about private enterprise and sometimes about private industrialists —I cannot say I have received any personal abuse from anybody but I am aware of this glib talk bandied around the country-must discourage industrialists from Britain, Germany and other countries, where such an outstanding success has been made of their economies. Britain and Germany have produced two of the most buoyant economies in Europe because they have adopted the private enterprise system and have developed it in a logical way. In the interests of Ireland and in a true patriotic way we should desist from criticism unless we know that such criticism will help to develop our industry and in that way develop our economy. The one thing which can kill confidence and the goodwill necessary to promote industry and a thriving and buoyant economy, is the feeling that some groups will be able to control the Government at some time or other and may impose conditions in which industry will not progress.

Twelve months ago there was a rumour in Germany that the great Volkswagen motor car factory, started originally under the direction of Hitler who was able to command all the resources of the Third Reich, was to be handed over to private enterprise because its future could be guaranteed more effectively by so doing than by leaving it a State entity. The German people believe that in leaving these enterprises to the State the germ or genesis of decay thereby starts and that it is much better to hand them over where they will be tried and tested in industries in which people have ventured their own money and in venturing it and in safeguarding it will promote a vital and progressive economy.

In conclusion there is one matter to which I should like to refer. Senator McGuire referred to the desirability of having some of our old building reconstructed so that they may live today as they did in the past. In fairness I should take this opportunity of thanking the Board of Works for the wonderful job they are doing in that connection on the Tudor building in Carrick-on-Suir which was built around the middle of the 16th century by the well-known Butler "Black Tom". I visited it recently and it is a credit to the Board of Works and to their engineers who were responsible for the work. I believe that it will be one of the show places in South Tipperary and will bring tourists to visit us in the Suir Valley.

Dr. Ryan

This debate was very interesting. It started off in a highly political vein and ended up more on the cultural side, which I suppose was a turn for the better on the whole. Senator O'Donovan again compared the figure of expenditure of 1956 with that of the present time. I think Senator Ó Ciosáin was right in saying that we should, first of all, find out what was expended, not what it is proposed to expend. As he pointed out, if there is a deficit in budgeting it makes a difference and that should be taken into account. After all, we have tried to balance the Budget and for that reason the comparison taken is not altogether fair. However, there are reasons for these increased expenditures to which I shall refer in a few minutes.

Another point made by Senator O'Donovan was that when the first Coalition came in in 1948 they were able to abolish certain taxes imposed by the Fianna Fáil Government. I have often heard that stated by Fine Gael speakers but I always thought it was greatly to the credit of Fianna Fáil because they had overestimated their expenditure. As a matter of fact the expenditure did not reach the amount they had estimated and we would have had a surplus at the end of this year if the same rate of taxation had gone on. Contrast that with the last year the Coalition Government were in office. When Fianna Fáil took over it was alleged by a number of Ministers of the former Government that they had deliberately written down the Estimates which were there and they were told they could bring in a Supplementary Estimate if necessary to make up any deficit there might be. There was much less fraud on our part than theirs in that particular instance.

The Senator made the point that Sligo is a good Fianna Fáil county and has not much tuberculosis. I do not know what the inference is or whether in the next census we should put down two questions: "What politics have you?" and "Have you any T.B.?" and see how they correspond. We could speculate a lot on matters of that kind. I do not think the attack on C.I.E. was fair. Senator Murphy dealt with that point and I do not want to go into it in detail. I suppose all of us think we could manage C.I.E. better than it is being managed but we can find no fault with the presentation of the accounts. I am not an expert but these accounts come to the various Departments and, if there was anything wrong, my attention would have been drawn to it. As far as I know, therefore, the accounts were properly drawn up and present a fair picture of the position.

The Agricultural Credit Corporation were also referred to by Senator O'Donovan. In that case it was laid down in the Table for capital expenditure, under sources of income, that £500,000 for the Agricultural Credit Corporation would be found from internal sources, which was correct according to Senator O'Donovan's figures. It did take in £500,000 and let it out again. It is also said that £500,000 would be required from outside sources. The usual sources which one can call to mind are the banking and insurance companies and the stock issuing houses. It is usually the banks who do those things, although sometimes it is the insurance companies. As a matter of fact, negotiations are going on at the moment with the banks for £500,000, so again, as I say, there was no great fraud about it. The Agricultural Credit Corporation may not have lent as much as we had thought they would but that was due to the fact that the ordinary joint stock banks lent considerably more to the farming community than in previous years.

