Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 13 Dec 1967

Vol. 64 No. 6

Appropriation Bill, 1967 (Certified Money Bill): Second Stage (Resumed).

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

When I reported progress I was mentioning, in relation to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, which comes under this Appropriation Bill, that I consider it necessary immediately to put into effect more stringent regulations than the present regulations to protect this country against the cattle plague known as "foot and mouth disease". An outbreak here would affect our economy to a far greater extent than it would affect the British economy. So far, the British have lost approximately 250,000 animals—cattle, sheep, pigs and other animals that must be slaughtered under the law of the land when this disease enters a farm. If we lost anything like that number of animals in this country, or had 2,000 outbreaks—the number is almost 2,000 outbreaks now in Great Britain—there would be a national financial crisis because of the importance of the livestock industry to our country and to our economy. It would put out of business many other organisations indirectly associated with the livestock trade. We can easily call to mind the various trades which are immediately dependent on the cattle industry—the slaughter of cattle, the sale of cattle and the export of cattle.

The revenue which the export of cattle on the hoof, and canned, brings in represents a very large part of the total value of our exports. Therefore, I consider that the Government ought to get in touch with the British Minister of Agriculture and with the British Government about precautions in Britain so far as people leaving for Ireland is concerned. If people are allowed to come here, some will certainly be arriving from infected areas. Many of them may be farm workers in areas in Britain where the disease is rampant.

For that reason, I suggest that the disinfection process should begin at the stage where such people begin their journeys. If we consider it desirable to allow people from Britain to come into the country at this stage of the crisis—that is what it has become—we should take very stringent precautions that the disease will not be carried in. The arrival of one person carrying this virulent germ would be enough to start its spread throughout the country. It has spread throughout the greater part of England and it has taken them a very long time to control its spread.

Therefore, we should not take any risks. We should implement very strictly any precautions we consider necessary. Of course, because it takes the virus three weeks after infection to show itself, we shall not know until three weeks have passed whether our efforts have been successful so far. It may be here already. That is the situation in which we find ourselves and that is why more stringent precautions should be implemented at this stage when, we are led to believe, many of our kith and kin will be returning to visit their relatives during the Christmas holidays. I was glad to learn that the Irish Ambassador in London has tried to impress on Irish people, and others who might decide to visit us, that it would be a patriotic thing to stay in England until the epidemic has died down.

This Appropriation Bill involves a sum of £279 million, a colossal sum for a country with a population of fewer than three million people. Under the inter-Party Government, when a generous housing campaign was undertaken involving a good deal of finance, and when the annual sum reached £100 million, I remember that Fianna Fáil said the last straw had been piled on, that the country could not afford £100 million. Of course, under successive Fianna Fáil Governments in the meantime, the value of money has dropped dramatically, its purchasing power has dropped, and, therefore, the £279 million we are now discussing would not represent the same value as £100 million when the inter-Party were in office.

We must remember that though we have reached that very high figure, the present incidence of taxation is 25 per cent higher than the figure which had been forecast for 1970 in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. In other words, two years ahead of time, our taxation is 25 per cent higher than was envisaged in the Second Programme. I know that Programme has collapsed. It did not achieve any of the targets set. We hear members of Fianna Fáil boasting that this year our productivity will have risen by four per cent. They regard this as a great achievement. We must remember it was only one per cent last year, and if we average it over the other years the targets have not been reached, particularly in relation to the provision of more jobs.

Much of this is the result of the financial gymnastics in which the Fianna Fáil Party were engaging during the latter part of 1964 and the early part of 1965, all designed to win the Cork and Kildare by-elections and later the general election. Immediately following the elections, we had deflation which caused great difficulty and strain in our economy. In 1966 it was necessary to introduce a second Budget in order to put our financial position right. That was trickery on the part of Fianna Fáil because they must have known when the Budget was being introduced in the spring of 1966 what the requirements were for the financial year. However, there was a Presidential election coming up, so they brought in half of the Budget before that election and the remainder after it.

Anyway, it all amounts to tricking on the part of Fianna Fáil with the country's finances. Now, as a result of the rectification of the economy, which it was necessary for Fianna Fáil to do, they are boasting that the economy is again on a level keel. The result of it all is that it was the wage earner, the savings of our people, who had to pay for those financial gymnastics—not the Fianna Fáil Party.

We have reached another serious situation in relation to the health services. The present high cost of these services is the talk of the country. When the Health Act was introduced by Senator Dr. Ryan, he was asked how much it would cost and he said 1/6 or 2/- in the £ on the rates. Now every ratepayer knows the cost of the health services is the highest charge on the rate demand notes. It exceeds even road maintenance charges. At that time, people thought the cost of roads was very high and complained bitterly about it. It was suggested roads should be made a national charge.

Now we have a situation in which the health services are costing the ratepayers more than road maintenance. It was suggested a long time ago that the health services should be made a national charge. Apparently the Fianna Fáil Party are quite happy to leave this burden on the shoulders of the ratepayers and let the figure go up higher every year. Next year in the Dublin area it is expected that the rates will go up at least 11/- in the £ in relation to the health services alone, apart from any other services which may cause the rate in the £ to be increased.

Then we have the promise of the White Paper from the Government in relation to the health services. They are hesitating about that but the ratepayers are still being salted for the payment of those health charges when many of them cannot even benefit from the heavy subscription which they make towards the operation of those services. It is a well-known fact that there are many people who find it necessary to protect themselves by taking out what is known as a voluntary health insurance in relation to their own health. While they do so they are still paying heavily out of their pockets, their earnings and their wages towards the implementation of health services which are bringing no benefit to them. Those to whom those health services apply also have reason to complain about the shortcomings of those services and about the manner in which they are administered so far as many of them are concerned, particularly when they find that in order to get those free services they are compelled to make a contribution towards these services which they cannot afford.

I feel it is time for the Government to make a pronouncement in relation to the White Paper regarding health services. They cannot leave it tucked away forever while the ratepayers in the meantime are shouldering this burden. It is possible, for instance, that this White Paper advocated that the health services should be a national charge. It may have been recommended that the citizens should make a specific contribution towards the financing of the health services. Whatever the Government White Paper has recommended it is about time for the Government, first of all, to publish it, and, secondly, to set about implementing it.

Fine Gael have already published what they considered to be the most desirable type of financial arrangement for health services in this country. Unfortunately, the Government are not so quick about acting on it as they were in relation to the educational policy, which was published by Fine Gael before the Government announced their policy in relation to education. Of course, their policy was announced only in respect of primary and secondary education. Fine Gael announced their policy in relation to the whole of education.

Was it in the Just Society?

Yes. The trouble about that is that Fianna Fáil are implementing piecemeal certain sections of the comprehensive policy Towards a Just Society, which was published many years ago by Fine Gael. It is unsatisfactory when it is being implemented piecemeal instead of on the comprehensive basis advocated by the policy of a Just Society already published by Fine Gael.

Would the Senator show the reference in the Just Society to education?

I did not expect to be asked for it at this time.

It is the Senator who is talking about the Just Society who should be able to produce the reference.

I can produce it. Deputy O'Malley asked the same question at an awkward time and said that he could not give page so and so but when it was examined afterwards the answer was there in the policy for a Just Society but he did not want to give it. The situation is now that we have given the lead to the Government again in relation to university policy, in relation to education so far as university education is concerned. They should take heed of the recommendations that have been put before them and implement them as soon as possible. It is good if Fianna Fáil implements the Fine Gael policy, even in a piecemeal manner.

(Longford): In a socialistic manner.

