Last night I was dealing with the obsession of this Government, as shown in the Blue Book, with entrance to the EEC and, in particular, their dedication to private enterprise as the means by which the increased expansion in industry and agriculture would be achieved. A Government who depend to the extent this Government do on private enterprise to achieve the enormous expansion in industry and agriculture which is essential if emigration and unemployment are to be solved, in other words if full employment is to be achieved, are not fit to hold office any longer.
The country has had 40 years now of this dedication to private enterprise, this belief that private enterprise is the only solution to our problems. Private enterprise has been pampered, petted, induced by grants and by taxes on the public. Every possible inducement has been offered to private enterprise so that our young people would have an opportunity of making a living in Ireland. We have seen the results of the activities of private enterprise in one million Irish-born citizens now living in Britain. Only within the last month, we saw how dissatisfied very prominent people in public life and in church life in particular localities are with the fruits of private enterprise. In January, according to the newspapers, the Bishop of Clogher made a public call on behalf of the people in his diocese to the public representatives in Monaghan to bring industry to that area, to Monaghan, which is one of the black spots with regard to employment. Things have reached a serious stage when a Bishop has to make public criticism of two of the most distinguished Deputies in this House.
I quote from the Irish Independent, Friday, 3rd January, 1964, the day after the call was made by the bishop to the public representatives of Monaghan. The heading in the paper is: “Support for Bishop in call for industry”:
There was warm support in Monaghan yesterday for the Bishop of Clogher's call to Monaghan's public representatives and businessmen to make a greater effort to attract industry in Monaghan town.
Various people in business life in Monaghan commenting on the Bishop's statement said it was true, that it was well timed, that the situation in Monaghan was very serious. One person said it seemed hard to believe that, with such distinguished representation as they had in the Dáil, they had fared worse in regard to industry than neighbouring areas.
Let me make it clear I am not criticising either of the two distinguished Deputies, one the Leader of Fine Gael and the other a Minister in the Fianna Fáil Party. I am not criticising them as individuals because I believe they have both done their utmost as individuals to bring industry to the Monaghan area. However, the results are there, or rather the lack of results is there. When the Bishop in that area has to say publicly that something must be done by the public representatives does it not prove that to depend on private enterprise to go to areas like Monaghan, Roscommon, Mayo, Galway, Donegal, West Clare, Cork, Kerry, and all these other places, particularly west of the Shannon, is a waste of time? It is worse than that because, while we are depending on or hoping for development in these areas by private enterprise, the young people are moving out continually for Britain, America and elsewhere.
The answer to this problem is for the Government to step in and take an active part in this industrial development through State bodies or State-sponsored bodies. The Government must, if these industries are not willing to go there, direct them to do so. If there is Irish money in them there must be some power in the Government's hands to see that they go to the west.
I give the Taoiseach, while he is here, one example of an industry that was forced to go west and it is a very useful industry today. The Taoiseach himself has sought for years to suggest that the inducements offered by way of grant and loan were sufficient to attract industrialists to Galway, Roscommon, Mayo and all these other places. Is it not a fact that a very big industry which is now established in Athlone was given Government assistance and was told: "Unless you go west, we shall not give you financial aid." That group fulfilled the requirements by crossing the Shannon. The factory is welcome there but they only went as far as they need go physically. It did not move any further west. We must find some means of stabilising the population over there.
In 1952 this Government brought in the Undeveloped Areas Act which at the time I said—and I have no hesitation in repeating what I said—would not prove successful and would be a failure as regards bringing industrial development to the west. This is 1964 and in the intervening period the Undeveloped Areas Act was, shall we say, sabotaged and the limited amount of good it was doing has been destroyed by the very fact that the facilities which were available under the Undeveloped Areas Act earlier on are now available to the rest of Ireland. There is no incentive whatever to any industrialist to go to the congested areas or the undeveloped areas. If an industrialist can get a grant for setting up a factory in Dublin do you think he will go to Charlestown, Boyle or Tuam? Do you think he will go to Donegal if he can get the same grant, the same facilities, the same credit, by setting up the factory at Tallaght, Swords, or some other place near Dublin city?