I jotted down a few figures which I have here. In 1955, the amount lent was £15.8 million; in 1956, £18.5 million; in 1957 and 1958, it was about the same; in 1959, there was a big jump to £26.2 million; and in the year ending 31st March, 1960, it was £30.9 million; so that actually in the years from 1955 to 1960, the amount of money lent by the joint stock banks was doubled. That was one of our aims when we were considering the question of agricultural credit. I remember meeting representatives of the joint stock banks and representatives of the Agricultural Credit Corporation and it was more or less accepted by the banks that they would continue to do business with the farmers, and if they were not in a position to do more business than they had done in the past, it was agreed that the Agricultural Credit Corporation would be there as a lender if you like, or a last resort, and that if a farmer failed with the joint stock banks, he could turn to the Agricultural Credit Corporation. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Agricultural Credit Corporation are not doing as big a volume of business as we hoped they would do.

A question was raised with regard to the Shannon Free Airport area. The employment there, it is true, is not very big but that project is in its infancy. Six companies have actually started there now. At the moment the employment is less than 100, but it is estimated that by the end of this year, the number will be 650, and it will be considerably higher at the end of 1961. Four more fairly big companies are negotiating to start, and I think one has made the final arrangements to start there. On the whole, therefore, I think we should accept that the project of the Shannon Free Airport has borne very good fruit indeed.

With regard to capital, they have got by now from the Minister for Finance almost £500,000 and from other sources another £500,000—that is, the companies. As regards the £500,000 given from the Exchequer—I should not have said the Minister for Finance because some of that money may be by way of grant and so on—there will be rents coming in. The Department of Transport and Power will provide a factory and rent it. With regard to the rental charges, I cannot promise that in every case it will be an economic rent or, in other words, that the rent will be sufficient to give a full return on the capital spent, but there will be some return, at least, on that money going out from the Exchequer.

Senator O'Brien devoted a good deal of his speech to inflation which, of course, as we all know is a danger that must be watched by every Government because it has very bad effects indeed. The Senator also spoke about the State absorbing so much in its capital programme that it might leave the private sector short of capital, as he said. It must, of course, be admitted straight away, that whatever the Government take out by way of taxation or otherwise, or whatever they raise by way of loan or otherwise, is taken out of the pool, as it were, and less money is left behind for the private sector.

That is the immediate effect of money taken by the Government for current expenditure or capital expenditure but on the other hand, we must remember that when money is taken by the Government, it goes back into the economy in every case. It goes back sometimes, of course, in current expenditure by way of salaries, wages and so on, but in many cases, it goes to help private enterprise in various grants, subsidies, and so on, in helping private enterprise to finance itself and carry on. The real question, therefore, which we must consider is whether public spending of the money is necessary, first of all, and, secondly, whether it will be more advantageous to the community than if the money were left there available to the private sector to develop its economy.

There is no doubt, of course, that some public spending, whether on current or capital side, is necessary in the interests of the community generally—everyone will agree with that, I am quite sure—first of all, to preserve what has had to be preserved since the Governments first started and must still be preserved today—law and order. As well as that, there are services now which are absolutely essential from the point of view of the welfare of the people, such services as health, social welfare, housing, and so on. It might be argued that we are not spending enough, or that we are spending too much on these services, but I think no one will argue that they should be cut out completely.

There are many headings under which Government spending is necessary and, as I say, the only thing we have to decide is whether we are taking too much and injuring private enterprise by taking too much. Some people may argue—and I think Senator Burke was quoting from people who do argue—that we are not taking enough. However, the Government have to be careful not to take too much, and I suppose every Government think they are not taking too much because they have weighed up what they think is absolutely necessary, and what must be financed, and every Government will always think they did not take too much but only what was necessary.

