As far as I can understand the position following the debacle brought about by General de Gaulle, Britain has decided to continue the rhythm of her tariff reductions. As far as I can understand the Taoiseach, our Government have decided to do the same. To me that seems to leave both industry and agriculture in a worse position than they were, inasmuch as both we and Britain are to continue dismantling our tariffs.
Adjournment Motion: EEC Negotiations (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion: "That the Dáil do now adjourn."—(The Taoiseach.)
I think the Deputy misunderstands the British position. Britain is under a contractual obligation to EFTA to do so.
The intention here is to do the same thing. Therefore, the position is worse than it was. So far as agricultural produce is concerned, surely we will have to meet more competition in Britain? If, as Deputy Corish said, the first ten per cent made no difference to the home market here so far as industrial goods are concerned, the second ten per cent may do so, and industry here may find itself hit by outside competition—some thing that was impossible previously behind the tariff wall. I am not saying all this in criticism of the Government, but merely making a statement of fact and showing the situation which exists.
I turn now to the present debate in which the Taoiseach made only very fleeting references to agriculture. There was no indication in his speech of the importance of the agricultural industry to this country. The Minister for Agriculture sat here for a quarter of an hour and then went away. He is not here now and has not been here since. Presumably he does not intend to intervene. Presumably he thought the debate would end at 11 o'clock tonight. There is no indication of interest in this vital sector of our economy.
Will the Deputy indicate what he wants to know?
I will. First, I should like to define the position as I see it. Some years ago, the then Minister for Agriculture, now the Leader of the Opposition, brought over a New Zealand grassland expert, Professor Holmes, and he defined the position in Ireland as one in which we were growing as little grass as possible under an Irish sky. If the Taoiseach likes to look at the cattle figures here, he will find there has been no material change since that time. Therefore, we must assume that our land is stocked to perhaps 50 per cent of its real potential. The lowest acreage return is from dry stock. That is the situation in which we must meet the Common Market challenge.
The Taoiseach and his Government have been in office now for five years. When we were in office, we did our best, but there must be a follow through. Our efforts should have been carried on by the Taoiseach through the Minister for Agriculture telling the farmers there was hope for them to fit themselves for the Common Market. But that leadership was not forthcoming from the Minister for Agriculture.
I want to remind the Taoiseach again of what the position will be in relation to the dairy industry if we dismantle our tariffs and if we gain entry to the Common Market in two, three or even five years. What I am going to say now is not a popular thing. I have said it before and I am going to repeat it. From two-thirds to three-quarters of the milk being delivered to creameries here is unfit for manufacture into cheese and the higher-priced milk products because it is too dirty. At the same time, the dumped world product so far as milk products are concerned is butter. If you leave out the consumption of liquid milk here, which is very small, 95 per cent. of our milk production, on which rests the whole basis of our agricultural economy, goes into butter. These are the figures on which we propose to dismantle our tariffs for eventual entry into the Common Market.
I suggest that the Taoiseach has not done his bit. For five years, for instance, nobody has specified standards of hygiene and housing for dairy cows. Nobody has said, for instance, that we will give an extra penny per gallon for milk of a certain standard. If that had been done, we would be much better prepared for entry.
It is well to record the things that have not been done. It is wise to record also that if the terms of the Rome Treaty are followed and if the deliberations are concluded, although none has been concluded in this regard to date, the position is that the free entry of grain from the Americas will not be possible within the Common Market. Yet here we had the chaos everybody saw in the last harvest regarding the definition of millable wheat. We had a situation where farmers could not get feeding barley away for seven or eight weeks. The feeding barley was rotting in the sacks, with consequent loss to the farmer; and even when the barley was taken away, there was great difficulty in marketing it economically all over the country because of the fact that we have not got the necessary bulk outlets and so on. The Government have been in office for five years and what have they done about that? If we are to meet the challenge of the Common Market in respect of any stock to which meals are fed and if we cannot import cheap grain from the Americas, surely we must have a good grain-producing unit of our own? Surely the setup must be that our grain supplied to feeders must be as economic as anybody else's, whether French or German and, at the same time, the grower must get as good a price here. Yet, rationalisation of this large, excellent and growing industry has been neglected for five years.
