When I moved to report progress, I said that while the Minister had made a long statement, he had not made a statement which imbued anybody with any enthusiasm, nor did he give the impression in any sense that there was in operation in his Department any vigorous drive or any great or high-level ambition for the purpose of energising many fields of potential activity which would provide possible sources of employment for our people. The Minister ran along for 1¾ hours in a rather pedestrian kind of statement, such as could be read at the meeting of any non-essential body throughout the country.
Nothing in what the Minister said gave the slightest indication that the White Paper, Economic Expansion, was seriously in the forefront when that statement of his was prepared. Nor was there any effort by the Minister in his statement to repair the serious omission by the Minister for Finance in the course of his Budget statement when he too read a long statement but failed to give the House and the country the slightest indication as to what the impact of the Budget would be on our economic development and expansion.
Here we have the two chief Ministers in the Government. The Minister for Finance says nothing whatever as to what the effect of the Budget statement will be on national productivity, economic progress and our national well-being generally. He is followed later by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who reads a long statement, which could be prepared by a perusal of the various files, saying: "Such-and-such a thing has happened since last year; we shall do such-and-such a thing this year; we are examining this, that and the other thing and we hope to come before the House at a later date with some legislation."
All that has a queer ring and flavour compared with what the people were told in the month of February, 1957. They were told then that the only thing necessary was to get the inter-Party Government out of office, that immediately the country would hum with activity and that women would witness the glorious spectacle of their husbands going back to work. The gentlemen down in Cork issued on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party a leaflet saying that the moment the inter-Party Government went out of office, Fianna Fáil would put into operation a plan for putting 100,000 people into new jobs in the next four years. Two years have gone by and the Minister for Finance has not told us where the 50,000 new jobs which should have been available by now, in accordance with the Cork promise, are to be found.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce made no reference whatever to the effect of anything he said today on the prospects of greater employment in the country. In between the two statements made by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce comes the little grey book, issued with the Taoiseach's benediction by the Statistics Office, which tells us that there are fewer people in employment today than there were in 1957, 1956 or 1955, that less and less employment is being provided on the land and that opportunities in industry or elsewhere for new employment are not sufficient to take up the serious sag in employment on the land.
When one considers the Minister's statement against the background of the promises made in February, 1957, that the entry of the Fianna Fáil Government into office would immediately transform the economic face of the country and provide abundant employment for unemployed people, one can see no evidence in the statement of any serious effort to redeem the promises then made.
The two main promises then made were that Fianna Fáil would find 100,000 new jobs in four years. Deputies will remember the famous posters indicating that when Fianna Fáil got into office, they would "get cracking". It now looks as if they have "got creaking" because there is no evidence of the 100,000 new jobs. On the contrary, there are fewer people in employment today than there were when the promise was made that they would "get cracking". It is now only a memory, if it is not, as it was intended to be, an illusion.
There were two bright spots in the Minister's speech. One was that the Whitegate Refinery will be on stream, to use the vernacular of the petrol world, in a month or two and that then we shall have in this country, for the first time in history, an oil refinery, into which went an investment of approximately £12,000,000 of foreign capital. When the agreement was negotiated with the three groups which established the refinery, during my time in the Department of Industry and Commerce, I was badgered by questions in this House as to what agreement was made with them, what were they promised, what concessions were to be given to them, were we not selling out, as if the whole world were bursting to locate an oil refinery in Ireland. In spite of all those embarrassing questions and in spite of many of these foolish and irresponsible statements, we completed the agreement with the Whitegate oil people and the oil refinery is in operation to-day, notwithstanding the fact that it was the aim and object of the Fianna Fáil Party at the time to play down that achievement. They have lived now to find an honoured place for that achievement in the Minister's Estimate speech and it is one bright spot on an otherwise pretty bleak horizon.
The next bright spot is the Avoca Copper Mines. When I came into office in the Department of Industry and Commerce, there were about 60 people employed in the Avoca Copper Mines. Forty of them were to be sacked and the other 20 were to be kept on as caretakers to prevent the mines flooding. The 40 were never sacked and the other 20 were never employed as caretakers. We kept them going at production work and, finally, after long negotiations with mining groups in different parts of the world, we were able to conclude an agreement with the group which is now operating the Avoca copper deposits.