The results of that policy have been seen in the past three years in the fact that for every £1 now spent on industrial grants by Foras Tionscal in the west of Ireland, £4 is being spent in the Dublin area. That is the comparison and it shows that this Government have lost interest in the industrial development of the west of Ireland.
I dealt in great detail with the Government policy on industry and their outlook on the Common Market. As regards this 50 per cent expansion which they say must be achieved in this decade to keep in line with other members of OECD, lip service is paid to the fact that agriculture must play a main part in achieving that increase but there is nothing but the most hazy idea as to how that increase will be achieved in this Blue Book, this alleged programme which they have produced.
It is very welcome and very encouraging to find that an organisation such as the NFA have produced within the past week an excellent blueprint for the development of agriculture. Many of the proposals contained in the NFA document have been part and parcel of Labour Party policy over the years. In fact, to use an expression which has been used elsewhere, many of the very important suggestions and proposals made in that document are "old hat," so far as the Labour Party are concerned.
It is a very welcome sign to find such a very prominent and influential body as the NFA taking a very broad view of the economy generally outside their own farming interests. That shows they realise the importance of State control in the development of agriculture. When I say "the importance of State control," I mean the importance of State control over the people who are intervening between the producer and the consumer. We are not looking for State control to put the farmers into a straitjacket so far as their production is concerned. What we are aiming at—and I presume the NFA are aiming at the same thing in their reference to boards in this document—is that boards will be set up to protect the producer from the exploitation to which he is subject at present by those people who are in between him and the consumer.
We think these boards should try to regulate development and expansion in the various spheres of agriculture, so that both the producer and the consumer will be protected and, in addition, these State boards, with the aid of top-class salesmen and technicians, should be enabled to go into foreign fields to secure the top-class markets which are available if we go out to get them.
In this Blue Book, the Government show their true feelings, and give an indication of their true outlook on farming when they say:
The contribution of agriculture to economic expansion will be the greater if effort is concentrated on these products for which the market prospects are best. Cattle, live and dead, is our principal farm product, both in total output and in export value ...
It is apparent that the idea of the Government is: "Let us concentrate on expanding the cattle trade, on producing more beef for export." I welcome any expansion of the livestock industry, especially if it means more processing of livestock, and an increased dead meat trade as a result of an increased cattle population, but it is a fallacy to suggest that an expansion in the cattle industry, or in the number of livestock, will be an aid to the keystone of the Irish economy, namely, the small farmer. He must have other means of livelihood than the production of cattle.
It is significant that the Government are aiming at 45-acre holdings while, at the same time, saying that the output of cattle will get priority. In other words, the small farmer is for the emigrant ship, if he likes to take his place in the queue already forming, according to these OECD reports, in Greece, Italy, Spain, Finland, Norway and other countries, to move into the heart of Europe for industrial employment. In the European countries, the aim is to get people out of agriculture because there is too much congestion on many European farms. The position in Ireland is that we have huge tracts of land which are unused and undeveloped, and we have a population ready and willing to use them if given the opportunity, instead of being prepared by Government policy on agriculture for the emigrant ship. They will not be absorbed into industry if they leave the land. They will have to leave the country.
The contrast between the forthright policy expressed by the NFA and the hazy policy of the Government will strike the farmers as very significant. It shows a lack of thinking on the part of the Government in respect of the interests of the farmers. The Government have taken the view that cattle are No. 1 on the list so far as increased output is concerned; No. 2 is the 45-acre farm. On that basis, we are doing away with the idea of cooperation. The Government evidently want the farmer to stand on his own and not mind his neighbour. They want to make the farmer practically self-sufficient on a 45-acre holding, and they want him to carry on without cooperating with anyone.
