The first impression the Taoiseach's speech made on me was that at least he appreciated the country had reached a crucial stage in its affairs. I should like to subscribe to the sentiments he expressed here during the course of our discussions last week that it was time now to look forward and stop looking back. The Taoiseach appreciates that, if we are to survive and prosper, we must take certain steps that may be, and indeed almost certainly would be difficult, particularly for the administration in power at the time of these decisions.
Whatever we may think of the contributions made at the recent symposium organised by the Irish movement for the promotion of European co-operation, we must at least respect the fact that they were neutral contributions and that the people who made them gave them in all honesty as an honest appraisal of our position as they saw it. It is also true to say that the contribution made by the Deputy Secretary of O.E.E.C. corroborates to a very large extent the sentiments expressed by the Taoiseach and other speakers in this House, particularly over recent months. There is an urgent necessity for an appraisal of our position, particularly in relation to the freer, if not free, trade on the era of which we undoubtedly stand. As previous speakers have said, we are going into this era of free trade under certain very serious disadvantages.
Some critical comment has been made of the policy of protection built up, particularly over the past 25 or 30 years, and of which the Taoiseach was largely the architect when Minister for Industry and Commerce. Of course, it is always easy to be wise after the event, event, particularly years after the event, although I must confess I feel that, looking back over the years, more discrimination might have been shown in the choice and in the type of industries selected for protection and also in the extent of the protection granted to different industries. As European free trade becomes a reality in the next five, ten or fifteen years, it is certain that some, if not many, of the small tightly protected industries of this country will not survive. It is also true to say that the larger and more efficient industries—some of them established before the era of protection —will survive and should have a better future within the wider trade area.
Therefore, I do not share the pessimism expressed in some quarters that the relaxation of tariff protection in this country must, of necessity, bring large-scale unemployment in either industry or agriculture. I would prefer to look on this new era as a challenge to our ability, to our energy and to ourselves generally as people to survive and to make the best of the situation. I believe that our people will react if they have confidence in their leadership and Government and in the integrity of whatever Government is in charge of their affairs.
During the course of his speech the Taoiseach referred to the question of departing from the basis of nondiscrimination in our trading relations with other countries apart from Great Britain. I do not think we should altogether exclude the question of departing from the basis of non-discrimination even in regard to Great Britain. After all, we are Great Britain's second best customer in Europe. Over the years, we have generally imported more from Great Britain than she has bought from us. We give very valuable trading terms to Great Britain. On the other hand, Great Britain is undoubtedly our best customer for agricultural goods of all types, particularly of cattle; but it is true to say that, over the past ten years, Britain's domestic policy of subsidising her own agriculture has largely negatived the advantages we gained in the 1938 and the 1948 trade agreements in all agricultural produce with the single exception of cattle. This form of discrimination has injured the small farmer more than it has injured any other section of the community.
The British system of subsidies on such items as dairy products, pigs, poultry and eggs has reacted more unfavourably upon the small farmer than upon any other section of our community. We are essentially a nation of small farmers and, because of that, our people have suffered severely from the policy of domestic subsidisation pursued by the British Government. That factor should not be lost sight of by the Taoiseach, and particularly not lost sight of in the forthcoming negotiations in relation to Anglo-Irish trade which he forecast recently. In saying that, I have full regard for the fact that Britain is our best customer and will continue to be so, irrespective of what other outlets we may find for our agricultural and industrial products on the Continent or in the United States of America. I believe that any trading or relationship with Britain must be built on a policy of mutual benefit and mutual satisfaction. If Great Britain's internal policy affects us to any serious extent we have every right to take cognisance of that when we come to the point of discussion with the British.
In some recent speech—I cannot recall the exact occasion—the Taoiseach referred to the ambition of himself and his Government to provide acceptable living standards for a greater number of our people. I should like to ask the Taoiseach to define what he regards as acceptable living standards. Over the years many people—not all—have enjoyed acceptable living standards, very largely at the expense of a steady decline in our population. I should like to ask the Taoiseach if his plans are intended to provide a rising living standard for an increasing population? Or shall we continue having some survive in reasonable comfort at home at the expense of a large part of the population continuing to emigrate?