The Taoiseach and the Minister for Industry and Commerce today both denied that it was easier for the foreigner to get grants and loans for the setting up of industry than it was for somebody at home. I go along with them there, but there is something which is not their fault connected with this business. It is this: the possibility of somebody setting up a small industry today and having no links outside the country is rather remote. Industry tends to become more coordinated, more amalgamated and bigger and capital for industry tends to come from one source. You have small units, perhaps, with a large unit somewhere as father to the whole effort and in that situation there must be industrialists from abroad. But I should like to say that the difficulty in which industrialists here find themselves when they seek the grants to which the Minister referred today and also last week on the Industrial Grants Bill, is that most of them are people who have given debentures to their bankers and that raises considerable difficulty. I suggest to the Minister that, in his approach to the Common Market problem, he should go a stage further and do what was done for instance, under the Grain Storage Act, 1951, to make the building, or the machine itself—the chattel—that was provided by loan available on the security only of the chattel and thereby not interfere with debentures and various commitments people have.
There is another facet of our preparation for the Common Market which seems to have been neglected. I think the ready-made formula for helping industry that has characterised the legislation which has gone through is at fault here. No help, to my knowledge, has been given to certain groups in parts of the distributive trade who should have got this assistance as well as straight producing industries. I can see a situation developing in which the distributive trade here might find that customers would purchase goods direct from abroad and that with container services and the various modern means of transport, there would be considerable disemployment of people here and considerable loss of trade in certain sectors of the distributive trade. I think the Government have been largely at fault there also.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce said—and I noted his words; it may have been a slip of the tongue which perhaps is no fault of the mind—that the Government had proceeded with its application for membership of EEC and particularly if Britain were a member of it. I should put it the other way; I think the cart is before the horse there. I should say that we would be enthusiastic applicants for membership of EEC if Britain is a member of it, or about to be. It is well to correct that because perhaps the Minister did not mean it. It would be quite unwise to proceed with any application for membership if Britain were not at the same time likely to be admitted, and at the same time as ourselves because, surely, we could not tolerate a situation in which a common external tariff would exclude Britain's goods from our shores and presumably invite reciprocal action, thereby excluding except by payment of tariff, Irish goods and Irish agricultural produce from Britain.
I noted what the Minister for Industry and Commerce said about the 1948 Trade Agreement. In reading trade agreements, perhaps it is not always easy to define black and white and make categorical statements. To me, the main difference between the 1948 and the 1938 Trade Agreements was that we succeeded in 1948 in guaranteeing some parallel in our store cattle prices with the prices obtained for fat or store cattle by the British farmers. But for the 1948 Agreement, as I understand it, we would have failed, inasmuch as we could have been given the cheaper prices at which the consumers get the meat in Britain, but because of the change from the 1938 Agreement to the 1948 Agreement, cattle defined as store cattle—and they have to serve a term of residence in Britain—enjoy the same prices when sold by the British farmer as if he reared them himself. That is my definition of the difference between the two Agreements. I think anybody who realise the importance of the store cattle trade will realise that difference is paramount.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce also mentioned the question of protection and I think he sought to define us in Fine Gael as free-traders and said that Fianna Fáil policy on protection down through the 'thirties was the policy of practically everybody in the world, that it was the only sensible policy, that it was a time not for free trade but for restrictions and quotas and tariffs and that the Fianna Fáil policy was not extraordinary nor did they stand alone in it. I should like to give my definition of the difference between the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael policies on industry. Fine Gael believe that in the 'thirties Fianna Fáil lost their opportunity inasmuch as they could have built industries such as Lieut.-Gen. Costello is at the moment attempting to build in connection with the processing of goods primarily produced here. They could then have got in before the Danes in producing cheese, tried to get better quality milk and all the rest of it. Instead, they preferred to get industries entirely dependent on tariff protection. One such industry registered last year was the assembly of ballpoint pens. I have a ballpoint pen and I have assembled it and disassembled it 20 times while listening to the debate. Of course, without tariff protection, that industry just would not be possible. These pens are brought in unassembled for the purpose of their assembly behind tariff walls.
The other type of industry—and I can see difficulty arising in regard to it now—is the sort of industry that packs goods. I am thinking of a particular industry, one that packs weedicides and fungicides and that sort of commodity. When the tariff is removed—and they are being progressively removed at present—this industry will face the full blast of competition from Imperial Chemicals, Shell and Vigzol. Probably the least known of the three, Vigzol, is the most formidable opposition. That sort of industry was, perhaps, a mistake; it did not employ many people and at the same time, was very susceptible to any removal of tariff or any price difference arising outside the country even with colossal tariffs operating.
