I think so, too, but let us be clear on what we have to think about. I want to state as precisely as I can what I believe to be the key question to which all of us have to find the right answer quickly. Any examination of the country's economic prospects which is undertaken must have regard to the fact that development efforts here over many years, although they have produced quite substantial results and have, I believe, been greatly strengthened in the past two years, are still not giving us the same rate of development as other European countries are securing. Why is that so? That, I suggest, is the key question. That is the only question upon which we need to do our thinking. It is the significant question that lies at the root of all economic policy.
It is obvious that it is not merely a matter of Government action, of legislation and of aids or inducements to economic expansion either to agriculture or industry. By and large, it can be said that the aids and inducements which are being offered here are comparable with those in any other western European country. Certainly if one takes as the standard of comparison the proportion of State revenue which is appropriated for them we are doing at least as much as others. It is not, I am convinced—up to now at any rate—due to any situation arising out of our trade agreements. Here we are indeed in a situation which is, from that point of view, more favourable than that of most other European countries. We have, in the principal market to which our products are consigned, duty free entry for practically everything that we produce. We have in other countries in the world rights to preferences, and we have in many countries facilities given to us, not under trade agreements but under decisions of their administrations, which are not available to others. We cannot argue that non-access to export markets need be an impediment to our trade development. It is true that we have here handicaps by reason of the small size of our home market and because of our island situation but I do not think that they can be the complete answer, either.
We have, it is true, so far as we know, no great mineral wealth but we have other advantages particularly in the quality of our soil, which many of the more successful nations in Europe rightly envy. What then is the difficulty? Dr. Cahan, the Deputy Secretary General of the O.E.E.C. attempted to give us one answer during his speech here on Monday last. I have a very high regard for Dr. Cahan. I think he is a man of exceptional intelligence and I know him to be deeply interested in the affairs of this country and most anxious to contribute to its progress. He said that we have become accustomed here to thinking in terms of a protected home market for the products which we produced for home consumption, and a preferential position in export markets for the products which we export.
What he clearly meant to say was that we have got to get down to thinking in terms of a reduction of our net costs of production; to thinking in terms of work and efficiency which will enable us to raise the level of our economic activities without the advantages of a protected home market or a preferential position abroad. It may be that is the answer. Certainly the Capital Investment Advisory Committee, which the previous Government set up and which submitted three reports, put their finger on the same cause. They spoke of undue reliance upon subsidies as a substitute for effort, and other international experts, who from time to time have come here and surveyed our economy, have spoken somewhat similarly.
I am not sure, however, that those who have given us that interpretation of our difficulty have paid sufficient attention to the practical problems of Government. It is easy enough for Dr. Cahan to express his views. We know they were sincerely meant and I believe that their expression can do us nothing but good but when he had completed his remarks, he entered his aeroplane and flew back to Paris. The members of the Capital Investment Advisory Committee were also under no inhibitions in making their observations without having to consider the very practical problems of putting them into effect. It is no remedy for our situation to propose, as I think Deputy Dillon and some other Deputies seemed to suggest this evening, that we should dismantle our industrial tariffs and withdraw our subsidies and other aids to agriculture and industry. That might cure some of our ills but it would probably kill us in the process and the cure would never be realised.
We have to consider how we can bring about the situation that might be achieved over a long time by the application of that cure without having to adopt the drastic course recommended to us. Surely it is not impossible for us to do that by this process of new thinking that Deputy Norton referred to or by the exercise of intellectual effort, by getting an understanding of the requirements of our situation, and agreement amongst the organisations that speak for all economic sections of our people, as to what should be done. We need deliberately to promote amongst them, and ourselves, a new outlook; we need to get all the leaders of opinion, in every walk of life, to face squarely and fairly up to the need for a deliberate campaign to make our economy more efficient. If we can do that, if we can achieve the same attitude to work, the same approach to national problems as we know to exist elsewhere, then those problems of ours will soon begin to look small enough.
I had the opportunity of visiting Germany just after the end of the war, shortly after they had completed their currency reform and were setting about the task of rebuilding their economy. I was struck, as every visitor to Germany was struck, by the high morale prevailing amongst the people, by the confidence one found amongst those whom one met in every walk of life, that they were going to succeed in their task of rebuilding their shattered country.
I felt that if we could induce the same high morale, the same approach to national problems, amongst our people, then we ought to be able to achieve corresponding results. These remarks of mine apply, perhaps more to manufacturing industry than to agriculture, because in manufacturing industry the promotion of efficiency by the deliberate decision of individuals is much more feasible. In the tightly knit organisation of industry, new plans can be brought quickly into operation, certainly much more easily, than the looser organisation of agriculture.
It is axiomatic that all our hopes for economic progress depend upon agriculture. Deputy Dillon spoke here today with great force and eloquence, making a number of assertions of fact and expressing a number of opinions which are, in my view, so widely accepted and so self-evident that most Deputies would not have bothered to refer to them at all. However, it seems that, if I am to overcome his suggestion that I have less interest in agriculture than a good Taoiseach should have, I must keep on repeating my acceptance of the truth that the economy of this country rests on its agriculture and that it is through the expansion of agriculture that we will most likely get the resources we require to achieve all our economic and social aims.
