I move:
That the Dáil at its rising on Thursday, 14th December, do adjourn until Wednesday, 31st January, 1968.
Adjournment (Christmas Recess).
As the Estimates for my Department were formally put to the House last week and adopted by the House, it is hardly necessary for me to go into the details of these Estimates but I may just refer at the outset to what they contain.
The main Estimate for the current year amounts to £50,250 as against £48,600 for 1966-67 and the increase of £1,650 is due mainly to salaries, together with some addition for postal services; this main Estimate covers also the Government Information Bureau. There is also an Estimate for An Comhairle Ealaíon and the sum for the current year was £60,000, which is an increase of £20,000 or 50 per cent over the allocation for last year.
It is usual in an Adjournment Debate to review the economy in general and to highlight at this stage some of the main factors of our economic progress during the 12 months under review. I should like, however, to go back a little more than 12 months and to refer to 18 rather than 12 months. Over the past 18 months, the Government have introduced a series of reflationary measures which have been highly successful in stimulating economic activity. These measures were initiated as soon as it became obvious that the excessive balance of payments deficit which arose in 1965 from a combination of internal and external factors was responding to the timely corrective measures taken by the Government.
In July, 1966, extra money was made available for housing and sanitary services in order to stimulate capital expenditure. In the following month, hire purchase restrictions on certain commodities were removed to give a boost to consumer demand. Later in the year the Central Bank advised that the commercial banks could make an additional £10 million of credit available to the private sector in order to encourage investment and growth. The total increase in credit in the financial year 1966-67 was, in fact, £40 million, or more than 11 per cent, and the larger portion of the increase represented additional credit to the private sector.
In the financial year 1967-68, the Central Bank advised the commercial banks that any slackening of the growth of credit was neither necessary nor desirable and that the increase in credit might be of the same order as the substantial increase which took place in the previous year.
Fiscal policy in 1967, both in regard to current and capital expenditure, was designed to give a further stimulus to expansion. In the Budget, in April this year, an increase of £23 million in current Government expenditure was provided for without any appreciable tax increases. At the same time, the level of public capital expenditure was increased by almost £10 million.
This series of measures represented a deliberately graduated programme to stimulate demand and expand production and employment without recurrence of the balance of payments difficulties. It is nonsense to say that the Government have been slow to take action to reactivate the economy. The measures I have described are ample proof that policy has been geared to reflating the economy since as long ago as the summer of 1966. The important question is whether the measures have been successful in stimulating activity in this regard and I think that the figures speak for themselves.
In the second half of 1966, the index of retail sales rose by five per cent as compared with an increase of only one per cent in the first half of the year. The expansion of consumer demand was maintained in 1967; in the first nine months of the year the index of retail sales rose by five per cent. The volume of output in transportable goods industries rose by eight per cent in the second half of 1966, followed by an increase of nine per cent in the first quarter of 1967 and of 14 per cent in the second quarter. These increases were due to the expansion in both domestic demand and in exports.
There has been a remarked recovery in the building and construction industry in 1967 stimulated by the increased allocation in the public capital programme and the easing of credit restrictions. Housing starts for the first nine months of the year were almost double the number in the previous period in 1966 while home sales of cement rose by 14 per cent in the same period. I have already referred to the overall increase of almost £10 million in the public capital programme to £108.5 million in the current year. Of this, £23.82 million has been provided for housing or 22 per cent of the total. Because of the increased amount of money made available which, in turn, enabled us to double the number of housing starts I have just mentioned, it is certain that there will be a significant increase, over the number of 11,000 houses completed last year, in the current year, and if one adds to this the increase in the grant allocation for improvement or extension of existing houses which will represent a total of about a further 11,000, it will indicate that a considerable advance will have been made in the housing provision in the current year.