It is good to see Fianna Fáil implementing the Fine Gael policy, even if Fine Gael have not the opportunity of implementing this policy themselves. Although it may seem, if you like, sad, to see portions of the policy implemented not by Fine Gael but by Fianna Fáil, it is better for the people to have the policy of Fine Gael implemented as far as possible. That is just what is happening at present.

Why does the Senator not help us to implement it instead of hampering us?

We have given you the lead. I hope the Government will now get down seriously to implementing the policy in relation to the universities of this country. We have given them some good ideas now in the debate which took place last week and I have no doubt that the Government will consider it advisable. I noticed in the speech by the Minister for Finance in the Budget in relation to this Bill we are discussing now that he referred to western development. At least he had a heading in the Budget statement in relation to western development. Apparently he has now decided to barter the flesh and bodies of civil servants for votes in Castlebar and Athlone. He does not care about up rooting those people and their families who sat for examinations, competed for jobs and got them. They knew those jobs were in Dublin when they sat for the examination, entered those competitions and got those jobs. They are in a bad position now so far as their wives, their families, their relations, schools and general living conditions are concerned but now for the sake of a few votes in the West of Ireland I have no doubt that the Government will be thumping platforms and dancing on them at the next general election about the fact that they tried to bring down a Civil Service Department, involving £8 million to be spent in Castlebar and they would not be let do it by the civil servants because they would not come down, or Fine Gael stopped them.

Again, in Athlone, they will be dancing on the platforms and saying that they wanted to bring the civil servants down and that the wage bill would be £10 million but they would not be let do it. They will be telling the people that if those salaries went into the locality that great prosperity would be created there. It is just one big swindle. They know it would be impossible to uproot those people and barter their lives for the sake of a few votes in those localities. There are many other ways of creating prosperity in the West and establishing industries for the West of Ireland.

Tell us the way?

Yes. We will publish our policy for industrialisation, if you are interested. Of course, we have already done a very good job in relation to industries. We found industry in a very poor state when we managed to put Fianna Fáil out of office in 1948 and again in 1954. During those years we established the Industrial Development Authority. Its purpose of course, was to investigate the possibility of establishing industries, creating extra employment in industry and bringing in foreign capital.

And you had 97,000 out of work.

97,000 was a lot in those days but it was not as much as 143,000 in your time.

When was that?

In 1938 or 1939. You can look up the statistics for that period.

I know we never had that number out of work.

Will the Senator have a bet with me?

It will have to be a bet of honour. We will not pass money because——

The Chair resents the Seanad being turned into a betting office.

I am sorry, Sir. I am speaking about this attitude of Fianna Fáil as far as the West of Ireland is concerned. The only thing they can think of now is the transfer of two Departments, one to Athlone and one to Castlebar. They will tell the people down there: "Now we have them down here to spend their earnings and to live among you and to establish their homes here". It is obviously only a wild dream as far as Fianna Fáil are concerned except, of course, it is a good vote-catching device at this stage when they have nothing better to offer the people in return for their votes and support.

Senator O'Quigley said the Government had no power to do that.

To do what?

To send anyone to Castlebar or Athlone.

There is such a thing, you know, as a moral obligation on the Government towards the people in the employment of the State.

Yes, but the Senator said they had no power at all— that the Government did not run the country.

He was giving free legal advice to them.

I know what the Senator is getting at.

That is what he said. Who took the decision?

I do not know whether he was defending or prosecuting.

I gather from Senator Ó Maoláin that he said that this decision was taken by the Civil Service.

That is what he said.

No, he did not. Anyway, I did not hear him say it.

I heard him. I listened very attentively to him.

We come now to the old chestnut, emigration. I hear the Minister is now going around the country saying that emigration has now been reduced. Of course, it is very hard to disprove that.

Very hard.

When the inter-Party Government were in power Fianna Fáil were always able to tell the people how many people had emigrated but when they came into Government they were no longer able to tell the people how many had emigrated even though the net figures are always available from the statistics. Apparently they do not consult Senator Yeats or he would be able to give them to them.

One has only to look at the 1966 census.

You bring in the census as you asked him to bring in Towards a Just Society.

An average of 17,000 from 1961 to 1966. I have the figure. He has not got the reference. I am telling him. It is 17,000. It is better than 60,000.

Of course, that again is a Fianna Fáil figure.

Look at the census for 1961 if you like.

We heard Deputy Lemass say that the test of a policy is the number of people for whom that policy is able to provide employment. If we take that we see that there are 60,000 fewer people at work now than there were ten years ago. Senator Yeats will be able to confirm that. Maybe there are 70,000 less. He will not help me on that, there must be 80,000 less.

He is mesmerised by the figures.

Apparently it is far below the number of persons in the forecast for 1970 in employment. We can put these figures against the promise of 100,000 new jobs which we had from Deputy Lemass, there again trying to win a general election. In the past year there has been a substantial rise in the cost of living and apparently the cost of living will be increased further as a result of devaluation. That is one thing for which I shall not blame Fianna Fáil—devaluation.

Hear, hear.

You must be slipping.

What I shall blame them for is the attitude of the Minister for Finance in relation to devaluation when he tried to put it off by telling the people that devaluation will only mean an increase of two per cent in the cost of living. I do not know what the opinions of the other Senators there are but I think that was a ridiculous statement. Everybody knows that the cost of living will be increased by more than two per cent. My calculation is that it will be nearer to six per cent. The truth should be told to the people. The people know that the Minister for Finance is not responsible for devaluation except in so far as the capital of this country is invested outside it.

Again, we have the effect of devaluation on building costs. Building costs will go up. They have gone up already by about ten per cent in the last two years and devaluation will cause them to go higher still. Anybody associated with the building trade knows the problems facing people who wish to become owners of houses. First of all, the house itself is very expensive mainly as a result of the land speculation in which the Minister's colleagues were very active, and the fact that all the available building land around the city has already been snatched up. Of course, when houses are dear the deposit must be high. Therefore, very high deposits are required from people now who wish to become owners of their own houses.

In addition to that, it is nearly impossible to get loans even from building societies towards the cost of these houses. The building societies are short of money and, of course, they have put up their interest charges to a record figure with the permission of the Government. The interest charges now are very high which means that in over 12 years these unfortunate people pay the price of the house in interest alone over the period of purchase. Many of these houses are subject to a purchase period of 30 years. In relation to house building grants which we have at the present time there were grants made out in 1948. At that time the grant for the building of a private dwellinghouse was £45. That was increased to £275. There are additional grants available now which have been brought in in the meantime to assist certain classes of people, but in general the grant for the house is around £275 and it is a very unrealistic figure having regard to the price of the house now in relation to the price of a similar house in 1948.

The output of houses in 1965 fell by approximately 5 per cent. The number of people engaged in the building trade has also fallen and there has been a fall in the number of county council houses built. This housing campaign was to be organised and directed to some extent by a group known as The National Building Agency. I am told it was a political set-up, and while it contained a number of technical people, that agency did not prove themselves fruitful so far as building is concerned. Now I am told this National Building Agency is to be dismantled and discarded by the Government which set it up in a blaze of glory.

I should like assurance from Senator Ó Maoláin that this agency will not be dismantled.

Will the Senator tell us where he got that information? Was it from the Just Society?

It is in the news.

I am told that it will be dismantled.

Why does the Senator persist in spreading lies?

They are acting hand in glove with the land speculators and as far as the Fianna Fáil Party are concerned——

Do you want them dismantled?

A Senator

There were 3,000——

3,000 houses; get back to your statistics. If you said dwellings you would probably be right.