Not only must the Government watch the interests of the private sector but they must also watch the balance of trade which is affected. In the past 20 or 30 years—it was hardly thought of by any country before that—that has become a very important, in fact the most important factor, in the bringing in of a national Budget. By disregarding that and by disregarding the balance of payments, disaster is sure to follow. That is what happened in 1955-56, and it brought the big financial crash at that time, which led, in turn, to very drastic remedies being applied, followed in turn by restrictions of credit and a very severe blow to the economy generally.

It has happened, if we go back to the 30's, that the Government did not take enough. Private investment was not absorbing the money and the Government did not go far enough in taking up money for capital with the result that the spare money went abroad to find a return. The use of that money was lost to this country. That is a question that has to be kept in mind. We should not be too careful about keeping capital expenditure down. We might go too far in that direction and lose to some foreign investment the savings of the people.

Every Government try to keep down current expenditure and they believe they have done the right thing in whatever current expenditure they propose to carry on. The same might apply to capital expenditure. We have been trying to convert more to capital expenditure that would give a return so that some return would come in to us for the money spent. That is something that is very necessary because the debt goes up every year and the service of the debt is going up also. If we could get a capital expenditure which gave a good return, the service of the debt would not go up. We have the E.S.B., telephone capital and Bord na Móna where a return is coming in. On the other side, we have the more social expenditure such as housing and so on where the return for capital is very small indeed.

I do not think we have run up against inflation in this country. As I said on the last occasion when I spoke on this matter in this House, the honest test is the balance of payments. Inflation means that we are living beyond our means and if our balance of payments is running all right, it means that we are making ends meet. That is a rough test as to whether inflation is becoming dangerous and so far as that test is concerned, I do not think that we have any cause to worry unduly. I do not say that we should be complacent. It is a matter that should be watched carefully all the time.

Senator Ó Ciosáin came back to the situation now as compared with three or four years ago and I am glad to note that he referred to the expenditure rather than to the Estimate because it is the expenditure that matters. Some Senator mentioned that the expenditure is now £26,000,000 higher than it was in 1956. I wonder if any Senator could make a suggestion as to how that expenditure is to be substantially reduced? I know that any Senator could make suggestions on small matters here and there but how many of them could make suggestions on matters that are really worth while?

Social welfare expenditure in this Estimate is £6,000,000 higher than it was in 1956. Education is £5.6 million higher. No Senator here, judging from the tenor of the speeches we have heard, would make any suggestion to reduce the amount we are providing for education. Agriculture is £4.9 million higher, although I am not sure, if we take current expenditure, whether it is much higher than it was in 1956. That figure takes in figures below the line and I have not had time to separate them.

There are two other main sources of expenditure. One is the service of debt which goes up by almost £2,000,000 every year and I think that it went up a little more in the year under review. Then there is increased remuneration. Since 1956, we have had two wage increases and they would amount nearer to £4,000,000 than to £3,000,000. Those are the big items and when you consider them, there is not much left. Any Senator could tell us to cut out so and so but other Senators would also tell us to put in so and so and I do not think the difference would be very big.

Senator Murphy said that it was confusing to look at the salaries payable in the Book of Estimates. It confuses me, too. When I am talking to my own officials about some increase, they talk about a man on the £557 mark. That was his remuneration 20 years ago and his salary now is probably up to about £2,000. In the next Estimate, the salaries will appear as they actually are. They will be the consolidated scales from now on and they will make more sense to members of the Oireachtas generally.

In establishing the standards, the type of person to whom it should be given and so on. However, we shall approach it again and see if we can bring down our minds to start it this time.

Senator Barry made an appeal in relation to the television line standard. I do not know anything about the technicalities. I heard Senator Ó Maoláin say it is possible to adapt the system to the 625 line standard, so I suppose that is all right.

Senator Cole spoke about better education for the small farmers. Naturally that would be good. Education is always useful. One cannot have too much of it. I have never agreed with the teaching of agriculture in the national schools. I have always thought the national schools hardly have time to do more than teach the pupil to read and write. If we give him a taste for reading and writing, it will not take him long to look up his agriculture afterwards, if he is interested in it. Years ago there was a reader in the national schools on agricultural subjects. It might be all right to give a bias towards rural life in the readers but in my opinion—I am not Minister for Education—that is as far as we should go.

