Just a little tax!—that means nothing to the Deputy! Whether the farmer sells his produce at an economic or an uneconomic price is the same thing to the Deputy and when, as a consequence of it, the agricultural labourers' wages go down, he can issue a very friendly warning to the Minister. The contention of the Government was that the economic system which existed in this country before they took office was unsound. What are we living on now? They say that policy was unsound, but we are able to carry on, even to the length we have carried on, as a result of the accumulated savings due to that policy and to nothing else—the accumulated savings of that policy that has been condemned, root and branch, and that an effort was made to uproot completely. If we are able to go on with the economic war, even to the length we have been, it is due to the fact that that policy was fundamentally and basically suited to this country. It is due to the fact that under that policy there were accumulations of wealth, invested both in this country and in Great Britain, which are now being drawn upon to help the Government to eke out an existence and to continue the economic war.
The cattle industry has been described by one Minister after another, in various speeches through the country, as uneconomic. It was nothing of the kind until the Government policy made it uneconomic; until the Government determined to make other rather fantastic schemes economic by heavily subsidising them. But, supposing for a moment, merely for the sake of argument, there was something in that contention that the cattle industry was uneconomic, does anybody think that in order to put it on a sound basis it would require anything like the help or the funds which have been poured out by the Government on the other fantastic schemes, from turf to tobacco? Nobody in his senses surely can consider that these other schemes are alternatives to the cattle industry.
I gather from Deputy MacDermot here to-day that he was convinced that the Government had changed their views on the cattle industry. I have tried in vain to find out what are their views on the cattle industry. We have tried again and again to elicit any definite line from the Government as to what their policy was. For six months it is one thing and for the other six months it is another thing. A person would imagine, from the concluding of the coal-cattle pact, that they were beginning to open their eyes to the unwisdom of their economic policy, but then we see the bounty for calf skins still apparently the policy of the Government. We see the Government bidding high prices for bulls and live stock, for what? In order, apparently, to enable the Government to spend their bounty upon calf skins. How else can they spend it?
I have dealt, both to-day and yesterday, with the position that the Government, either wilfully or otherwise, set themselves out to arrive at, and that is the destruction of a certain type of economy in this country. Whether that meant the destruction of a class apparently did not matter. It is sometimes extremely difficult not to believe that in aiming at the destruction of the established agricultural economy in this country the Government were not also aiming at the destruction of the particular class who were responsible for the carrying on of that particular economy. Certainly, if they wanted to destroy that class they could not have acted in a more efficient manner than they have done. Now, when they see the people at last awakening to some consciousness of the injuries inflicted on the country, we have an effort on their part, I will not say to go back, they never do things, as I said, wholly or fully but half, to draw back and we had the coal-cattle pact. Whether or not, as I say, they set out to destroy the class of independent farmer, and by that I simply mean the man who can exist without Government subsidy of one kind or another, who can exist on the produce of his farm and of his work, certainly their policy had the effect of largely wiping that class out of existence.
I find it hard to believe that something of that kind was not in their minds when we see the particular way and the particular manner in which they are pushing the division of lands. We had the case in County Wexford. That was not a case of the division of ranches. It was a case in which nine farmers were given notice that their land would be acquired by the Land Commission and the biggest of these farms was 90 statute acres. In a county well known for its tillage, the owner of that particular farm tills more than the average. He employed five men and two women permanently— and that is the farm the Government proposed to take over! What conclusion can anybody draw from that, except that it is the settled policy of the Government to do away with any farmer who gives employment? There were nine farms altogether, and the biggest was 90 statute acres. Seven of them, I am told, were in a good condition, even for County Wexford, from the tillage point of view, and the smallest was 15 acres.
I had occasion a couple of years ago to call attention to what I thought were the unwise, thoughtless speeches of some members of the opposite Party that seemed to be cutting at the root of a certain kind of proprietorship in this country; that seemed to regard the employment of workers almost as a crime; that in this House denounced large employers as if they were people who did not give employment but were grinding the faces of the labourer and the poor. A lot of that kind of talk is finished, but some 12 months ago I heard it on reliable authority, although the speeches were no longer of the same fiery character, that action was going to be taken in connection with farms of this kind. The speeches are more moderate but the conduct is less moderate. When I mentioned this Wexford business, it was not so much for what it is in itself as for what it portends for this country and for the evidence that it offers to us of what must be the considered policy of this particular Government; and I think that it is well that the farming community of the country should realise that, just as well as they have been made to realise what are the consequences of other aspects of the Government's so-called agricultural policy.
It is not alone that particular class of the community that suffers. In a modernly organised community, if you hit at one class—especially at a class so basic as the agricultural community of this country—you must hit at all classes, such as the ordinary workers in the country towns. It is folly to think that you will not hit them. It is folly to think that you could hit one class and at the same time benefit another class. Possibly you can do it for a year or two, but not for very long. As a result of this policy of the Government, the people in the country towns are being damaged, and they are also being damaged by the development of modern means of transport, such as buses. That being the case, surely it should be the policy of the Government to see that their measures did not further damage the situation of these people; but yet we have various proposals that only have the still further effect of damaging the country towns, such as the proposal to do away with pig markets.