Dwellings would be a better description. These tiny habitations were built in Ballymun. I am glad that these unfortunate people have shelter to that extent, but at least some effort should have been made to provide them with spacious dwellings such as other people in Dublin Corporation enjoy in other houses. These tiny habitations in Ballymun were badly needed and the sooner the remainder of the scheme is completed the better. There are 10,000 families waiting for dwellings in Ballymun, or elsewhere.

Another thing which has affected our economy is that we had the lowest acreage of wheat for 25 years this year. It has dropped to an all-time low. I do not know whether the Government will take action with regard to an increase in the wheat acreage. I remember the time when every hoarding in the country was covered with Fianna Fáil posters declaring "Grow More Wheat".

I remember the time when the Fine Gael Party were trying to decry the growing of wheat and said that it should not be grown; for God's sake do not be so hypocritical.

If this was said the Fianna Fáil Party have acted on it because they have reduced the acreage to the lowest in 25 years—the lowest figure in our history.

Look at your statistics again.

There was a big rise in the wheat acreage last year.

What about the previous year?

What about 1890?

This is the attitude of Fianna Fáil. I can tell the Chair what happened about the wheat. The farmers were abandoned and left to deal with the millers. The Government would have nothing to do with protection for the farmers who grew wheat and the result was that the millers were allowed to take wheat from the farmers, declare it unmillable, turn it into flour and sell it as flour.

This is a serious reflection on the National Farmers' Association whom you were praising a few minutes ago.

Much of the wheat that was sold by farmers was used for making flour for bread.

This year or last year?

I shall not talk about years.

Was it in the fifth century?

What I want to tell the Parliamentary Secretary is that it was last year because this year, due to the good weather, the wheat was in good condition. The farmers were left with their problems this year which the Government could solve for them but the farmers were left to the tender mercies of the millers and they came out the losers.

This year?

This year and last year the millers had the best of it.

The Senator is not serious.

He is never serious.

If the Senator gets back to his statistics he will see that there was a drop of 98,000 acres of corn in 1967 and there was a total drop in 1967 of 133 acres——

133,000 acres.

Yes, there was a drop in 1967 of 133,000 acres of tillage so that that is the attitude of Fianna Fáil. That is in reply to a Parliamentary Question. I mention this because it is the attitude of Fianna Fáil towards the tillage farmers. The tillage farmers just went out of cultivation of land with the result that there was a total drop of 133,000 tillage acres this year.

The Senator has the wrong year and the wrong figures.

He has the right idea.

Thanks to the Senator for correcting me there. With this heavy drop in tillage, and particularly the low acreage of wheat, it will be necessary for us to pay a much higher price now for imported wheat than we did before devaluation took place. The taxpayers' money will have to be used because the Fianna Fáil Party abandoned the farmers and allowed the millers to beat them out of production because the millers would rather handle imported wheat than Irish-grown wheat. In the meantime, of course, pig production collapsed and the factories are closing down owing to the drop in the number of pigs being left at the bacon factories. There, again, the Fianna Fáil Party have abandoned the pig producers and have left them to the tender mercies of the factory-owners who have the final say in the grading of bacon which is the basis, of course, of payment for the pig producers. The number of pigs going to the factories has dropped. Perhaps Senator McGlinchey will explain why there is such a sharp fall in the number of pigs produced to the factories. Why are the farmers not producing pigs now and why has the number dropped considerably since last year?

In the Budget speech also we heard the Minister boast about the abatement of rates on agricultural land being brought up to £20. Many people in the cities and towns believed that the farmers had got a very big concession when they heard that the rates abatement was brought up to £20. The Minister was very careful not to let the public know that, in fact, the farmers were already enjoying an abatement of rates up to £16 so that the Budget gave an increase only of £4 valuation in so far as abatement of rates is concerned in addition, of course, to a further adjustment, which also had snags, up to £33 valuation. In the Just Society, it was proposed by Fine Gael at that time that the figure should be £25 flat which, on figures, would work out better than the Fianna Fáil arrangement of £20 with a scale up to £33 valuation.

There are many classes of people suffering because of the policy of Fianna Fáil in reducing the purchasing power of money. There are many non-State pensioners on small pensions. Every time the Government implement a policy which further reduces the purchasing power of money, these non-State pensioners are left poorer and find it harder to make ends meet. I should like to know if it will be possible, in these days of financial adjustment, to come to the rescue of many of those people whose pensions are now below the kinds of Social Welfare pensions that are available to the subsistence classes in this country. I refer to people who are depending on a very small weekly allowance in the form of one pension or another.

When we consider what the cost of living is at the present time, and consider what prices are, it is very difficult to calculate how a person living alone can make ends meet on a pension maybe of less than 50/- a week. It must be very difficult. There should be some kind of arrangement to come to the rescue of these very poor classes of people who are dependent on what can now be described as only a pittance, having regard to the prices of essential goods. I believe there are sick people who are getting only £2 7s 6d per week. I think Senators will agree that it must be almost impossible for those people to get any kind of proper living conditions on that kind of money.

Now, we have the Redundancy Payments Bill and we have the Occupational Injuries Bill. That legislation, of course, will further reduce the purchasing power of money and, at the same time, increase taxation. In both of these schemes, employers are required to make a substantial contribution in the form of the cost of the Social Welfare stamp. These stamps are now so costly that they actually go into the framework of pricing goods especially where large staffs are concerned. It is difficult to decide the best thing to do. Employers are being faced more than once a year. in recent years, with increases in the price of social welfare stamps. I think that at the present time, the cost of a social welfare stamp for a typist is around 15/- a week and it is more for other classes of workers. This Redundancy Payments Bill will put a further cost on to the weekly social welfare stamp.

Did the Senator vote against it?

What is he talking about, so?

I am not opposing it.

It is an extra fourpence.

Would the Senator be good enough to refrain from criticising legislation which has been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas? A passing reference is in order but to go into details is not in order.

I agree. What I was saying was that all of these things will add up. All of these costs are reducing the purchasing power of money and reducing the value of the £ in relation to that purchasing power. I know that Fianna Fáil are opposed to organised workers: at least Deputy Dr. Hillery is opposed to organised workers.

Tell us another.

They are in a position to get an adjustment of their wages to meet rising costs. There are many weaker sections of the community which are not organised. They are left in a very dependent position when the Government take no action to protect them against rises in prices and increased costs. I am not against organised workers. That is now a battle between Fianna Fáil and the trade unions concerned. I expect that Fine Gael will come out best at the end.

They have the best of both worlds.

When the turnover tax was introduced, it was estimated it would bring in a certain amount of money. The case was made for it on that basis. It was pointed out that it would cost the community only a certain amount of money per annum but, of course, the turnover tax has been bringing in greater amounts every year.

People are getting more prosperous and they spend more.

Is the Senator talking about money values or money incomes? The Government brought in a wholesale tax a couple of years ago the purpose of which was to adjust a financial situation into which the country had been led by the policy of the Government at that time. The Minister for Finance now says he has got the finances of the country on an even keel again and I think it only right that he should consider removing the wholesale tax. This is a very small community. With all of these taxes amounting to nearly £300 million, it is difficult to understand how such a small population can continue the luxury of such a policy or activity on the part of the Government.

Ni bheidh me ró-fhada. Ní theastaíonn uaim morán a rá ar an mBille seo. Aontaoín leis an mBille agus sílim go bhfuil sé riachtanach. Mar sin, ba mhaith liom chuidiú leis an mBille seo.