A point was made by Senator McGuire—I think he made it on other occasions also—about bringing back old ruins to their original appearance rather than sealing them up. I could not express an opinion on that because I am not expert enough in the matter. There may be something to be said for his suggestion. For people like myself who are not too well versed in archaeology, it would be more interesting in that way than the other way but the archaeologists might object to it. I am afraid the Senator will have to argue the matter with learned authorities rather than here.

Mr. McGuire

The money is what counts. I think it would mean money over a long period.

Dr. Ryan

I wonder if it would make much difference. Although I am not an expert, I very seldom go through the country without calling in to see one of these buildings. I saw one as recently as last Sunday in Baltinglass. The Board of Works have made a wonderful job of Clonmacnoise. One can see only the ground plan so that one has no idea what it was all like when it was built. To rebuild all that as it was many centuries ago would be a colossal job.

Mr. McGuire

It would be worth it.

Dr. Ryan

Senator Burke complained about the criticism of private enterprise. I do not think we heard so much of it here. The Senator should not take it too seriously if some people favour nationalisation rather than private enterprise. This Government have often laid down as a principle that where private enterprise can do something, the State will not interfere, but where private enterprise cannot do it, the State must consider whether it should step in. What is meant by whether or not private enterprise can do it really is whether there is a profit incentive.

Nobody expects private enterprise to undertake a project unless it sees that there is a profit to be gained. If there is no incentive, it is not likely that private enterprise will go in and therefore the State must step in. The State had to step in with regard to the development of turf. It is unlikely that private enterprise would ever have done it. There was never any subsidy of any kind there. I admit they had the capital. They competed with other fuel and persuaded bodies such as the E.S.B. to use more turf than anything else. However, it was economic for them to use it. The argument could have been put on the basis that it was the most economic fuel they could use, except water, so they had an easy job as far as that went. Other instances could be given.

With regard to C.I.E., it had come to the stage at which it was impossible to get private enterprise to carry on because it had to be helped by legislation to compel people to use it to a certain extent, in the first place, and it also had to be financed by the State to a certain extent. You could not stand for doing that if it were a private enterprise concern. The only way to do it was to take it out of the hands of private enterprise and see what could be done with it by a State company. Let us hope that the present Board will realise our hopes of bringing it to a paying basis within the next few years.

I do not agree with Senator Burke about the milk. I had a great deal of experience of that as Minister for Agriculture. On a number of occasions, the suppliers to a proprietary creamery came to me and asked me to take it over and convert it into a co-operative concern. The reason they did so was that they were convinced that they would get better prices for their milk, if it were given over to a co-operative. The farmers are hardheaded people and I do not think they would have done that, if they were not very sure of their ground. By comparing prices paid by co-operatives all round them, they were able to work out that if a co-operative were set up, they would make the same price. For some reasons, co-operatives seem to succeed better in the milk business at least. I do not say that could be applied generally but it would appear that it applies where you are dealing with producers of that kind. They are more interested because it is their creamery. They are more interested in the whole concern.

The Department of Agriculture have in recent years, but only since this Government came into office on the last occasion, departed somewhat from the strict line laid down by my predecessor as Minister for Agriculture, the late Deputy Hogan. It follows my principle also while I was there for 15 or 16 years. It was followed by other Ministers. It was only since this Government came in that we have given a few licences to deal in milk processing, principally to a couple of cheese factories under the technical supervision of a foreigner and where the cheese is being exported. I do not know whether the Minister for Agriculture is disposed to go further than that in departing from the principle of keeping the milk processing business entirely co-operative.

Senator Burke went back to the matter of private enterprise again and said that those who have money to invest here might be frightened off by those groups who are talking about nationalisation because he said those groups might well control the Government of the State. All I can say to Senator Burke is that so long as we have a single Party Government, that cannot occur.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill put through Committee; reported without recommendation; received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.

The Seanad adjourned at 5.50 p.m.sine die.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 21 Jul 1960

Appropriation Bill, 1960 ( Certified Money Bill) — Second and Subsequent Stages.

A Senator

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 21 Jul 1960