The Government say that they have asked for a report on the cooperative movement. Is it not a fact that with a cooperative system, farmers with proper planning could make a livelihood on perhaps a good deal less than 45 acres? We have the Government talking about 45-acre holdings, and in the next breath talking about a system of cooperative farming. I do not know where they stand, and I do not think they know themselves. They are prepared to try any gimmicks to stay in office for another few months.
The Labour Party believe there is hope for the small farmer, and a possibility of keeping him on the land and giving him a reasonable livelihood, provided he has security of tenure, gets a reasonable price for his products, and continuity of sales of his products. We also believe there is an outlet for his products, provided there is continuity of supplies to the markets, that the product is in top-class condition when it reaches the markets, that it is attractively packaged and so forth.
It is very encouraging to find a prominent farming organisation anxious to see an increase in the number of State boards associated with the farming industry. That is a tremendous development. Up to now, we have had nothing but horror expressed in the House by all the major Parties at any idea of State interference in the farming industry. We have heard it said that it is wrong for a Government to interfere in or to control any aspect of farming. Here we have the farmers' representatives themselves saying that if this primary industry is to expand, there must be some State interference.
One of the boards referred to in this blueprint is that set up in connection with horticultural produce. We have had the position in recent years of the Irish Sugar Company interesting itself in this aspect of farming, particularly in the fruit and vegetable lines, but we have also had serious pressure by private enterprise, mainly with headquarters outside the country, to thwart the efforts of the Sugar Company in relation to the processing of homegrown Irish horticultural produce. We had the sorry situation in which a number of private enterprise groups were importing horticultural produce from abroad and processing and canning it here.
As I have said, many of these groups are controlled from outside. They are getting protection here on the home market, and yet an Irish company with Irish capital, depending on the Irish farmers, is told it cannot sell that line of produce here except to a limit of 10 per cent. How can the Government reconcile their action in preventing an Irish company from selling produce on the home market, while, at the same time, doing all in their power to tear down tariff walls? On 1st January last they took off ten per cent from import quotas.
We heard several times during the past 30 years that if an Irish company is to engage successfully in the export market it is essential for it to have a firm home base—to have a considerable home market first before launching into the export business. That has always been the No. 1 recommendation for an Irish industry. Is it so as far as the Irish Sugar Company is concerned? It is not. The Government have no plans for helping the Sugar Company or other Irish groups who at the moment are deeply interested in the growing of fruit and vegetables. We have the case of the Glencolumbkille enterprise sponsored by Father McDyer, which deserves such great credit. This is a venture worthy of the utmost support and encouragement from the Government; yet we find that a grant of £25,000 which, I believe, has been sanctioned, has not yet been paid on the ground that the officials are not satisfied the necessary requirements have been fulfilled.
The farmers there are keenly interested in growing the necessary produce on a contract basis, but, to my mind, the Government are more interested in increasing the number of cattle than in giving a decent livelihood to a number of small farmers through the growing of fruit and vegetables. What has happened there, of course, is that the Government do not believe the venture will be a success. Let us be frank about it: they are afraid it will not be a success. I cannot understand the mentality of a Government who say they are interested in the welfare of the small farmers and who withhold a grant of a paltry £25,000 which would help an enterprise on its feet, while at the same time they hand out £200,000 to a small Dublin group interested in the bacon industry. Are the people of Glencolumbkille not also interested in the bacon industry? I see no justice or any real Government planning here, only favouritism.
There is a suggestion that the distilling industry be examined and put on a proper basis. Is it not a nice commentary on one of our major industries to say that the quantity of Scotch whisky consumed here is as great as the quantity of Irish whiskey exported? That spotlights the disgraceful position of an industry which could, if run on a proper basis, put half the small farming community on a first-class basis in a guaranteed market, instead of leaving the industry in the hands of private enterprise, of a group of people who do not give a damn so long as they get a good dividend each year. It is time there was a change of Government, if only to bring about the necessary reform in that industry.