I listened to part of what Senator Rooney said and to most of what Senator O'Quigley said. The first thing that struck me was how accustomed we all are now to these forecasts of gloom and doom, these whingings and groanings of Fine Gael on all occasions. It seems to have become their theme song, this banshee wail that everything the Government are doing is wrong. On the other hand, they say Fine Gael have a policy to cure all the evils and ills of the country. Better still, they are able to do that without the necessity for new taxation. Senator Rooney said the turnover tax is not needed, but at the same time he would give big increases in pensions and would push forward many new schemes.

The plain fact is that Fianna Fáil, who have been in Government during such long periods, must consider very seriously the expenditure necessary to implement the legislation they pilot through. Not alone have they done this but down through the years they have maintained that policy. It is not necessary for me now to range over the entire field of Fianna Fáil endeavour and success. They have been successful in pushing forward numerous schemes for the benefit of the people as a whole and, the people of this country being sound, intelligent people, on every occasion practically during the past 30 years have returned Fianna Fáil to office. They knew that in Fianna Fáil they had people who honoured their word, that they were responsible people who would do their best for the nation.

Consequently, on only two occasions have Fine Gael, with the help of other elements with whom they coalesced, succeeded in getting to office by the back door. We know the sad history of those two occasions. It is something Fine Gael can read if they are searching for gloom and doom to read about. It is amazing that in every election since 1932, Fianna Fáil have got more votes than all the other Parties combined. These are the bold, bald, plain facts which the people over there must swallow whether they like it or not.

Always before elections, be they Presidential elections, by-elections or general elections, Fine Gael are always quick to forecast that they will sweep into office. It takes the solid reasoning of the electorate to bring them back down to earth again. In this House, too, they are wont to suggest that they are capable of bettering the lot of the people, but on the two occasions when they had the opportunity we know what happened.

There are many matters on which one could speak but to my mind the greatest development in the past few years has been the provision of free post-primary education for all our children. That must go on top of the list as the greatest achievement in the past century. It is a striking tribute not only to the Government but to the Minister responsible, Deputy O'Malley. He has made it possible not only to give free higher education to the children, rich and poor, but to provide transport for them, to supply teachers and classrooms. On all sides we were besieged with the usual banshee wail that it was not possible. In counties such as mine, where there were so few facilities for post-primary education, so few secondary schools, the fact that the Government were able and willing, first of all, to equate secondary and vocational education so that children in either could get the Leaving Certificate, this will confer massive benefits. Not only will it be a great asset to the children who will benefit now but it will be a great relief to the parents who will not any longer have to budget to send a privileged member of the family to a secondary school, leaving the others without any chance of post-primary education. I have no doubt the Government will push it up to the top, so that the poor man's child in any remote area can get university education if he so desires. That is certainly something we could boast about if we were inclined to boast.

On the question of health, I listened to Senator O'Quigley say that little was being done for the people who were ill, for the old and so forth. He forgot that it was the Fianna Fáil Government who brought the Health Act into operation despite difficulties. They were responsible for ensuring that those people in our society who were not able to pay their hospital bills out of their own resources would not be left to die or to suffer for lack of proper medical attention. Sensibly, we realised because of the cost, that those in the middle income group who could pay a little should contribute a reasonable amount, and that the ten per cent in the top bracket would not have free health services—that they would have to pay their own bills or insure against ill health. That is the fundamental principle behind the health services—that those who could not afford to pay would not go without attention.

The school medical service is also most important. If the Minister has not already considered it, I ask him now to ensure that children enrolled in national schools up to the age of 14 years who are not present on the day of examinations be allowed to avail of the service later. Until now, it was the children who underwent the school examination who benefited. There could be children absent because of illness or so forth.

As far as the social services are concerned, I do not think anybody from the opposite side could even attempt to equal the record of Fianna Fáil. Practically all Acts piloted through the Dáil dealing with widows' pensions, children's allowances, wet time, et cetera, all for the benefit of the workers, have been introduced by Fianna Fáil. Not alone that, but in each succeeding year they have been responsible for giving increases in benefits to the extent that our resources allowed.

Now, I could give the House individual figures but I am not going to bore the House with them. It is significant, however, that in 1967 the old age pension was 24/- and now it is 57s 6d. That is the contributory pension. The non-contributory pension was then introduced. The widows' the old age and all those other pensions are designed to help people in need. I would like, in passing, to refer to something which was said regarding the old age pensions, that we should give them to everybody. I always think of the reply which the Minister for Social Welfare gave some time ago in the Dáil when he was asked a similar question—he said that if he could get, say, an extra £7, £8 or £9 million to do so he would have no hesitation at all in using that money to increase the pensions and the social welfare allowances for those who are already in receipt of them and that he would pay an old age pension to everybody. That was logical and it clearly showed the concern of this Government for the underpriviledged.

I am not going to wander into the field of agriculture, although I heard Senator Rooney mention it. Indeed, Senator O'Quigley did likewise and threatened us rather alarmingly regarding the NFA et cetera. He accused the Minister of not co-operating with the farmers. He forgot the fact that the farmers' friend on all occasions—I would say this irrespective of what Government was in Office—is the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries because he has to sit around the table at a Government meeting and push hard to get more money from the Minister for Finance for the farming community as a whole. When it is said that he has not the interests of the farmers at heart, it is not correct. Indeed, we know that most of it is nothing but a bit of political wrangling. That was illustrated very forcibly at the recent meeting of the General Council of Agriculture. Deputy Clinton proved that they had the whole Council hogged and decided, in their own way, not democratically, to ask the two members nominated from it to withdraw.

That clearly shows that there is something more than a dispute behind this and that Fine Gael have done their best to try to cash in on a situation like this. I do not believe that they were the slightest bit worried about the farmers. They were hoping to embarrass Fianna Fáil and the Minister. This play-acting is going on all the time when we should all be thinking seriously in regard to agriculture and falling squarely behind the Minister and his policy on agriculture in order to ensure that we will increase our output and improve our farming techniques so that eventually we will be able to compete and outstep many other people who are engaged in the field of agriculture.

It is a well-known fact that thanks to the Bovine TB Scheme, successfully piloted through by Deputy Paddy Smith from County Cavan, we in this country have now our cattle free from disease. Indeed, we are the most free country perhaps in Europe, or probably in the world. Our reputation as a country for having its cattle population free from disease is very widespread and it is one of the things which will be of tremendous advantage to us in the years ahead.

Senator O'Quigley mentioned something regarding Partition. I do not know why he did that. He also mentioned something regarding Ministers making announcements here and there forgetting, of course, that some of the important announcements which the Coalition Government made were made in this way. It will be remembered that when they declared this Republic of ours it was in Canada. I do not think that this cant about Ministers motoring around the country like small boys in big cars should be heeded. It is not any great treat for any Minister or Parliamentary Secretary to motor around the country and put up this mileage of 50,000 to 60,000. All of us drive cars and we should be the first to admit that it is not a great comfort for a Minister to four from one end to the other of a county. I wonder if they expect Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries to lock themselves away in some room, put their feet up and sit down by the fire. I am quite sure that all those Ministers who go around doing this are showing the interest they have in the welfare of the community and the people.

Those Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries have been asked by various organisations up and down this country to go down there and address their meetings or whatever it is. I have seen Parliamentary Secretaries and Ministers down in my own county and I can say they acquitted themselves very well and it was a great help to the attendance and the people as a whole were very glad to see them. I admit there was one occasion when a Minister came there and certain people threw sods at him. It reminds me of the snowballing which goes on in Belfast. People who take part in antics like that are not taken much heed of. If some people feel like going around making fools of themselves like that they are quite entitled to do that. If the Sunday Independent feels like making a front page article in regard to the number of miles covered by Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries they are quite entitled to do so. I feel I could equally ask the directors and the editor of the Sunday Independent when they go out and go around from place to place in cars who pays for them?