It is also true that greater efficiency in industry and in transport, and in all matters which have a bearing upon agricultural production and marketing. can contribute to a situation in which agriculture can make that greater contribution to the national welfare.
Deputy Costello said, during the course of his remarks, that we had wasted time by the Constitutional referendum. Other Deputies said the same thing. I do not think any of them really believe it. So far as the Government's economic planning and action to secure the speedy implementation of courses decided upon are concerned, it is certainly entirely without foundation. Indeed, I would like to say —and this is, perhaps, a tribute to all of us—that in this session of the Dáil since last Christmas, more work has been done than in any corresponding period since the Dáil was started. More Bills were enacted, more important decisions were proposed and recorded and, indeed, the Dáil probably sat on more days, than in any other half-year since it began. I admit that meetings of the Dáil, and proposals for legislation here, are not by themselves evidence of a range of activities adequate to cope with the national situation: but I think it disposes of this suggestion that because there was a Constitutional referendum in process time was lost. It is true that we did not meet for the one week in which the voting was taking place, but there was voting in that week not merely upon a Constitutional referendum but also in a Presidential Election; and the decision not to meet in that week met, so far as I know, the approval of all Parties in the Dáil and would probably have been taken even if only a Presidential Election had been in progress.
Deputy Costello referred to a speech which the Tánaiste made during the course of the by-election campaign, in which he referred to the External Relations Act and he asked us why we do not re-enact the External Relations Act. I presume that was a rhetorical question. Certainly, nobody knows better than Deputy Costello that whatever consideration was given, at the time that the External Relations Act was repealed, to the consequences of that step and whatever in fact these consequences have proved to be, to go back to it, to reinstate the External Relations Act, is not now practical politics. I know that the suggestion has come from a very eminent and responsible quarter, that in our search for a basis of solution of Partition, the possibility of renewing in some form our association with the Commonwealth should be considered; but I am sure everybody was struck by the fact that, notwithstanding the very responsible source of the suggestion, no evidence of interest in it has since appeared.
I would like to make it clear that our economic relations with Great Britain do not rest upon Commonwealth preference; they rest on the bilateral Trade Agreement of 1938. It is true that, over a long number of years, we have enjoyed, in addition to the benefits which that Agreement assured us, the advantage of certain tariffs which the British Government maintained against European exports under their Commonwealth preference policy. If the British Government decides to modify or eventually to eliminate these tariffs in favour of some European countries, then we, like the Commonwealth countries, will lose some advantages; but we cannot claim that in so doing the British Government will have departed in any way from the letter of their bilateral Agreement with us.
It would seem that the Commonwealth preference policy is weakening now everywhere. When we suggested new trade possibilities to Britain, we had in mind a revised bilateral agreement which would have regard to all changes which have taken place since the existing Agreement was framed and to the possibility of an arrangement which might involve acceptance by us of obligations in relation to British exports more specific than any Commonwealth country might now be prepared to apply. The extent to which commercial advantage influences political viewpoints, or vice versa, is a matter upon which opinions frequently differ. For our part, we accept that our trade arrangements with Britain must be based upon mutual commercial advantage if they are to prove permanent. The aim of economic policy, as I frequently stated, is to improve social conditions; and there is no way of removing or reducing the social problems that are still acute for many sections of our people, except through economic progress.
Deputy Dr. Browne spoke here this evening in his usual rôle as the sole possessor of a social conscience. There are men in the Government who are thinking and planning for social progress all the time and who prefer to tackle those problems amongst our people in that solid way, rather than by making speeches about them. The record of social achievement of this Government, under my predecessor, stands comparison, in my view, with that of any other country in the world. We are not a rich country. We cannot afford to allocate from the available income a great deal more for the improvement of social conditions than in fact we are doing. If our national income is expanded, then we can build up still higher the barriers against destitution and want which have already been erected. We shall, I hope, proceed in the future, as in the past, to relate social policy to economic policy and ensure that the benefits of any economic expansion we may be able to accomplish will be fairly distributed so as to contribute to the welfare of all our people, particularly the weakest.
It is the intention of this Government to proceed as quickly as possible with the fulfilment of the economic programme we have announced, to endeavour to ensure that the full benefits of that programme will be realised for our people, and then to make whatever arrangements at Government level are required to see that they are, as I said, fairly distributed so as to minimise, if not eliminate, the danger of undeserved want arising from any cause among any section of our people.
Arising out of some further remarks of Deputy Dr. Browne, I want to say this: I personally am convinced that, in our circumstances, if we can stimulate private enterprise, we shall get through it a more rapid development, particularly in industry, than could be achieved in any other way. If we have to contemplate, as we do, the extension of State enterprise, it will be solely in sectors in which private enterprise has not yet shown sufficient interest or where the problems of development in this country are such that private enterprise is unable to tackle them.