There is another recommendation by the NFA in which the Labour Party have been deeply interested for years—the necessity for a changed outlook abroad as far as our main industries are concerned. The NFA suggest the provision of planned staffs of trained agricultural experts for stationing abroad in Irish embassies, linked with the Irish Marketing Board. I do not like going back to other days but it is necessary to do so at times in order to show the exhortations along similar lines that were made some years ago. I quote from volume 160, column 641 of the Official Report for 7th November, 1956:
Mr. McQuillan asked the Minister for External Affairs if, in respect of the embassies in London and Paris, he will state the number of officials engaged solely on work connected with the expansion of our agricultural export trade.
Deputy Cosgrave was then Minister for External Affairs and he gave a long reply in which he made it clear that as far as he was concerned quite a number of officials were, apart from other duties, engaged in trade duties, but he added:
At present there is one such officer serving in Britain.
There was only one such officer in the field of agricultural expansion in the embassy in London, and there was nobody at all in Paris. I do not think the position has improved very much in the intervening years. The emphasis as far as this Government are concerned is on prestige abroad—the big building, the luxury appearance, a good front and it does not matter what the background is like.
In this Blue Book, the question of credit for farmers receives scant consideration as far as Government planning is concerned. We all know that credit at low rates of interest is essential if agriculture is to make the necessary progress, the required expansion. One of the arguments put forward here in connection with agriculture is where the money is to come from. It is said that we cannot afford it because we are not an industrial country. Most of the money in this country that is available for investment is invested abroad. Looking at the assets of our commercial banks, it is an eyeopener to see the amount of Irish money that is invested outside Ireland. When it was suggested that these assets should be reinvested in Ireland, we had from the Fianna Fáil Party, and from Deputy Childers in particular, the criticism that these assets were a standing army in Britain, ready to guard us if this country ever went bankrupt. Deputy Childers omitted to mention that along with the standing army of bank notes in Britain, there was also a standing army of Irish boys and girls working in factories in Britain, factories set up by the Irish money invested in Britain which should have been invested at home.
The farming community in this country depend for credit on the Agricultural Credit Corporation and any farmer who has managed to prise a few hundred pounds out of that corporation would need to go to Ballybunion or Salthill for a fortnight to relieve the strain on his mind and body. That is not the way to deal with the farmer who needs credit. I will do everything possible in support of the suggestion made recently by the farmers' group that a farmers credit company or corporation should be set up, that the Agricultural Credit Corporation should be re-organised in such a way that credit facilities will be made available and within easy reach of every farmer.
The commercial banks have premises in every town in Ireland but how do they cater for the needs of the farmer who wants credit to expand? We have heard a lot of talk about competition but will the Taoiseach tell us if any competition exists today in banking circles? As far as I can see, the only competition between them in Ireland is in the setting up of palatial buildings all over the country. Is there any competition between them as to who has the friendliest handshake or with regard to the attractiveness of their terms for the farmer who needs credit? There is none.
In recent years there has been one change in the attitude of the commercial banks to the farming community. Suddenly many of these banks who have their headquarters outside Ireland and who take their policy directives from outside Ireland are making money available to farmers who want to go in for cattle production. We see that trend running through the Government's Blue Book also and it is noticeable that three or four years ago the banks said they were prepared to lend money for the production of livestock. Six or seven years ago, they were prepared to give money to people to erect cattle marts all over the country and it was no trouble for them to find £20,000 or £30,000 to set up these marts. It is no wonder that Dr. Knapp, in his report to the Government, has stated that there were too many of these marts going up and that there was too much money being made available for this line of progress.
Why was that done? Why was money given for the production of cattle and why was it so difficult for a farmer to get money if he wanted to go into pigs, or horticulture, or any other line of agricultural production? It is time the Government exercised some control in this matter. I do not know how true it is but I have been told by people who think they know that this policy of the commercial banks of inducing the farmers to go into the livestock industry is the result of a policy directive by the British livestock interests who have a big influence in banking policies in Britain, interests which have a number of directors on the boards of the commercial banks in Britain, particularly those banks which have offices in Ireland. It is said that they were responsible for the idea that this country should be kept in the production of cattle.