It is time for Fine Gael to stop that type of carry on. The plain fact of the matter is that we are making progress. We have a definite, defined programme. We are not ashamed to say that we have to change it, if the times are changing, but at least the people have a fair idea of the fundamental policy of Fianna Fáil. We have put it before the electorate as recently as a few months ago and also over a year ago when conditions, so far as the Fianna Fáil Party were concerned, were not so good. I will freely admit that anybody, even Fianna Fáil supporters, could say to themselves that things were not as good the year before last. We had the 15 per cent tariff on, so far as England was concerned, when they were in difficulties themselves.

Despite all this we went out and faced two by-elections. We went before the people and told them the bald facts. We told them all those different things at that time. I remember a chapel meeting which I attended and some of the queries which were put. They did not know at that meeting that I knew that cattle were being taken from the Enniskillen mart and brought up to Dublin during that period. This is something that happened at that time. Fine Gael never got a better opportunity than they did on that occasion of making some attempt to be responsible and of attempting to get elected. I would say despite all the gimmicks they could pull out of the hat, and all the various policies they could spew out from the offices, et cetera, they had not a hope and they were beaten on that occasion. Again, of course, in the last two by-elections the same thing happened. Last year we had the county council elections and Fianna Fáil again came out victorious. There is not a doubt about that. I will admit we did not get chairmanships in various counties but that can happen. Indeed, there were many councils where Fine Gael were able to combine so well that they were able to take all the representation on the general council of agriculture, so much so that when that body met recently in Dublin one could truthfully say that it was not a democratic body at all.

You lost the elections.

There were several counties that did not have one single Fianna Fáil representative on it. In fairness, it is not true to say that whether you like it or not at least we have been getting almost 50 per cent of the votes in this country down through the years? Surely to goodness we should not expect that all councils would behave as they did recently in Limerick when Fine Gael took home one of their members to ensure that the seat would go to one of them when a Fianna Fáil man died.

What happened when Deputy Madden died?

Surely that should have gone to Fianna Fáil. In county Cavan —and politics in Cavan are just as rough and tough as anywhere else—we at least try to have a sense of fair play and if on our county council one of our members dies as happened not very long ago when a Fine Gael member died, we immediately agreed that certainly that seat should go to Fine Gael, but you have people who think they can oust us out just because they can combine now and again. I do not think that is a proper way to approach these things. At any rate, that is the Fine Gael way and I cannot do anything about it. I would say that we are not the slightest bit afraid to meet fair criticism. We welcome it, as a matter of fact. We cannot expect you people to sit there all day and say nothing. If we get reasonable criticism it is welcome but when you get this type of gimmick, this type of showmanship just for the sake of trying to hit the headlines by making false promises, etc. what they are doing is just trying to foment certain dissensions and trying to make people discontented. I think it is time for them to come down from their high horse.

Senator O'Quigley dragged in the question of the Irish languages. I feel the question of the Irish language should be far above politics. I will be the first to admit that there are many people on the Fine Gael side of the House who have been deeply concerned with the Irish language. I will admit that there are people in Fianna Fáil who might be a little bit worried about it, but we must admit that we will not succeed very far in this if we make a political issue out of it. Indeed, Fine Gael should know that because it is not terribly long since, during an election campaign, Deputy Dillon who, mind you, is a good Irish speaker, threw in this red herring of the Irish language. It did not succeed and it will not succeed any more now than it did then. I feel we should all come together and try to form a common platform as far as the Irish language is concerned and stop all this hash about people failing examinations because they fail in Irish. I can truthfully say that people fail examinations even at Leaving Certificate level because if right was right I do not believe they should have sat for the Leaving Certificate.

They just got a secondary education because their people had money and they were pushed through but the truth of the matter is that they probably failed in English, maths, history and geography and probably every other subject. The number of people who fail in the Leaving Certificate because they fail in Irish is so small that I do not see why the facts are being so distorted so as to try to poison people against their own native tongue. After all, the Welsh language has been taught in all the schools in Britain. Surely to God if that is happening in Britain the people here should not be moaning because the children of our nation are being given facilities to learn the Irish language. Surely at any rate they should not be discouraged from doing it. I feel it is the duty of parents to encourage their children and not to mind all this talk we hear about difficulties et cetera.

I would, however, join hands with Senator O'Quigley in complimenting Radio Éireann and I would add Telefís Éireann, on the progress they are now making. The Buntús Cainte is a tremendous step forward. I would hope that our national newspapers of all kinds would follow suit and that they would have a little more Irish if at all possible. There is no doubt that, if we look at the facts as they are, we can easily say to ourselves that if the majority of us were as fluent in French, German or some Continental language as we are in Irish, we might be very proud of the fact. For some reason or other many people do not seem to think it any asset that they are fluent in the Irish language. I think it is a great asset for anybody. People who have been at school in this country, and some of them have gone to secondary schools, should be ashamed to admit that they are not able to carry on a conversation in Irish. I would encourage them by saying that nobody expects perfection, they are entitled to use bad Irish. That would be much better than using none. However, I do not want to cause any dissension over this or any animosity because I was myself at one time a member of Connradh na Gaeilge here in this House and I know that there were Deputies on all sides who were interested in it. That is how I would like it to be. I shall not say any more except that I agree with this Bill. Go raibh maith agat.

The facet of the collapse of the Second Programme that has had the worst impact on the country is the position in relation to employment. We know the difficulty that there was for some years in comparing the employment position due to the method that was employed in its compilation. Now we have the example of the last few years, which readily and frequently brings home to all members of the Oireachtas by way of the frequent reports issued from the Department, that on an average the employment position is some 9,000 to 10,000 worse than it was 12 months ago. This despite the fact that we have considerable sums invested in an attempt to provide our people with the level of employment that was envisaged in the programme which has now failed. The figures that are provided relevant to the cost of employing labourers in various industries have risen alarmingly and, while we welcome investment at all times in industry when its aim and object is the giving of employment, we are concerned with the fact that better results have not been forthcoming from such investment. We have the added interest by our people in improved education of our young people. This is a very healthy thing but it is also a matter of grave concern to very many people as to what the future will be for those young people when they leave school because so far we have failed to absorb our school-leavers and many of them are compelled to take up employment outside the shores of this island.

I wish to be specific in the remarks I have to make relevant to the measures we are discussing and which gives us entitlement to roam over all Departments of State. In order to add emphasis to the remarks I have to pass I will confine my remarks to a limited number of Departments.

Regarding the question of industry and of employment, I am particularly concerned at the position in one episode that I want to recount. That is in relation to the position of the town of Bandon where I reside. In 1965 in the course of a general election, the then Taoiseach Deputy Lemass and the present Taoiseach Deputy Lynch came to Bandon in the course of the campaign. With my own ears I heard Deputy Lemass, then Taoiseach, assure the people of Bandon that two industries had been secured for the town. I was concerned in both as a member of the local development association and it was with considerable elation that the local residents heard these good tidings and no doubt it was reflected in the electoral support the Government got, in consequence of this announcement. At that stage £20,000 had been collected by the local development association for one of those industries. A site had been procured and a very attractive sign erected on the site indicative the future of the particular project. Premises were leased in the town or in the county at least and the name of the second concern was painted on the front wall. The people were willing to believe in this public pronouncement which was made by the head of the Government, speaking in his capacity as leader of a political Party seeking re-election.