It is significant that the five-year programme for economic expansion, published a few months ago, does not give any estimate of the net increase in employment the plan is intended to provide under the various headings for which large sums will be provided. It would be very helpful if we could have at reasonable intervals, say, six months, some indication of the impact this programme will have on our problems of unemployment and emigration. In answer to a recent question of mine here the Minister for Finance informed me that the figures for numbers employed would not be available until the new year. That is very unsatisfactory. It should be possible to furnish every six months the progress of the Government's policy in relation to these two indicators of the health, or otherwise, of our national economy, namely, unemployment and emigration. It is disconcerting to think that the effect of the implementation of the Government's programme in the first year will not be known to the House until the new year.
No idea of the additional cost in terms of higher charges to service the national debt, and other Government commitments, is given in this five-year programme. At the moment it costs some £16,000,000 to £18,000,000 per annum to service our almost £400,000,000 of national debt. That deadweight debt continues to grow steadily every year. The charge necessary to service it continues to grow with it. Concurrently with that increasing charge, we have a decline in population. Unless the trends can be reversed by providing more outlets for employment, it is not difficult to imagine what the position will be five or ten years hence, with a heavier load of debt around the necks of a smaller earning population.
The five-year plan pays tribute in its pages to private enterprise. It states categorically that the fundamental basis of economic activity must be through the medium of private enterprise. I wonder have we given private enterprise an opportunity of flourishing over the years? In saying that, I do not want to detract in any way from the successful ventures which the State has made into various facets of our economy. I appreciate that undertakings, such as Irish Shipping, the E.S.B., and Bord na Móna have given very remarkable results and have provided tremendous employment. Nevertheless I think that, if greater encouragement had been given to the enterpreneur over the years and he had been given an opportunity of accumulating capital to reinvest for himself, our present economic picture would not be as gloomy or as discouraging as it is. As a dynamic to economy there is no substitute for viable private enterprise. If anyone has any doubts on that he has only to look at the history of the United States and see the results achieved there under a competitive private enterprise economy.
Private enterprise has its faults. Everybody knows that. But its faults can be controlled by Government. It is the duty of Government not to displace private enterprise but to encourage it, to control it where necessary, and to create a climate in which it can expand and prosper, making the country prosperous with it. If the State continues to take a greater and greater part in the ordinary economy of the country private enterprise will correspondingly decline. The greatest possible fillip to private enterprise would be a substantial reduction in taxation. If we want to encourage both the employer and his employee to produce, to work, to save and to reinvest in productive enterprise, nothing will be more conducive to that, nothing more encouraging, and nothing will have a greater influence than a substantial reduction in taxation, both national and local. It is a sobering thought that taxation, national and local, amounts to more than £3,000,000 a week. That is a shocking burden on a small community of less than 3,000,000 people.
In any appraisal of our position and of our potentialities in relation to exports, we must have regard to our unique position. With Great Britain, whether we like it or not, we form a common labour market. Our workers are free to come and go as they like. The natural trend is for them to go where the reward is greatest. Particularly since the war they have gone in ever-increasing numbers at very short notice to Great Britain, and there they have been given opportunities of good employment at good wages.
We also have with Great Britain a common money market. We have virtually no control over our interest rates in this country. Finally, we are an island country, and, with the exception of Great Britain, far from the highly organised industrial countries of the Continent. We suffer great disadvantages in regard to transport, in regard to the high cost of almost everything we produce, not altogether due to the fact that our industries, generally, are small, but to the fact that we are a country of generally small farmers and, of necessity, production costs must be higher than they are in the case of larger units.
As I see it, there are two courses open to us. The first is to accept the standards to which our current economic position entitles us—that, to my mind, means a general lowering of standards all round—or else, to expand our economy by greater efficiency and lower costs. That, in effect, is the solution which Mr. Whitaker put forward in his recent publication and I think it is a solution also put forward by the Programme for Economic Expansion.
The only difficulty I see in achieving that very desirable end is the fact that it entails two developments not mentioned, except in a few lines, in the Programme, that is, a complete and drastic change in our educational system with a much greater emphasis on technical and scientific education. If we are to progress in this country, we must progress through the media of our people, their mental and physical ability, and we must progress at a fast rate. In order to be comparable with European countries, not only have we to make up the leeway of years but we also have to overtake the progress they are making at the present time.