Barring the appeal to the national instinct and the exploitation and abuse of it by members of the Government, the great plank of their policy was to provide employment. Deputy Mulcahy to-day gave figures which throw a considerable light, after three and a half years, on that aspect of the Government's policy. Out of the famous 85,000 additional that were to be put into immediate employment, according to the promises of the Government, how many do they claim to have put into employment? I am not asking how many they have put into employment. I am merely asking what is their claim, and does the country think that that is a sufficient return for the increased expenditure to which the Ministry stands committed to-day? They give money in relief. What does most of the boasted expenditure of the Government amount to, except in relief in one or another form? Has there been any really effective attempt to deal permanently with this problem of production and employment? Why, the very boasts of the Minister yesterday are an argument to the contrary; and Deputy Mulcahy, in striking language, drew attention to that. The Labour Deputy, who was present, apparently even did not know what he was talking about. If you take away the numbers engaged in the housing industry—a very necessary undertaking, as I say, but certainly not economically productive in the ordinary sense—what inroad have you made in that 85,000? No wonder the people are flying the country! It is a sad commentary on the whole policy of Fianna Fáil.
Deputy Davin had a mild word or two to say in reference to labour conditions in the new industries that have been set up. He had to call attention to that matter, and he did call attention to it, despite the efforts of the Minister to prevent him doing so. He called attention to the increased cost of living involved in the policy of the Government; but when speaker after speaker stood up from these benches here and pointed out that the policy of the Government meant increased prices, did we get any support at the time from Deputy Davin or his colleagues? Did they not blindly accept the word of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to the effect that the higher was the tariff the lower was the price? Now, the Labour Party, because they do apparently come in touch with labourers occasionally, acknowledge that one of the deplorable results, or at least one of the regrettable results, of the Ministerial policy is the increase in the cost of living; and I have no doubt that a friendly, a very friendly, warning will go forth from that Party to the Government.
Whether the policy of the Minister for Industry and Commerce is a good or a bad policy, or whether he has not run a sound idea to death, may be debatable, but at least the Minister can claim that his policy is not getting a chance: that whether his policy of going all out for industries in this country, and putting up every kind of industry in this country, is sound or not, it cannot be tested as a result of the wretched policy of the Government with regard to agricultural matters. How can any Minister who believes in his policy, when he is faced, perhaps in a couple of years, with the failure of these industries, believe that his policy is unsound, when he knows that one of the causes of the failure of these industries is the decreased purchasing power of the community?
Our attitude on a settlement has been clear all along. Whenever there was any question of the Government negotiating with the British Government in this matter we tried to help them all we could. Again and again we have stated that this country is not able to pay the sums of money it was able to pay some years ago. Again and again we stated that, just as there had been readjustments of the financial relations between other countries, so there must be a readjustment of the financial settlement between this country and Great Britain. We gave every help. Even the President himself acknowledged that the speech of the Leader of our Party, on one of the historic occasions on which he tried to settle this matter, was helpful. Of course it was helpful. It was helpful because it was meant to be so. The Minister stands up and glibly says—I wonder whether it is worth while paying attention to some of his statements—that the Opposition do not want a settlement. He says, in effect, that if there were a settlement it would mean the end of our Party. Well, then, let him make the settlement and put an end to our Party, if he thinks that that would be the effect of such a settlement. Let him make the settlement. But no, he will not make it. He will not be let make it. I say that there is every evidence, from the conduct of certain Ministers, that they would make a settlement if they were let, but they will not be let make a settlement. The policy is that industry and agriculture and finance can go to ruin, but that the one thing that must go on is the war.
We were told last night by the Minister for Finance that the Government are anxious to settle this question, that every member of the Government is anxious to settle it. What we should like is not a statement of that kind from the Minister, but some tangible evidence of an effort to honour that particular statement, and some real approach to a settlement by the Government. We want now what we have always wanted from the Government, not words, but deeds. We all know perfectly well that on one occasion when there were great hopes of a settlement of this dispute, when the President himself and others undertook it, when there was hope that after the previous failure the two parties might be nearer to each other than they were before, we found that they were much further apart as a result of new claims put in by the President. Yet, we are told that the man who is capable of conducting negotiations in that way—the Minister, when speaking last night, was speaking for every member of the Government and, therefore, I presume, for the President—and the Government are still anxious for a settlement. All that I can say is that if that Party and that Government are anxious for a settlement, then there is not the slightest doubt that they are as inefficient in diplomacy as they are in everything else.
I referred last night to the fact that there was only one really thriving industry in the country, namely, the Civil Service. I do not wish to say a word against the hard work performed by civil servants. Members of the Opposition who have had experience of Government know the very hard work they do, but the Civil Service, I say, is the principal industry that the Government has promoted. The reason is that they have advanced step by step since 1932 in the direction of more and more State control. They blindly in that year plunged into certain lines of policy that led them very much further than they ever contemplated. Not a day passes in which we do not see greater evidence of State control, not in furtherance of any thought-out plan, but as a result of the hand-to-mouth policy pursued by the Government. We have more and more State control for business men and farmers, and by reason of the number of documents they are obliged to fill up an effort is being made to turn them, practically speaking, into civil servants.
I have still to learn, and I would be surprised to learn it from the Labour Party or from the Government Party which used to be so eloquent on it, that relief works are any real contribution to the solution of the problem of unemployment. All that the Minister had to boast of yesterday was more relief works of one kind or another.