At that time all the posters on the walls carried the message: let Lemass lead on. He did not lead long. He retired from his position as Taoiseach after the election of his Government. None of these industries has come to Bandon. This is a matter that annoyed local investors when they were informed that the industry was abandoned, and it took a considerable time before their money was refunded to them. I am concerned because any worthwhile project that may come about in future will not get support from these people. In view of their cynical approach to Ministerial promises it will be exceedingly difficult to get these people to re-invest in any future project.

That is not the end of the saga. Following on the Taoiseach's departure from head of the Government he took up numerous directorships, among them United Breweries and he became chairman of that concern. We were promised two factories. We had one great source of employment, United Breweries, of which Deputy Lemass became chairman, and overnight he closed that factory and displaced 140 men from employment. The man, and his successor as Taoiseach, who months before had promised the town two additional factories, closed down the only factory that was giving employment in the community. This has left a bad taste in the local community relative to public pronouncements and his action in closing down that concern is one that will be long remembered.

Under the Succession Bill no doubt.

We are discussing employment and lack of employment. We are referring to employment opportunities and promises of employment given and I am reciting one instance of where that programme has failed to operate.

You are entitled to talk about what Deputy Lemass said.

This was a public pronouncement made from a public platform in the course of an election campaign.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

If the Chair is allowed to intervene, I would point out that it is not proper to make references to what a former Taoiseach did in his private capacity.

He was doing the job for the salary he was getting, but he acted in complete contradiction to what he said when he promised two factories to the town in my own hearing.

In the past year the Redundancy Payments Bill became law. Too much time elapsed in the interim between the announcement of the intention to enact this legislation and its ultimate passage for the pursuance of justice and fair play. In the length of time that passed between the announcement of the legislation and its enactment, it was unfortunate that again in Bandon some workers were laid off in an effort to relieve employers who might have to compensate them properly for their unemployment.

There are other aspects to which I should like to refer in various Departments. One is the need for greater investment in drainage. There is a need for greater investment in arterial drainage with consequential drainage of tributaries. Much field drainage has had to be deferred pending these schemes. We have had the abandonment of the scheme of the local authorities' works which to my mind was a retrograde step. Much good work was done under the aegis of the local authorities in implementing drainage under that scheme. There was no money forthcoming despite constant clamour on the part of all political Parties for the revival of works under this scheme. I feel it is one that would come readily to the rescue in relation to the position regarding rural employment. Practically every penny voted under the local authorities' works schemes was spent in paying men to work on these schemes. That brought land that was incapable of active production of any kind into fertility, and there is no doubt that there is a good case to be made for the resumption of these works.

The question of drainage is important because much of the productive land of the country—land that would otherwise be productive—is unproductive at the moment because farmers cannot get the value from it due to recurrent flooding. Any member of a local authority is fully aware of the fact that there have been deputations to local authorities asking the county councils to intervene in the question of drainage in order to make their land more productive and relieve them from these hazards as well as the consequential disasters that follow from the prevalence of fluke from wet land.

The local authority had to resist the very cogent cases made in many instances because they felt they should not ask to have money levied on the rates for the relief of what is an occasional charge. Furthermore, the cases put forward have been substantial inasmuch as these people are paying rates for land which they cannot properly work and I would certainly make an earnest appeal to the Minister to allocate some money for the arterial drainage scheme so as to ensure that the tributaries will be done and ultimately that the land drainage work will be undertaken in many farms where it cannot be carried on at present due to the fact that there is not an adequate out-fall.

One of the most reprehensible actions in the last year was reducing the amount of money for road upkeep and improvement. On one occasion a sum was deducted for a period of one year but it was conceded at the time that it was in exceptional circumstances and would not operate for a period of more than 12 months. In the course of the last year it has been announced that this is the formation of a pattern for the years to come. The consequences are that at this time of the year, facing Christmas, local authorities are under pressure to vote ratepayers' money to ensure that roadmen will retain their employment long before the expiration of the financial year. It is regrettable that such a problem should arise among road workers in many county councils. There has been a cut in the road grants and it is unfair to ask the ratepayers, at least by expression of the Government, to pay. The position is grievous in relation to the charge on the rates and something should be done within a short time to enact legislation which will give relief to the ratepayers vis-á-vis the charges that are inflicted on them.

Consequently, though members of local authorities are cognisant of the position of the ratepayer, they are merely repeating what was expressed in Ministerial pronouncements but which has not been supported by any concrete action, to come to the relief of the ratepayers. Before I conclude, I shall indicate where, far from coming to their relief, the practice has grown of transferring to the backs of the ratepayers charges that, up to recently, were borne by the Exchequer.

There is no indication that the Government are really sincere in their protestations of sympathy for and understanding of the lot of the ratepayer. It is in these circumstances that many councils have had to resist demands made on them with the laudable purpose of maintaining employment because of the slashing of the road grants. It is just too bad if, at this time of year, workmen have to be laid off their work, which is vitally necessary.

We hear much about road safety —all of which is very sensible and all of which is very desirable—but in Cork County Council we had adopted a staged plan in road development and road improvement. We had reached the point that in a major part of the county, we had completed the tarring programme of almost all the roads under the care of the local authority and we were next intent on proceeding with the removal of dangerous junctions and bad bends on county roads with the object of making the roads safer for the road users and giving to the people paying the road tax to an increasing extent some return for their investment in road taxation. That has had to be completely abandoned due to the cut in the road grants.

We cannot now implement a policy that was intended to meet the situation relative to road safety as well as to give very lucrative employment. I may remark, in that respect, that it is extraordinary that the road grants should be cut in a year in which record sums were paid into the Road Fund by way of an increasing usage of motor vehicles on Irish roads. The Irish users are paying in motor and general taxation on petrol the highest motor charges in Europe and they are entitled to a return in the preservation of the condition of the roads and the improvement of them to carry modern traffic. As well as that, whole areas of the country have been relieved of the facility of rail transport and the goods and passengers that were formerly carried on rail have been diverted to the roads. Despite the capital grants that were made—not justly made as between areas but made—there was no continuing grant for the maintenance of roads consequent on the increased traffic they had to bear following the closure of railway lines. All of this had its impact on the position of road upkeep and road maintenance. This was the most reprehensible action of the Government in the past year and it is having a dire effect at present on the employment of road workers throughout rural parts.

There was gross miscalculation of cost of Health Act charges with their impact on rates. Despite the close examination of current estimates, any variation of the vastly increased estimates presented no reduction which could be effected. The increases were created by inflationary tendencies in recent years. Increases in salaries to combat cost of living increases could not be reduced. Neither could the cost of items such as drugs and medicines which had increased in price. We are glad to note that the Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme is growing from strength to strength and that it is now possible to extend the scope of benefits. The scheme is recognised by this Government as a successful innovation by Deputy T.F. O'Higgins when he was Minister for Health. It is an example of what can be done by extending the principle of insurance to many other fields of health activities.

With regard to State assistance to local authorities, a position has arisen in the past few months relative to the overall national scheme for water supplies. A few years ago, a grandiose scheme of providing piped water supplies throughout the country was announced by the then Minister for Local Government. I think Deputy Blaney. Co-operation was readily forthcoming from the local authorities and their staffs in preparing for the implementation of these schemes. Money, time and effort were involved in diverting engineering staff to the preparation of these schemes. Policy was adjusted to co-ordinate plans in line with the national schemes and several hundreds of pump-sinking proposals were deferred.

People requiring new and more satisfactory water supplies believed that the Government's scheme would early be brought to fruition. Recently, the bombshell was dropped, by way of circular from the Minister for Local Government, that, due to financial stringency, the original plans were to be abandoned and savings effected by confining work to the provision of spinal or arterial supplies. This is most unjust on the cottiers whose pump-sinking proposals were abandoned on the assurance of securing a piped supply. It is now advised that group schemes should be availed of to extend water supplies from the main system.