I believe that, if we are to get the expansion we are striving for, we must succeed in putting life into private enterprise in sufficient degree and over a wide enough field, to give us variety in our development, because the problems of this country cannot be removed merely by one or two large-scale undertakings, no matter how successful they are. Bord na Móna was a large-scale undertaking that was immensely successful. The Irish Sugar Company was immensely successful; and other enterprises of that kind, which were financed from State resources or facilitated by legislation enacted here, have all made great contributions to our economy. But none of us could think that they alone, no matter how often we could multiply them, having regard to what is practicable, would give us the full development we need. We have to supplement any extension of State enterprise by the stimulation of private enterprise.
I think disparaging remarks about private firms that have begun to develop industrial activities in this country can only be damaging to the national interests. They cannot possibly help us in our task of getting private enterprise active in a greater degree. We are trying to induce and stimulate it by various contributions from State funds, by tax reliefs and by other aids of that kind, and I believe we shall succeed.
At present there exists certain elements of uncertainty about the future which may have a delaying effect. It is obviously in our interests that we should seek to remove any uncertainty as quickly as possible. We may not be able to do that completely by our own efforts, but we should certainly try to do it in so far as it is in our judgment possible or likely to contribute to the national welfare. I said already, in the course of an interview with the Press last week, that if we had any doubt at all about the timing of our trade discussions with Britain, it was whether we had begun them too soon and not whether we had begun them too late. It would indeed have been extremely unlikely that while any hope of the 17-nation Free Trade Agreement remained, the British Government would have been prepared to discuss bilaterally with us an extension of the preferential agreement we have with them. Everybody knows that one of the problems of the British negotiators engaged in Paris was the suggestion that, because of their position in the centre of the Commonwealth preferential system, they would have advantages in a Free Trade Area in attracting new industries into Britain which would be unfair to other countries joining the area. Clearly it would have been an unnecessary complication from the point of view of the British Government to have started to discuss with us another agreement of a preferential kind which would appear to sustain and support that argument being advanced in Paris by some of these in opposition to their view.
I felt it was desirable that we should give to the British Ministers an indication of our ideas as to how trading arrangements between us could be adjusted to our mutual advantage before they began the discussions in Stockholm. I believe we are likely to find that events will compel us in our own interests not to press these discussions to a conclusion until we and they have more knowledge of the circumstances to which our negotiations must relate. I urge Deputies not to minimise the strength of our position. As I said in the course of that interview, we as a nation buy from the world a great deal more merchandise than we sell to it. We are in a position to pay for that excess importation of merchandise by reason of our invisible earnings—our tourist revenue and other receipts. We are exactly the type of country with which any other country would wish to trade. We can avail of that situation, now or at any time in the future, in any bilateral negotiations we may undertake.
We have not, as I said, been organising our trade generally on a bilateral basis. We have indeed conformed to the general world opinion in favour of multilateral trading arrangements. While I would accept the theoretical view that for the world as a whole, a system of multilateral trading is more likely to be conducive to the growth of trade in the circumstances which look like appearing in Europe, we, as a temporary measure, assuming that these circumstances in themselves are only temporary, may have to withdraw from the position which we prevously held in that regard and deal with each country with which we desire to trade upon the basis of swopping advantages.
I concede that is not a decision that should be taken lightly. It is clear that it will involve some economic penalties. When buyers in this country have a free market and can have recourse to any country in the world for the goods they are seeking they can buy to the best advantage. If our bilateral trading arrangements confine them to limited markets, then they may not be able always to buy to the same advantage. But these are comparatively minor handicaps if, in return, we can get an opportunity of saying to our producers here: "Produce all you can; expand your production in every direction that is technically feasible in the assurance that what you produce can be sold abroad at a price which will give you a fair return." That is, as I have already emphasised, not merely a matter of trading arrangements. It is also a matter of efficiency in our production methods and in our whole national organisation. If we can achieve both but, above all, if we can achieve production here at prices which are competitive with those of other countries in Western Europe, there is no doubt whatever that we shall find sale for our products. I see no likelihood of a situation arising in the foreseeable future in which we shall not be able, with products of the character I have described, to conclude trading arrangements which will open markets for them.
As I have said already, I have no desire to minimise the problems before the country, but I am convinced that these problems can be solved. It will not be easy to solve them and it would undoubtedly be unduly optimistic to think they can be solved quickly. That they can be solved is certain provided our effort is adequate. I believe that the signs are that the efforts required to cope with these problems are developing amongst our people. That is why we are facing the future with confidence. We cannot guarantee success but the indications are that our people will put forth the combined and concentrated effort which will ensure that they will make progress, if not to the full target in the immediate future then to that full target ultimately, thereby giving to this country the solid firm, economic foundation upon which its national independence must rest.
No country can be certain of maintaining its independence in the world in which we live today unless it is founded upon a firm and solid economic basis. We have not yet, I think, established here foundations which are solid enough or firm enough for us to be sure of their permanency in all international conditions. But we have the capacity to do it. We have the resources which will enable them to be put down. If we get ourselves organised, not merely here in the Dáil but throughout the country, I am convinced that we shall do it; and that, in time, we will be able to ensure, through our social arrangements, the benefit of an expanding national income for all sections of our people.