Deputy Dr. Browne mentioned that Fianna Fáil in the 'thirties did not concentrate on industries concerned with the processing of agricultural produce, the basic industry of the country. It is quite clear that many of the difficulties that will beset us now can be traced back to that mistaken policy. I would not have made this criticism but for the fact that my very good friend, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, came up with it himself and sought to define us as free-traders while Fianna Fáil, he said, logically adhered to the general policy of the time.
We have had five gloomy reports from the Committee on Industrial Organisation. As a result, I believe, we had the Industrial Grants Bill and the Undeveloped Areas Bill last week. Those two pieces of legislation are entirely related to the fact that everybody knows, and hopes, that we are going into the Common Market at some stage.
I do not think we have had the same approach to agriculture and that is where I charge the Government with failure. I have no hesitation in saying that the two things which came along to help the farmers in the past year, the 12s. 6d. for wheat when he was in trouble, and the £2,500,000 for rates, would have been better spent if the total money allocated there had been applied by the Minister for Agriculture to better marketing and better production. He has absented himself entirely from this debate. If he had contributed to the debate, we might have got some explanation of the Government's failure in that particular respect.
If the Minister for Industry and Commerce wants to criticise us, I think I have replied. I have said that in respect of a particular facet of industrial organisation, Fianna Fáil have failed mainly in not setting up small industries. I believe we must go into the Common Market and that it will be a very good thing if we do. The Government, perhaps, have done a lot, but, at the same time, they have not directed their efforts in the proper way through the proper avenues, and in particular I would indicate to them the avenue of agriculture and agricultural marketing.
Deputy Dillon rather amused me here today when he spoke of the difference between Fine Gael policy on industry and the policy of Fianna Fáil. I never knew Fine Gael had a policy on industry. The first experience we had of Fine Gael policy in industry was in connection with waterproof coats. They had a genius then as Minister for Industry and Commerce who put a 25 per cent. tariff on the waterproof coat coming in and a 40 per cent. tariff on the material for making it here. When that aspect of affairs was changed, when the Fine Gael tariff wall was twisted the other way, the first immediate effect we had in Cork was the establishment of Ideal Weatherproofs which at present is giving employment to about 500 people.
I heard a lot of talk today about the statement read out by Deputy T. F. O'Higgins which the Taoiseach made in 1957. We have got to take the condition of affairs which existed in 1957 into consideration at first. We took over a bankrupt country. The previous Government had run out of office after 3½ years, leaving the poor civil servant in such a way that he did not know whether the cheque he would get the following month would be honoured or not and leaving the local authorities with thousands of pounds of debts due to them by that Government for housing and everything else, debts that were not paid. Deputy Corish alluded to the necessity for a spur on the Government. I suggest that Deputy Corish's Party spurred Deputy Costello's team out of office and used their spur ruthlessly in that respect. At least that is the only way I can describe it.
I do not know whether I am a pagan in this House or not but I would suggest that General de Gaulle is fighting our fight. This is only the first round of the spar. If Britain were allowed in on her own terms, the Treaty of Rome was immediately gone by the board. If Britain were allowed to import from her Commonwealth and have her Commonwealth stuff brought into Britain as at present, the farmer in this country would still be the hewer of wood and the drawer of water. He would still be in the same position as our agricultural industry today when the value of labour in the agricultural market is roughly between £6 and £7 per week as compared with some £14 to £25 per week in any industry in this country. That is one of the reasons why I am glad that General de Gaulle dug in his heels and told Britain quietly: "You can come in here like any other country but you are not going to bring in all your stepdaughters with you." That is just what the first round meant as far as this country was concerned.
Deputy Donegan alluded to the 1938 and 1948 Trade Agreements. All I can say for Britain is that she had not the slightest respect for any agreement that was ever made. The last misfortune that was placed on the unfortunate agricultural community in this country was placed there by those gentlemen opposite just before they left office, when they went over to Britain in 1956 and agreed—or evidently were so ignorant that they did not know that Britain was breaking a trade agreement with them—to have £16 a ton levied on our sugar going into Britain. Last year, we paid over £1,000,000 in levy to Britain for the compliment of sending our sugar over to her.
An agreement was made with Deputy Norton, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, and Deputy Dillon, Leader of the Opposition, as Minister for Agriculture and that is what they brought home from Britain as a trade agreement. I have here evidence of the effects of that in my constituency still. I have a letter with appeals from over 200 farmers begging for an acreage of beet and stating that it cannot be supplied to them on account of the levy placed on our sugar going into Britain. If Britain is brought into the Common Market in the same manner as the other Six countries, the first thing that goes, thank God, is that levy and it goes without any thanks to Britain. Our farmers have been hamstrung by this makeshift agreement made by Deputy Dillon, as Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Norton, as Minister for Industry and Commerce. This industry which has been built up on the co-operation which exists, and did exist, between the Irish Sugar Company and the representatives of the beet growers was wrecked in so far as Deputy Norton and Deputy Dillon could wreck it.