The copper deposits have been exploited; the mineralised area has been explored as never before; a formal opening of the new company has been made; a first class location plant is installed there. There are more people employed at Avoca today and at better rates of wages than ever before and Avoca becomes another bright spot in the Minister's speech today. These are the two bright spots in the Minister's statement and the fact that they are there is due to the negotiations, the ingenuity and the progressive outlook which characterised the inter-Party Government in these fields of endeavour.
So far as many of the other matters mentioned by the Minister are concerned, I do not think they are even worthy of comment, except to say that they have been noted, because they indicate no progress of a kind which would justify comment, certainly no progress of a kind which would justify commendation.
I notice the Minister said that, under the Industrial Grants Act— another progressive Act which was introduced by the inter-Party Government—grants have been made for 17 new projects. The Minister has now indicated that certain amendments, the nature of which he did not disclose, are to be made to that Act in respect of the administration of the Act. I hope that, in the interest of fair play, the Industrial Grants Act will not be repealed or so emasculated as to be useless in the areas in which it was intended to operate. At present, very substantial grants are given in respect of industries located in undeveloped areas. The State makes a grant of the entire cost of the factory and 50 per cent. of the cost of machinery and a further grant in respect of the training of labour.
In the rest of the country, outside the undeveloped areas, no grant whatever was payable from State sources for the establishment of an industry. As many Deputies who represent areas which are not undeveloped areas know, there are many small towns throughout the country in which there is no industry whatever and which are as denuded of industry today as they were 40 years ago and which are not likely to get an industry, unless there is some means whereby potential industrialists can be assisted to establish industries in them. In some of the undeveloped areas, because of the operation of the Undeveloped Areas Act, a number of industries have sprung up and in the urban areas, in the so-called undeveloped areas, there are now more industries and more people in industrial employment than there are in many towns of equal size situated in areas which do not come within the scope of the Undeveloped Areas Act.
The previous Government felt that steps should be taken to provide some measure of assistance for those small towns and rural areas in the south, the east and the middle of the country for which no grants were available for the establishment of industries. We put through the House the Industrial Grants Act, the purpose of which was to make grants available to the extent of two-thirds of the cost of a new factory, subject to a maximum of £50,000, provided the factory was established for the production of goods which were imported and would give substantial employment. The passing of that Act did something, and can do something more, to redress the balance between the generosity extended to the undeveloped areas and the complete absence of any grants in the eastern, southern and central parts of the country and I hope that the Act will be maintained so that many small towns in the east, the south and the centre of the country, which are not within the under-developed areas, may be able to get, under that Act, a reasonable grant where the industry to be established fulfils the purpose for which the Act was designed. I hope there will be no effort to strangle the Act because, of course, I know it was not loved by the Fianna Fáil Party when it was introduced in the House.
The Minister made reference to the E.S.B. and its generating capacity. Apparently, reality has been reached in this connection. I remember here in this House having long acrimonious discussions when we discovered something which apparently was not intended to be conveyed to us as a Government that the E.S.B. had more plant than they could use and that, in fact, it was proceeding to construct more plant than it wanted and that between 1954 and 1957 they had plant which, without any addition whatsoever, was sufficient for its needs up to 1961, 1962 and 1963. Still the Board were going along merrily installing plant which they could not use. When that was examined, it was discovered that the Board had based their policy on an estimate by the direction of the previous Minister for Industry and Commerce that it should construct its plant on the assumption that the demand for electricity would double, I think, every 5½ or 6 years.
Of course, in the light of the facts, that was a fantastic estimate. The demand for current never doubled at anything like the rate of every 5½ or 6 years. At no time between 1954 and 1957 did it look as if it would ever double in anything less than from 11 to 12 years. But the Board were allowed to create new plant which they did not want on the mistaken basis that the demand for electricity would double itself every 5½ or 6 years. That estimate that it would double itself in that short period was higher than the increased consumption of electricity in any country in Europe.
I defended then the fact that the E.S.B. were directed to cut down on the installation of plant which they did not want and which they could not use and that they could erect the plant whenever they saw the need for new plant arising. The result was that we delayed the installation of certain plants because they were not required by the E.S.B. We said that all these optimistic estimates in regard to the demand for current doubling itself every 5½ or 6 years were completely unrealisable.
The Minister now tells us apparently that for the past year the increase in the demand for electricity was at the rate of 7 per cent. It would be nearly 14 years before the demand for electricity could double itself at that rate. This has been evident and has been evident every year since we told the E.S.B. to delay the installation of their plant, even though at that time the Fianna Fáil Party denied that the E.S.B. was over-planted and wanted to contend that there was justification for basing a development programme on doubling figures which were never realised and could not be realised in this country any more than they were realised in any other country in Europe.
