I thought I saw a glint in the Minister's eye, and I thought he wanted to jump in. I am considering the present and the future of this industry irrespective of what might be said from any side of the House with regard to the past. I suggest that the products of the turf industry can be popularised, that more efficient and cheaper methods of production, especially in the matter of transport can, and should be, devised. It is one of our biggest natural resources and turf should be produced in such a way that many more people would be willing and glad to use it as fuel.
With so many farmer Deputies in the House, I do not propose to speak at length or in detail, because of my inability to do so, on the most important industry, as we all agree the agricultural industry is, in this country. There are, however, many facts of which we should remind ourselves. In the first place, the industry provides work for about 500,000 of our people.
There is also the fact that 55 per cent. of our exports come from the agricultural industry and that we are absolutely dependent on it. These are facts which have been stated here from day to day and week to week. Farmer Deputies, and even sometimes city Deputies here, deplore the fact that there has been no appreciable increasein the volume of output. Somebody interjected here some little time ago that there had been a 3 per cent. increase from 1951 to 1952, but appeals for greater production are becoming rather monotonous in this House. We have had appeals from both sides. It is not a subject into which I, or may I say other members of the Labour Party, wish to delve or intrude from time to time, but ever since I became a Deputy I have heard appeals for an increase in the volume of output. There does not seem to be any appreciable advance with regard to an increase in that respect. We seem to be content with what we have. We seem to be content with the fact that there is a market abroad for certain of our agricultural produce, especially the meat products and the dairy produce, but we have also got to ask ourselves will this demand remain as high as it is.
It has been a very favourable time since the beginning of the war for this country as far as the export of agricultural produce is concerned. That I take it is due to the fact that England and a big portion of Europe was ravaged by war and set back to a large extent but those countries, especially the ones in Europe that have a good knowledge of agriculture, are up and doing. They are doing what the Irish farmers or the agricultural industry should be doing at the present time. They are finding out day by day, week by week, year by year, more efficient methods to enable them to compete with other countries in the export market.
We will have to do the same, to find more efficient methods and to put the Irish agricultural industry in such a way that it can compete, or should I say that it can beat other countries, when it comes to the export of agricultural produce. Most of our agricultural produce goes to Great Britain, and to some extent Britain is not very particular from whom she is going to get it as long as the price to her is acceptable. If we do not devise more effective methods and increase the volume of output and to an extent, too, have keener prices not alone to compete in the export marketbut to keep the price of those commodities at a reasonable level to our own people at least, the agricultural industry in this country will find itself out on a limb.
I can only suggest what has been suggested by members from various Parties in this House, inadequate capitalisation of agriculture. The restoration of credit has been a matter of controversy, as has been the land reclamation project. These things should be intensified. All of us are agreed that the land should be reclaimed and all of us bemoan the fact when we go through the country that there is so much land that is non-productive. If this Government can make greater strides than have been made in the past then it will have my support and the support of the Labour Party. It is not for me to quote Denmark or Holland or any of those near European countries in the matter of reclamation of land or the putting into production of waste land, but if we in this country can imitate their example in this land reclamation scheme, then I think we will be doing good. But again might I remind the Minister for Agriculture that he would have a much easier task if he linked up the land reclamation scheme to the local authorities—if the county councils in this country were given permission, and of course, the most important thing, given the money, to engage in the type of work that they were engaged in over the last three or four years under the Local Authorities (Works) Schemes. What makes people think in this country when they have regard to the numbers of unemployed here is that there is so much work to be done in the country. There are many schemes that could be undertaken—so many schools to be built, so many hospitals to be built and, as I have said before, so many houses to be built, so many harbours which need attention. We have the money, or at least we have the men and we have so much work to be done but we seem to be held up for some reason or another. The ordinary people's guess is that it is money.
According to the speeches we have heard, the speech we heard here to-dayfrom the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, we can only assume that as far as the Government is concerned it must be money that is holding up these schemes. There has been a suggestion in the last few weeks that the Government, finding that its ordinary policy has not shown any results with regard to the decrease in unemployment, are considering, or at least have plans made, to put into operation many schemes which have been laying in the files or on the stocks of the different local authorities throughout the country. Whether there is any truth in that suggestion or not, I do not know, but whilst we all agree that those schemes which are lying with the local authorities would be only temporary schemes and would only give men employment for a limited period something in the nature of public works schemes must be engaged in at the present time so as to come to the rescue of the 54,000 or 58,000 who now find themselves unemployed.
The Government have a responsibility for the unemployed in this country. There is no doubt in the world about it that the fundamental right of a worker in any democratic country to-day is that he should be provided with work. As I have said, there is so much work to be done in this country that the tens of thousands now unemployed cannot understand why they are not allowed to go ahead with that work.
Apart from the Government's responsibility for the unemployed in this country I also suggest that local authorities, not to the same extent as the Government, have their responsibility as well. It is true to say this, that theirs is not an absoulte responsibility, but as long as a local authority has the responsibility of providing houses, as long as a local authority has the responsibility of providing water and sewerage schemes and roads, as long as it has the responsibility of providing different amenities for the people of a county or for its particular functional area, it in turn, I suggest, has a responsibility to those people who are unemployed in those counties and who are willing and able to go to work on those particular amenity schemes.