Examination of the comparative expense involved indicates that the overall saving would not warrant the grievous disruption of planning and execution in providing much-needed water supply services. We have had this examination by Cork County Council. We find that all the plans that were ready for implementation pending the availability of State finances which, we were told, were forthcoming have now to be abandoned. We were advised to switch to the alternative of the group supply scheme. Having made an estimate of the cost involved in paying a subsidy on the group scheme, we find there is a saving but that it is not substantial. We are entitled to say that the game is not worth the candle. No doubt, those who looked at it thought a substantial saving could be effected.

We are surprised, in view of the fact that Ministerial statements frequently contend that money is available for schemes such as water supplies, to have the clear indication that the financial position of the country does not permit the scale of operation in the water supply scheme that was first envisaged. Here we have an example of a complete lack of planning over a period on the part of the Government. We have the situation where many groups of cottages were left for the past four or five years without pump-sinking operations because we were led to believe that the piped water supply would cater for these people. It was on that basis that these schemes were abandoned. Now, our engineers have had to revert to the old practice of pump-sinking, realising that they can see no hope of the piped water supply being provided within a reasonable time.

With these remarks, I feel we have plenty of cause to criticise the Government for some of their actions over the past 12 months. I shall conclude by referring to two further matters. The first is that we advised the Minister for Transport and Power to use his good offices with the ESB to encourage them, if needs be, to engage more staff to implement post-development in rural areas.

We find there is an increased recognition that electricity supply services are not adequate to meet today's demands. We have increasing usage of electrical machinery on the farm. There are circumstances in which the current provided at the initiation of the rural electrification scheme is so completely inadequate for the load it is required to supply to maintain the various instruments now operated electrically. Many farmers are frustrated in their efforts to increase production, to provide facilities to carry more cattle, particularly milch cattle, and they are constantly waiting for the ESB to give them the amount of current necessary to operate their equipment satisfactorily.

Therefore, I appeal to the Minister for Transport and Power to influence the ESB to clear the extensive backlog that exists in this sector and so give those people the green light to go ahead with the installation of the additional equipment they require. At present they have to operate at certain hours of the day.

The last matter I wish to refer to is a small one but it is indicative of the way the Government are administering many schemes. We had tributes paid to the Minister for Education by a Senator a few moments ago, but many of his statements are in the nature of very fine promises, very attractive proposals which have not been followed up with the administrative arrangements or the finances necessary to implement them. A statement was made regarding the subsidising of school books. This was welcomed by everybody concerned with the impact nowadays, with increased prices, on parents in the provision of school material for their children.

The fact is that when the scheme was presented to vocational committees there was imposed a very strict limitation on the amount of money allocated to each county. The headmasters of the various vocational schools have been at their wits' end to try to implement a just scheme. The categories were outlined—people who are holders of medical cards, people in circumstances that warranted the issue of free schools books—but the general result is that only one in four of those who qualified under the terms of the circular has enough finances allocated to meet the situation. It is no wonder, therefore, that so many of the vocational committees throughout the country have supported their headmasters in their protests at the inadequacy of the funds available to them in the invidious task imposed on them within the extreme financial limits imposed.

These are some of the points I wished to raise while availing of this occasion to discuss the financial policy. I am sure many other Senators wish to put forward their views on this, the only opportunity we get of discussing the general financial obligations of the State.

The Appropriation Bill annually gives Senators a chance to discuss two main topics. First of all, it gives them a chance to have a general debate on Government policy and as well gives Senators an opportunity, which they do not otherwise get, of dealing with some individual aspects of administration and matters arising out of the Estimates. Because we do not get the Departmental Estimates as they do in the Dáil, this is the only opportunity we get during the year to deal with detailed matters of this kind.

Before I get on to those matters of general policy, which have been mainly discussed today, I should like to say a few words about one aspect of Government administration, that is the very small amount, the too small amount, devoted to what one might describe as cultural activities. We have, or would like to think we have, a traditional interest in learning and the arts. We like to think that Ireland is, as in the past, a land if not of saints at least of scholars, but I am afraid the truth is that we have, at least in recent centuries, a long tradition of skimping.

I was reading recently some of the essays of Thomas Davis which he wrote 130 years ago. He dealt with all the different aspects of the social, economic and cultural life of the country, pointing out the things that were needed and expressing the hope that when Ireland gained her independence everything would be different. One of his complaints was about what he described as the neglect of institutions for the promotion of literature, science and art, and the stingy grants of the Government. I am afraid that if Davis came back to Ireland today he would not find things changed so very much.

There have been some slight signs in the last year or so that matters are improving. In this year's Estimates we had the very welcome news that the Minister for Finance had raised the grants to the Arts Council by 50 per cent. It sounds a fine increase, but 50 per cent of what was originally a small sum is not as good as one might hope for, though raising the sum of £60,000 was not bad even if it does leave the Arts Council with a ludicrously small subsistence by comparison not with Britain but in Northern Ireland and in almost any other country one could name.

We have next door to us the new extension, almost finished, to the National Gallery, another very welcome step. We have a fine new Abbey Theatre, though I wonder if I am being too cynical when I suggest that if the old theatre had not been burned down it is doubtful if we would have a new one. We have activity where formerly there was inactivity and perhaps one may therefore hope that in certain other fields something may be done.

I should like to speak of the National Library. The most obvious point about it is that a new building, or at any rate a very big extension of the existing building, is not merely an urgent matter but has been urgent during the past 20 or perhaps 30 years. Anyone who goes in has only got to step into the hall to see the eight-foot high pile of boxes. The building is fantastically overcrowded, not merely the building itself—the places where the books have to be kept—but the reading room. Anybody who goes there in the afternoon to try to get a table will find it extremely difficult to do so because of overcrowding. It is essential that something practical should be done quickly to deal with this question of lack of space in the National Library.

Of course, it is not merely in this respect that the National Library has been neglected by all Governments for years. The grant for buying books is ridiculously small. For many years the annual grant given to the National Library for buying books and periodicals was £5,000 a year. About five years ago this was increased to the munificent sum of £8,000 a year. About one-third of that sum goes in buying journals which leaves about £5,000 for buying books. When you consider that in Great Britain about 40,000 books are published every year, many of them of very great interest to the National Library, to say nothing of the many thousands more brought out in America, you will see that that sum of money is totally inadequate. You will also see that the National Library cannot purchase any books published on the continent of Europe with the sort of grant which is given to them. They simply cannot keep up with the output of books.

The National Library have a fine collection, not by any means a perfect collection, of books relating to Ireland. Of course they are entitled under the copyright law to a copy of every book relating to Ireland but in regard to the books outside Ireland they are not able year after year, to keep up with those. They are well behind in regard to this. It is also obvious the National Library is grossly understaffed. They have nothing like the number of people which any normal library would require to carry out this business. I do not know how this situation has continued for so many years without any great pressure to do anything about it. I suspect that one thing which is at fault is the system of administration.

So far as I can understand it is nominally in the hands of trustees, of which nine are appointed by the Royal Dublin Society and three by the Department of Education. This is inherited from an earlier period when the origins of the National Library were in the library of the Royal Dublin Society. Those trustees issue an annual report. I have a copy of it here and it is a very small document. It is the same from year to year with the dates changed. Something should be done by the Government to change this system of administration of the National Library so that a new look can be brought about, a completely new approach, so that there is some chance of improving the present situation. The present situation is very bad and has been so for 20 years and to my mind it has been allowed to remain for so long because the trustees, the people responsible, have not been doing their job.