I remember, too, the time when the invitation to people in other countries to invest their money or to bring in technical know-how was not as popular as it appears to be nowadays. The Minister is now glad to welcome foreign industrialists here with technical know-how and with financial support to back that technical know-how. I think that is good. It is an intelligent appreciation of what we need here. There was a time when that was rank heresy, if it was not, indeed, treachery.
In the world in which we live, we have begun to wake up and see that other people not less nationalistic or less patriotic than we are find it necessary, where they have not got the technical know-how, themselves, to seek that technical know-how, whatever it is, and to use, explore and exploit it for the benefit of their own country without any loss to their patriotism or to their high conception of nationality.
The Minister made no reference in the course of his speech to the finances of Aer Línte, though he did give us some glimpse as to the finances of Aer Lingus. We might have been told at this stage of the financial situation of Aer Línte. I want to say at the outset that if Aer Línte is to stay in the skies, I believe it has got to get into the business of the jet aircraft. I say that because of the fact that we are in 1959 without any adequate appreciation of the extent to which air travel will be used in the years that we cannot see and that, therefore, if we are to stay in that business, it is essential that we should employ the most modern aircraft in order to get and maintain good customers. Good customers will not chance Atlantic flights on craft which they regard as less than the most modern. That can be a sobering thought when you reflect on the finances of aeronautics. I hope that, whenever the story of Aer Línte is told, it will be in sober language and that we will not be given the impression that this is a new wonder which is being established by the Fianna Fáil Party.
I looked recently at the accounts of Scandinavian Air Services which is an air company catering for the three Scandinavian countries. It carried last year 1½ million passengers, much more than any of our craft are capable of carrying. The income from its activities last year was £38 million. It never made a penny on last year's activities, so that, in the air, apparently, you can have an income of £38 million in an aircraft company and still not make one penny. The fact that the company has an income of £38 million from 1½ million passengers shows it has a pretty good long haul of money on its passengers. I think the Minister might have told us something more about Aer Línte. I do not think we will get anywhere by not recognising what exactly we are up against in the air. The competition not only by advertisements but by other companies in other countries is such that it will make it a difficult job for us to stay in the air. We may have to face up to the fact that to stay in the air in the light of possible developments in the air across the Atlantic will be an exercise which will in the long run cost us a fairly substantial amount of money.
I think that probably the most sobering feature of the Minister's speech—it is one for which I do not hold him responsible—was his reference to the discussions which are taking place in Scandinavia as to the possibility of setting up another trading group consisting of Scandinavia, Britain, Austria, Switzerland and Portugal. It is quite clear that this is a counterblast to the establishment of the Common Market in Europe. Apparently those responsible for the Scandinavian proposal believe they can in some way offset their losses due to the establishment of the Common Market by the establishment of a trading concern such as they have in mind.
I think this Scandinavian proposal, apart from not having any ingredients likely to be beneficial, has many ingredients that are dangerous from our point of view, I do not know yet if it has been definitely agreed that agriculture is to be excluded from the Scandinavian proposal but it will be ruinous from our point of view if the parties to the Scandinavian convention come together and make an agreement to dismantle tariff barriers and if that agreement covers not merely industrial development but agricultural development as well. If that should happen, according to what the Minister said, the Scandinavian group want to complete the dismantling of tariff-barriers in a shorter period than did O.E.E.C. They want all tariffs eliminated within five years. In other cases they want tariffs removed immediately. Even if Britain were to associate herself with a Scandinavian agreement of that type and applicable to industrial development only, the position would be bad enough from our point of view, but if, in order that British industrial goods could get into the Scandinavian countries, Britain were to "let up" in any way on the protection which she now affords to her agriculture and in which we share very substantially, the consequences for us could be nothing short of catastrophic in a few years' time.
Personally, I can see how the establishment of the Scandinavian group will possibly hasten the day of unity in the matter of the establishment of a wider Free Trade Area in Europe. Very often when organisations of this kind are created many faces have to be smudged in the course of unscrambling the egg, and, as we know from history, faces have become the most delicate piece of mechanism imaginable when somebody's feelings have to be hurt. If the Scandinavian proposals reach the stage when they come to fruition and take definite shape, I feel I can say I dislike the ingredients within that group; I certainly dislike the British association with it because of our interest in the British market and because of the long-standing and mutually satisfactory arrangements which we have with Britain and conversely, which Britain has with us.