We got some sop from Britain last year in the latest agreement but it is very far from being the condition of affairs envisaged by the 1948 Trade Agreement. Deputy Dillon admitted in this House that he had not taken it into consideration. He was not consulted, he said. If it was discussed in the Cabinet, he did not know anything about it, but from reading it now it was a breach of the agreement. He did not tell us that while he was in office.
I hear lots of talk about unemployment. I do not see it. That is the difference between the industrial policy of Fianna Fáil and the industrial policy—if they have any policy—of Fine Gael. They came into office in 1954 when there were 600 men employed in Irish Steel. They went out in 1957 when there were 400 men employed there. The other 200 had to emigrate and look for jobs somewhere else. Today there are close on 1,000 men employed in industry in Irish Steel in Haulbowline. We have another industry pushing forward, a £500,000 industry to give employment there. I heard constant wails in this House from my colleague the former Deputy O'Gorman as to the general condition of affairs in Youghal. At that time if you went around there and knocked at a door a poor woman would come out and say: "Yes, Sir, since you were here last Mick has gone across the sea to earn a few shillings to keep body and soul together." That was the condition of affairs under the Fine Gael regime in Youghal as stated by the former Deputy O'Gorman.
When we were building the bridge at Youghal, we had to go to Waterford for workers and they were not there. There is no unemployment in Youghal and very little in Midleton. That is the condition of affairs I have seen brought about, and those are the capitalist industries about which my friend Deputy Dr. Browne was talking. I have gone to those industrialists and questioned them as to what their position would be in Common Market conditions. I found none of them one bit afraid to tackle the Common Market conditions. They are all confident that they have built up modern plant, modern machinery and that they have, as they said, the best workers in the world to meet any threat that comes from that direction.
Therefore, I at any rate, am not one bit upset about Mr. Macmillan getting a knock-out blow from General de Gaulle. It was the first round of the fight and Britain will come in yet with that big long tail of hers stuck between her legs. Speaking on behalf of the agricultural community, I would not like to see her coming in any other way. Let that be quite clear.
We hear every Tom, Dick and Harry who never dirtied their hands giving lectures and sermons about the flight from the land, and how we can bring the workers back. A worker who has only his labour to offer will not work in an agricultural job for £6 or £7 a week while he can get anything from a minimum of £12 to £25 a week as an industrial worker. He will not do it and he would be a fool if he did. I know that certain attitudes have been adopted. I am not blind and I can see the attitudes that have been adopted but I know also that in so far as the agricultural community are concerned anyone reading the White Paper issued in connection with agriculture in the Common Market has felt his teeth watering. You cannot name anything produced in this country the price of which in the Common Market is not 33? per cent higher: milk, or barley or any other crop, with the exception of beet. If General de Gaulle succeeds, 2,900,000 tons of sugar will be required each year to sweeten John Bull's palate. There will no longer be the Nortons and the Dillons to agree to putting a levy of £16 a ton on Irish sugar, that levy to be used to give a guaranteed price to the other Commonwealth countries for their sugar.
The Deputy should not repeat himself.
I wanted to explain to the House the use that is being made of the £16 a ton levy on Irish sugar.
The Deputy is repeating the explanation as well as his statement.
That is the situation with which we were faced. After all, we are purchasing from Britain each year some £2,000,000 worth of agricultural machinery, something that the German market or any of the other Common Market markets would be very glad to get hold of. We are not without a market to offer to the Common Market countries. If we went in in the morning and John Bull was out, there are industrialists in Britain who would break their backbones coming over here looking for a spot to start their industries. That is the way I look at the whole thing, and I think it is a very fair point of view. I am not afraid of any change or any difficulty in this matter. There is plenty of room.
We have gone into the processing industry now and, as a matter of fact, we are at present preparing for another processing factory in East Cork, a second one in West Cork and two more in Kerry. We will even take one to Clare if the Ceann Comhairle is anxious to develop on that line. We are creating markets and that means that our farmers will be able to get anything from £80 to £130 an acre for the produce of their land. That is a big change, and if we take full advantage of the Bill the Minister for Industry and Commerce introduced last week, as I understand it, it will certainly mean that there will be a big change in the outlets for the farmers of this country.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday 6th February, 1963.