This double purpose can only be achieved by a drastic overhaul of our whole educational system, by breaking away completely from the ideas, no matter how truly held, of the past, by giving our young people an opportunity to step into the highest paid technical and scientific positions that the country can offer them. That, and a general tax reduction all round, a tax reduction that would encourage outsiders to come in here to establish industries or even to live here, are the two opportunities which are the sine qua non of any material progress in this country.
During the course of his speech, the Taoiseach hinted at further possible Anglo-Irish and European developments. I assume from that that before very long further surprises are in store for us. Personally, as I said a few minutes ago, I do not mind getting shocks. I think they are good for us. They are good for us psychologically. They are good for us as a people. By and large, in the long run, our reaction to these international developments will be a measure of our capacity as a nation to expand and to prosper or, alternatively, to contract and stagnate. Whether we will go ahead or whether we will stagnate depends primarily on the leadership this country gets from its Government. In that regard the present Taoiseach has a heavy burden on his shoulders. If he reacts to that challenge, if he and his colleagues inspire the people with the confidence that they are being led by a competent, dedicated, honest team, the country will react accordingly. If the people fail to believe in them, fail to believe in their leadership, fail to believe that they know where they are going, the people will give the Government the answer at the first opportunity.
I support the sentiments which the Taoiseach expressed on the question of Partition. His remarks were sober and sensible. My only regret is that he and other members of his Party did not offer the same sentiments many years ago. If they had, the question of Partition might not be the burning question that it is today. I have always held the view that Partition will be ended by mutual goodwill. It was the previous Taoiseach, now the President, who referred to a community of wills. That is largely the basis on which Partition will be finally settled, but that does not mean that in the meanwhile we should sit still and do nothing. Even if we do get rebuffed and discouraged, it is up to us in this part of the country to extend the hand of friendship in every way we possibly can. One sensible and logical way of doing that is to offer co-operation in economic, cultural and other spheres. We already have that co-operation in several sporting spheres. I do not believe that co-operation is impossible in other and more important spheres also.
This Six Counties, although it is a part of Ireland, is regarded as an export country. It is the best customer we have. They buy far more from us than we buy from them. I do not know what the difficulties are in the way of buying more from the Six Counties but, whatever they are, I hope the Taoiseach will, as he has suggested or hinted in his speech, take an early opportunity of doing away with these difficulties.
I was particularly encouraged by his suggestion that we might have some form of co-operation in the field of cross-channel shipping. There is an old and grave disability in regard to that matter, from which both parts of the country suffer and it would offer very fruitful ground for co-operation if representatives from both parts of the country could sit down and tackle this problem together.
Another useful field of development would be atomic energy, to which the Taoiseach did not refer but which I think offers great potentialities for the island as a whole.
Lastly, I should like to make a brief reference to our political set-up. I was present some years ago when the former President, Mr. Seán T. Ó Ceallaigh, made his famous appeal in the town of Bruff, County Limerick. At that time he appealed to the members and sons of members of the old Republican movement to forget past dissensions and to come together in the interests of the country. Unfortunately, his appeal seems to have fallen on deaf ears. I do feel that, with the retiral of Mr. de Valera from the political scene and with the almost certain retiral of other prominent and controversial figures in our political life, the way will be made easier for an ending of the divisions which, in the main, are at present based on personalities, and that the opportunity will be created for the coming together of compatible elements in our political life. If such a coming together could eventuate, it would create a new impetus and give new and encouraging leadership to the country as a whole.
I hope the time will not be too long delayed when men of similar outlook, ideas and desires for the future of the country, will, irrespective of their past affiliations, find a common ground in some form of reunited movement.
Finally I would say that, in the task that lies before him, I should like to assure the Taoiseach of any possible help that I could give him. As I said at the time of his election, it will be critical help. It is the duty of every Deputy outside the Taoiseach's Party, whether he is a member of an Opposition Party or an Independent, to be alert and critical. I think that any abject support of the Government Party is possibly the greatest disservice you could pay them. I shall try to play my part in these benches by giving constructive and helpful contributions to the question at issue.