The Minister said—and rightly, I think—that the proposal is one which is of concern to us. He added that in his view—and I think the view is shared by the British Minister with whom he had a discussion within the past 48 hours—that the world is moving towards great commercial blocs now as it has moved towards Great Power blocs. We are living in that kind of world and if we have to make our way in it, merely to declaim that this is mother Ireland, it will not count for very much in the fierce competition in all classes of exports. We must make up our minds whether the possible emergence of this second bloc from Scandinavia will inevitably hasten the day when we have to ascertain where we think we can do best from the commercial point of view and into which group we think we can best fit.
It is quite obvious that we cannot hope to get into the European Common Market at present; it is quite obvious also that we cannot join the Scandinavian group because that group will allow only people to participate who can accept all the obligations of membership without qualifications. According to what we have heard from the Minister that means the immediate abolition of some tariffs and the abolition of other tariffs more speedily than originally contemplated by O.E.E.C. and complete eradication of tariffs within the group after five years.
We cannot contemplate that without committing economic suicide and so there is no likelihood of our getting in. We cannot get into the Common Market; and we cannot trade with Eastern Europe. For a variety of reasons—transport, currency regulations and so on—there are large parts of the world with which we cannot trade in any way. In a situation like that we must ask ourselves: "What are you going to do? Where does your best interest lie? In what direction are you going to travel?"
It may be a very painful thing to have to review a policy that has been pursued for a long time but it would be a very stupid thing to pursue a policy when the reasons for pursuing it are no longer present. If what the Minister visualised to-day is likely to develop, a Scandinavian group side by side with the Common Market and no early likelihood of a Free Trade Area in Europe, we must seriously think of what we can do to sell what we produce at the best possible price and at the same time sell it in an organised and systematic way which will enable us to evolve a permanent industrial and agricultural economy. This may very well bring us close to reviewing our relations with our neighbours, the British.
We have a trade agreement with the British that has worked to the benefit of both countries. In the world in which we are now moving, one which is forming into blocs none of which appeals to us and from some of which we are excluded, it seems to me that the Government could do very much worse than sit down and ponder on the trade agreement of 1948. In this changing world which now seems to be about to change more rapidly to our disadvantage, they should find out in what way we can extend that trade agreement so that it will provide wider opportunities in that market not merely for our agricultural and dairy produce but for aspects of our agriculture which have not yet been properly evolved because of the difficulty of getting a guaranteed market for them while at the same time preserving a right to export industrial goods the import of which is permitted so far as Britain is concerned especially as that import can have only a very trifling influence on the supply of industrial goods to the British market.
It may well be possible to hammer out a deal with the British who are an industrial people, a deal by which we can get more and better facilities and over a long period for our agricultural and dairy produce of all kinds and under which we can maintain our right to export to them industrial goods because of the fact that we have the right to do so at present and because our exports do not impact very heavily on the British market. If we can sell elsewhere overseas, we can try to do that also but selling elsewhere overseas has meant to us in the past that countries buy £1 worth of goods from us for every £10 worth we buy from them. That is a one-sided arrangement which may prove a very doubtful asset to our economy.
In the new circumstances, it may very well be desirable to review our whole position. Subject to safeguards for our industries—these are vital—it may very well be desirable to reopen the whole matter to see, in the new circumstances which confront us and in the more dangerous circumstances which lie ahead, whether it would not be possible to make at this stage a long term agreement with the British mutually advantageous, advantageous to them inasmuch as we would sell to the British as much as they could take at an economic but rewarding price and we, in turn, would, in appreciation of that action on their part, take from them goods which are at present bought in countries from which we have to buy £10 worth of their products before they will buy £1 worth of our products.
I know that a review of our policy in that field will be very painful. Speeches have been made in quite the opposite direction. People have talked, and invoked God's thanks and His blessing because the British market was gone and gone forever. But it may well be cowardice at this stage to pursue a line of policy when the justification for it is no longer present. Confronted with that set of circumstances as revealed by the Minister's speech, I think what we need now is hard, tough and fresh thinking to ensure that whatever decision is taken will be motivated by doing the best we can in present circumstances. We ought not to clog our minds because of vain regrets that the things we hoped for in the past did not come to maturity.
