The Government have been criticised for going abroad for some of their borrowing during the year. It seems to me that much of this criticism—in fact, I should say with respect all of it—is ill-informed and ill-advised. What the Government did in this regard is merely what has been common practice in many progressive countries over the years. I shall name a few—Denmark, Norway, Sweden, New Zealand. It has been said that, because the Government did not get all they would wish to get on the foreign market, something must be wrong with our economy.
As everyone knows, during last year there was a temporary set-back in practically every country in the world, including America. The issue to the European Coal and Steel Community had to be postponed. Large American enterprises, which financially would make our country look puny, had the greatest difficulty in getting what they got and they had to pay eight per cent, whereas we decided to pay 7½ per cent—General Electric and Goodyear International and such mammoth concerns. So, far from criticising the Government for going abroad for money for the purposes of getting our capital programme going, they should be congratulated for taking a new step in that regard.
With regard to the Government's social policy I should like to comment in particular on the new proposals for free comprehensive education for children beyond the national school age. I shall not refer to this as free education because nothing is free. If there is to be this education it must be paid for. If you ask anyone whether he wants this education he will reply in the affirmative. Do not ask "Are you prepared to pay an extra shilling in income tax? Are you prepared to make a sacrifice on that account?" We get back again to that trait in our character which I mentioned this morning in dealing with itinerants. There is a growing trend of selfishness and hypocrisy amongst us. If we want something we should be prepared to pay for it and let us not criticise taxation. From 1960 to 1965 our direct taxation went up from £140 million to £269 million.
That does not mean, of course, that the various types of tax have gone up, that income tax has nearly doubled and so on, because an increase in our prosperity has brought in increased taxes. If the general wealth is higher, more money comes in from income tax. If people are spending more money on beer, whiskey and tobacco, more money comes in from excise, but nonetheless our annual taxation between 1960 and 1965 has increased by £129 million.
Again I commend the manner in which this increase has been expended. It has been expended to a very great extent on that social policy which I commended at the outset. I shall name just four headings under which slightly over half of it has been spent. Agriculture got £28 million of this increase; Social Welfare got £16,500,000; Education got £15 million; and Health £7.6 million. That accounts for £66 million out of the £129 million increase. Other parts of this increased taxation have gone in other directions. Relatively small amounts have been given to tourism which in dividends has brought in extravagantly large returns.
Many of these items will have to be increased as the years go by. The figure for education will have to be increased. We must make up our minds, therefore, that we are prepared to pay for it. There is no use in the world in saying: "We are taxed out of existence." As compared with other countries, our taxation is relatively low. Again I go back to Denmark. You will buy a bottle of Danish lager in this country just as cheaply as you will buy it in Copenhagen. You will buy a packet of 20 cigarettes at about two-thirds of the price you will pay for them in Denmark. A car in Denmark, if it costs under £1,000, if that is the selling price of it, has an enormous turnover tax added to it, while if it costs over £1,000, if that were its nominal selling price, like some of our larger cars here, there is 100 per cent tax on it.
I feel that in many ways we do not appreciate that we have obligations to meet. If we quarrel about the amount of our taxation, we are failing in our obligations to those sections of our community who, in the long run, will be the wealth of this country—our young children who are coming along and who are really the basic raw material because on the skills and education of these children we must depend for the future progress of Ireland.
I welcome the Trade Agreement negotiated during the year with Britain. I welcome it from one point of view, as a person who has a certain interest in industry. I may be one of those people whom normally it would be taken to hit. I welcome it because it causes the Irish industrialist to expand his muscles, gives him a sense of challenge, gives him a test. I believe the results of it are showing themselves in the Irish industry of today.
I had occasion recently to compare a substantial company in Ireland with a similar company in New Zealand. The members of this House might be surprised to know that in New Zealand one can get a new car, run it for 18 months or two years and then sell it secondhand for approximately £200 more than it cost new. It seems fantastic. I had occasion to compare their efficiency in that particular section of industry with the efficiency of corresponding companies in this country. I found that the efficiency and productivity here were approximately 25 per cent higher than there, and nobody will say New Zealand is a particularly backward country.
We have been told that the day of the small farmer is gone. Perhaps it is; I do not know. I should regret to think so. I personally believe that the future of the small farmer is at hand. It is at hand in our co-operative system today which is joined together in larger units. We see at the moment five, six, seven and eight of our co-operative societies exercising the proper co-operative spirit, the proper co-operative practice of merging together and pooling their resources, pooling the facilities for the farmers. I sometimes find it hard to understand why in the same district one finds one farmer who, per cow, in the year can make only £45 and another who, per cow, will make up to £80. I just take the milch aspect of farming alone. I could deal with the other aspects in the same way. What is lacking, and lacking most sadly, in our farming community is not the will to work. They work very hard. There is no such thing as a five-day cow and no such thing as a pig that will be satisfied with being fed on only five days a week. What is lacking in our agricultural community is proper education but I believe that will now spring from this expansion of the co-operative system. If you do not have that, then you will have those small farmers who are ill-educated for the purpose, who do not understand costings, who do not understand the finer points of their own particular mission in life, selling out, and instead of having co-operative support for one another, there will be some mammoth company with its head office—it does not matter whether it is in Dublin, London or Brussels—managing 1,000 acre farms in Ireland. That is why I welcome in particular this expansion of co-operation among the farming community. I believe that in it lies the future of the small farmer of Ireland.
England, for example, has had a severe does of pneumonia, when this country has apparently escaped with a very slight touch of cold. I must say I commend the Government for the steps they took to rectify matters and for having taken them at such an early stage. In this country, so subject to outside influences, a Government is in much the same position as a person in a sailing ship who cannot foretell when a squall will arise, or when a storm or tempest will arise, so what we must do is keep an eye on the weather and, when it looks a bit squally, trim our sails accordingly. That is what the Government did. Fortunately, the results now show their efforts have been successful and, if we are failing in any respect, it is we ourselves—the ordinary citizen—who are failing. We are too concerned with grab rather than with give. This, as I showed at the outset, is particularly noticeable in dealing with the weakest section of our community, the itinerants. It can, however, be seen right up along the line, even within the trade union movement. Those who have large wages want larger. If you try to level up the man down below you must preserve the differential. Nobody will make sacrifices for the other person. That applies to the different sections of our community. Everybody wants to grab the maximum slice of the national cake; unconcerned about the fact that they are taking from their neighbour and leaving their neighbour less.
In my view the Government have adopted a very proper order of priorities during the past twelve months, in fact, during the past five or six years. Instead of moaning and groaning, we should realise that, as a small country, we are really to be envied. I have found, in visiting Denmark, Holland, Sweden, Germany and Austria that by and large the ordinary people in those countries are not as well off as those in this country. If instead of moaning and groaning, we were prepared, just for one short period, to adopt less grab and more give, if we were prepared to say "All right, let more taxation go on, so long as we are satisfied that the money is well spent," then the future of this country would be assured.