There is another point regarding this—I know one could go on for a very long time dealing with the general neglect of the arts and culture in this country—but there is one basic point I want to raise under this head. It is the perennial one of the concert hall. I would urge the Minister to press ahead with his concert hall as rapidly as possible. I would stress the point that the concert hall is not a luxury. There are some people who seem to think that the concert hall is a sort of unnecessary luxury for the greater edification of the people living in Foxrock. A concert hall, to my mind, is a basic essential. At the present time there is no hall at all in Dublin that is even remotely satisfactory for the hearing of orchestral music. We have a symphony orchestra in Ireland but there is no way of hearing it at all satisfactorily in Dublin. Its public concerts are given in a totally inadequate building. For example, next week there will be a performance of Handel's Messiah in a boxing stadium, which apparently is the only place in Dublin which can provide space for a large enough audience. When you are reduced to having the performance of oratorio in a boxing stadium the need for a concert hall can be regarded as a basic essential. If one goes to the continent of Europe it is not merely that even the smallest countries possess a concert hall but that in any sizeable town you will find that sometimes there is more than one concert hall.

It is a fantastic situation in this country, 40 years after we gained our independence, that we still have not got a hall in Dublin which is even tolerably suitable for the performance of music. I would appeal to the Minister to press ahead as quickly as possible with the building of this hall and not pay attention to the people who say that it is ridiculous to be building a concert hall when there are still houses and swimming pools to be built. Fifty years from now there still will not come a time when there will be so many of those things that no more are needed. It is no use hoping that if you wait five or ten years that there will be enough houses or enough swimming pools and that that will be the time to build a concert hall. I would say that we must, of course, build those houses and those swimming pools, but we should also press ahead with a concert hall. The attitude of the people who say that we should build swimming pools instead of concert halls reminds me of the sort of attitude which was taken many years ago by the Chicago meat packer who proclaimed that a ton of cement in the right place was worth more than all the works of Shakespeare.

There is room for houses, swimming pools and concert halls. Of course, I am looking at this not merely from the musical sense but also, as has been pointed out, that this particular hall, which it is proposed to build, will also have a practical value to it, that is, that it will be used also as an assembly hall. It will not be merely used for the performance of music but it will also be used for the holding of conferences, which is an increasingly valuable part of our general tourist trade.

Now, getting on to the more general questions of Government policy, we have had today a good deal of somewhat unnecessary olagóning from Senators on the Opposition benches. We had Senator O'Quigley and others asking plaintively what went wrong with the economy since the last general election. Of course, this kind of question, to my mind, is, although they may not realise it, highly complimentary to the efficiency of the Fianna Fáil Government. The difficulty is that the experience we have had in the last ten years or so under the Fianna Fáil Government has made the public and Opposition Senators used to the proposition that there will be every year some economic growth.

They have got used to the idea that normally speaking the Irish economy under Fianna Fáil will expand at the rate of perhaps four per cent or so each year so when we fall below this normal Fianna Fáil target Fine Gael Senators stand up and say: "This is, terrible, the country is in a bad state." Looking now at the period since the last General Election, in the last three years the total growth of our economy has been in the region of between seven and eight per cent. That is not up to the normal Fianna Fáil standard but it is a great deal better than the total growth of perhaps one per cent— not one per cent per annum but about one per cent nett—during the whole period of the Coalition Government. In other words even in the past three years when there has been some slowing down in our economy we have been going ahead at perhaps seven or eight times the normal growth rate under the Coalition Government. It is a reflection of the extraordinary change that has come about in recent years in the Irish economy. It is altogether unrealistic to expect that any country will be able to go ahead every year by exactly the same amount with no setbacks ever talking place. It would be totally unrealistic in any country to expect that, particularly so in Ireland which is so much of an open economy, so much inclined to be influenced by what is taking place in countries abroad.

We had in Ireland in the past two or three years a variety of adverse influences from abroad. One of these which has continued to the present day is the extraordinary depression in our main market. Our reliance on exports to Britain has, of course, somewhat decreased in recent years. There was a time when we exported about 85 per cent of all our exports to Britain. That has come down now to somewhat around 70 per cent. However we still rely very heavily on the British Market for our exports and therefore for our whole economic development. For the past four years or so there has been a constant depression on the British Market which has of course meant that they are not able to expand their imports of our produce as they would have been if they were engaged in a period of economic growth. This has had a depressing effect all along the line on our exports and continues to the present day.

Apart from that we had the situation in England immediately after the last British General Election where the Labour Government imposed a 15 per cent import surcharge which meant straightaway that all our industrial exports to Britain had to go through this 15 per cent barrier which was later reduced to ten per cent. That, of course, had a very serious effect on our exports and no Government, neither Fianna Fáil nor any other Government could possibly have either foreseen that or if they had foreseen it done anything to prevent it. It was a matter entirely outside our control.

Then we had the serious slump in cattle prices last year. I do not think anybody even in Fine Gael has ever seriously suggested that we in this country could control the prices for our exports of meat or livestock. The price in export markets is a matter quite outside our control. There was a very serious slump in prices largely as a result of the EEC ban on meat exports. We had also for a period the difficulty caused by restrictions by various countries particularly the US. on exports of cattle. These were all external factors outside our control which inevitably affected our economic growth by affecting our exports. We have had in the past couple of years, that is in 1965 and particularly in 1966, a slowing down in our economic growth as a result of these factors. We had a period of credit restriction in order to deal with our increasing adverse balance of payments but as I have mentioned even over this period our rate of growth by previous standards, before the Fianna Fáil expansion programmes got under way, even in those years our rate of progress would in previous years have been looked at as fairly satisfactory, as being well above the average for many years earlier. However, as a result of the steps taken by the Government this year progress has not merely begun again but all the signs are that our growth this year will be in the region of four per cent or perhaps even little more, well up to the target set in the Second Programme which we have been told so often has collapsed.

One of the most remarkable aspects of the recovery which we have made this year is that it has taken place at a time when the whole of Europe and even countries outside Europe are suffering from what can only be described as a fairly severe depression Owing to the fact that we are such an open economy, we have to rely completely on a growth in exports in order to develop our economy because the home market is so small and limited. Because of these factors we are normally speaking very much influenced by external factors. If other countries are depressed, normally speaking we would expect to be depressed also. The most remarkable aspect of our progress this year has been that it has taken place in the face of this depression in the economies of pretty well every other country. Our growth of four per cent this year in national income compares with an expected growth this year in OECD countries in Europe as a whole of only two per cent. Germany, for example, expects a growth in national income this year of ½ per cent. France is doing rather better but not quite as well as us, they expect 3½ per cent. The UK as usual staggered along with an expected rise of one per cent in national income and other OECD countries by about three per cent. However, OECD in Europe as a whole only expects a growth rate of two per cent this year whereas we expects one of at least four per cent. This is a remarkable state of affairs for us in view of the fact that our main market in Britain is one of the most depressed in Europe. Our exports this year have shown a quite extraordinary rise so far of about 20 per cent in the 12 months up to the end of October last. Our exports are up by about £45 million. That is an immense increase over a short period and it comes at a time when all over Europe the growth of exports has been very small. Here again OECD exports as a whole will be up by about eight per cent this year, a very much smaller figure than ours. We have France at 6½ per cent, Germany 10½ per cent, Italy eight per cent, UK seven per cent, all this far below our rate of increase in exports. If you look at the list of countries in Europe in the OECD statement, we, in fact, for once in a way, are heading the list and not lagging behind as we used in the past.

Debate adjourned.
The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 14th December, 1967.
Barr
Roinn