I would not dare to jump in between Deputy McGilligan and Deputy MacBride in their detailed discussions on finance and credit restriction, but it does seem peculiar that we boast so much about the rich natural resources that we have in this country in the land, in the water, in the potential of the country for afforestation. We proclaim to the world that we are one of the richest countries in the world with regard to natural resources, but still we find ourselves with 12 per cent. of the working population of this country unemployed. I am not for borrowing for what the Taoiseach described as the day-to-day expenditure, but I would be for borrowing for building the country, for doing capital work, and I would say that no country could have greater security in borrowing than the richness of our natural resources. There is a difference of opinion, and there would be a difference of opinion, I agree, with regard to rates of interest. Five per cent. is exorbitant, and the lead given by the Government in paying 5 per cent. for money borrowed is merely an incentive to other people, to the banks, to increase their rate of interest on loans as well, thus sending, apart from the cost of living, up the price of money, an all-important factor in the building or the general running of this country. If the Government can induce people who have money in this country to invest it here, that is a good thing; but surely it is "a sitting bird" for those who have money lying unused or lying in the bank at 1½ per cent. to put it to work here at 5 per cent.? It is "money from America" to give people who have such unused money 5 per cent. to do the work of building up the country.
The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs spoke of the airy fairy talk that has gone on about the repatriation of external assets. Many speakers on the Government side from time to time have asked how one repatriates external assets, how one brings back so many millions from Britain to put them to work here. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs told us to-day how it was done last year and the year before, but he hung his criticism ofOpposition speakers on the fact that in their speeches during the last two by-elections they did not say how much money should be repatriated. He himself said that the amount would be the amount that was required over and above what the Government could ordinarily get for capital development. Surely that would be the reply of any political Party? It seems peculiar that the people have not got any reasonable explanation of the fact that the Central Bank has £71,000,000 invested now in Britain and that Government Departments have £41,000,000 in the same way. People cannot understand why £110,000,000 of Irish money is working in England at between 1 and 2 per cent. when it could be working here to do work urgently needed since the British Government went out. They regard this with a special sense of frustration when they know there are so many tens of thousands of unemployed—who are unemployed, to all appearances, merely through the lack of money.
Also, we should not discount the effect of Partition on the economy of the country. It has been stated quite often that we in the South are mainly in the agricultural end of the country and that the six partitioned counties in the North comprise the industrial area. It always has been difficult for us to have a balanced economy, because that industrial arm of the country is cut off.
We all agree about Partition, that something should be done about it. There has been general agreement amongst Ministers for External Affairs in the different Governments for many years past that the general policy they have pursued has the approval of the House, but we have not got any place. I am not suggesting that we could get any place in a short time, but we should always, when we have any shortcomings, remember that since the country was partitioned we have been labouring under enormous difficulties. If that can be brought home to the friendly nations of the world and if the other facts involved in Partition can be coupled with the fact that our industrial area is cut off from us, we might have even a little stronger casethan we have at the present time. If we are to show any progress, if we are to get away from relief schemes, if we are to get away from the position that over the past 31 years we have had unemployment reaching 60,000 to-day and 70,000 to-morrow, with no substantial decrease in the number, we must make a determined effort— all Parties in the House, with the Government of the day as the spearhead— to try to see that the question of Partition will be resolved once and for all.
There is only one plea I would like to make to the Government, through the Minister. It is a plea for those at present in receipt of social welfare benefits. Apropos some remarks made to-day, I might say that while the Labour Party has always been in favour of social welfare schemes, the Labour Party has never regarded these schemes as a substitute for employment. We want to see these schemes there to provide for those who, through no fault of their own, cannot provide for themselves.
In present circumstances, old age pensioners, widows and orphans, recipients of national health insurance, unemployment assistance and unemployment insurance, are surely due for some increase. Some other day we will debate the proposed increases to district justices, High Court judges and Circuit Court judges. The House has agreed to increases for civil servants, on the plea that the cost of living has gone up over the last two years. Why we tolerate, as a parliament in a democratic country, the granting of only 21/6 a week to an old age pensioner I cannot imagine. Similarly, we have the widow getting £1 a week as a non-contributory pension, or a person getting 24/- a week from national health insurance, and a person who finds himself unemployed, in receipt of 38/- a week. If the House by a majority agrees that district justices should receive an increase of £8 per week and that other judges should receive somewhat similar amounts, surely in all justice the House could see its way to give an increase on the 21/6 for the old age pensionerand on the 38/- for the unemployed person?
I do not want to bring any discordant note into this discussion, but those people whom I have mentioned and who are in receipt of assistance from the State feel very galled when they see a majority of the House approve of the expenditure of £250,000 on the purchase of a racehorse and when they see substantial increases given to judges and so on, having regard to their own position, with the cost of living as it is at present. Surely it is not unreasonable for them to expect that this House would in turn grant some sort of increase to them to provide for the increases in the cost of living?