The time has come when whatever Government are in office will have to take steps towards making credit available at a reasonable rate of interest to the farming community. The savings of the Irish people are being sent out of the country. I am going to give my own experience in this matter. I could not count the number of occasions on which farmers have come to me on different matters and have told me the amount of money they have in the banks. They may have it there for their daughters' dowry or some other reason. They are getting interest at the rate of one and a half per cent on this money. We see the bank managers acting like spiders to get these farmers into their webs and telling them how wonderful it is that they should leave their money in their banks, but no sooner have they left the manager's office than their money is invested outside the country. Their deposits appear on one side of a ledger in a bank in England while the farmer thinks his money is still in this country because he is in a position to withdraw it the following day if he needs it.
If the farmers' money is not invested in a bank in England or in some other group outside Ireland, it is invested in a national loan. If it could be brought home to the people in rural Ireland that if they would make available the few pounds they have and put the money directly into a national loan or into a credit bank controlled by the State and farmers combined, it would be doing a better job for them and the State. But until we deal with the commercial banks who are giving a wrong slant to the community in general on the question of credit we are not going to get the confidence of the farming community or the community at large to an extent that will induce them to put their money into Irish industry or agriculture.
To me it is a tragedy to find that money which would bring in a nice return each year to people in Ireland is not even benefiting the community but benefiting those outside the country. I am anxiously waiting to see if the Government will take any action on the question of credit for the farming community. It is too serious a matter as far as development is conconcerned to be allowed to go any longer. God knows, the tinkering that has been done and the alterations that have taken place in the credit system, particularly in the Agricultural Credit Corporation, have been done over a sufficiently long time to enable the Government to assess the needs for further improvement if they are not prepared to believe what is being told them by many experienced people in various fields whose advice is available if the Government are willing to listen.
I should like to comment again, without delaying the House much longer, on the absolute necessity of getting markets if and when we do increase the output from the land. It is now accepted that the greatest possible amount of exports should be processed before leaving Ireland and in order to get rid of the pessimists here who have the idea that there is no scope now for horticultural exports, for pig-meat or butter or other exports that we have at present. With a proper and energetic marketing system the openings are still there. The position in England at present is that despite our close association geographically we are supplying only 5 per cent of Britain's total food imports. That is fantastic and evidently the Government are prepared to accept that we are not able to break through the 5 per cent barrier because their talk is: "Let us get into EEC; we can do nothing in Britain. Let us concentrate on cattle." They are hoping, because they think there is a shortage of cattle in Europe, that we should be able to sell cattle in the Common Market.
I do not accept that we should allow this five per cent limit of Britain's total food imports to stand. We should be in a position, without any trouble if we had the right men in the right places, to double that and make it ten per cent in a very short time. If we consider the impact such an increase would make on Irish agriculture we can see it would be one of the greatest encouragements towards that expansion which the Government say is necessary if we are to catch up with other EEC countries by 1970. We have the shameful position in Britain that the Danes outsell us ten to one in bacon products despite the fact that there is a ten per cent tariff operating in our favour. Can we attribute that state of affairs to the Irish farmers? Is it not a fact that it is sought to attribute it to our farmers instead of blaming those responsible. I shall not deal with it in any detail, but I maintain there is a huge market right beside us, and a very varied market, in Britain if we have the interest, energy and intelligence to go into it properly.
We have one tremendous advantage in that market—there is no language difficulty. In spite of that we are making a hopeless bid. Where would we stand in the European Market even if we had goods and could compete when we would not know what they were talking about? It is time that for these marketing boards which must be set up now no matter what Government comes in, we should select the right men. I am very much afraid that over the years when boards have been set up they have antagonised the public to a great extent. If we set up a board that may have to take very strong decisions, perhaps hard decisions, is it not necessary to put people on the board who will not have a vested interest in seeing that no change is made?