If we look at the seasonally corrected figures for production and compare each quarter with the preceding quarter the picture given is one of sustained upward progress starting from the third quarter of 1966. In that quarter the volume of output in transportable goods industries rose by ten per cent compared with the preceding quarter. The level of production was maintained in the fourth quarter of 1966 at very near the high third quarter level. In the first quarter of this year, there was a further advance of 2 per cent and 3½ per cent in the second quarter. Production figures for the third quarter of 1967 are not available, but given an increase in that quarter of two per cent in the volume of retail sales, seasonally adjusted of course, and the maintenance of the extremely high second quarter level of exports, there can be no doubt that the trend of production has continued upwards.
The unemployment situation has been slow to respond to the recovery of production but this is mainly due to the reduction in emigration as a result of conditions in the British labour market at present. In the fourth quarter of this year, there has been a marked improvement in the unemployment situation and the most recent figures show a fall of 1,000 in claims for unemwards, rather than ducking behind the corresponding period in 1966. As to employment in industry and services generally, the number in insured employment, at 715,433, in July, 1967, was the highest figure ever recorded. This represents an increase of almost 60,000 new jobs over the period since 1961, or roughly 12,000 new jobs a year over that five year period.
There is a significant factor here which I think worth mentioning. This matches almost exactly the rise in population in the same period.
For most of the five year period I have mentioned, that is, for the first four years, the increase in female employment was much higher than that in male employment but compared with 1966, females in 1967 show an increase of 7,000 and males an increase of 8,400. Lest it be suggested that over the five year period I am dealing with there has been a corresponding decline in employment in agriculture, forestry and fisheries which more than offset the overall increase let me say that the contrary is the case. This fact is revealed by the fact the the overall total number of people at work in 1966 was 1,066 million as compared with 1,052 million in 1961.
The growth rate in 1967 is expected to be about four per cent, which I suggest is an outstanding performance in a year in which there has been a general worldwide slowing down in expansion. The growth rate in the OECD countries in 1967 is estimated as two per cent, only half the rate we are achieving. Moreover, despite the slowing down in world trade and the relative stagnation in the UK market, we have achieved a remarkable expansion of exports in 1967 and the balance of payments, as I have already stated, is expected to show a small surplus.
Some critics are now advocating reflationary measures and, only this morning, a professional political economist writes in this vein again, but I believe that this, as in many cases is hindsight and that these commentators are well behind the times. The facts are that reflationary policies have been pursued for a considerable period and, as the figures I have quoted show, these policies have been highly successful. However, a growth rate higher than the current growth rate of four per cent is the condition we must meet if we are to stem involuntary emigration, if we are to advance significantly towards the goal of full employment and to make more adequate provision for our sick, poor and aged. Essentially, the only source of increased incomes which will not lead to increases in prices is improved productivity.
The benefits of the improvement of the higher growth rate this year are already manifest. After allowing for a rise of 3.8 per cent in consumer prices, the real earnings of industrial workers, who have recently been making a significant contribution to increased industrial output, rose by six per cent in the first half of 1967 as compared with the first half of 1966. In other words, the increase in earnings outstripped the increases in prices by six per cent, and in addition to higher pay, they have, in many cases, received shorter working hours and longer paid holidays.
The present growth rate of four per cent to which I have referred is not self-perpetuating, as experience has shown us; and our aim should be to improve on this. To maintain it or improve it will require all our efforts and will require genuine restraint on the part of workers against seeking too quickly an increased share of the benefits of increased production. To step up productivity and expand our markets, we need a genuine sense of responsibility in regard to increases in wages. The Government favour a progressive increase in workers' real incomes as national production rises. If, however, the increase in total incomes goes beyond that which is warranted by improved productivity, it will raise our costs and, by its effects on our competitiveness, risk slowing down, or interrupting, the growth that is so crucial for us.
Devaluation gives us added cause for guarding against this danger. While it is true that the demand for our goods in countries that have not devalued will be greater because the goods will be cheaper in foreign money it is also true that we must produce and sell more to these countries to earn even the same amount of foreign income as before. To increase our foreign earnings will require still greater production.
In Britain, where the economy is in any event going through a period of severe restriction, the Government there has emphasised that cost increases due to devaluation must not be used as a justification for wage increases. Clearly, if we are to maintain, or improve, our industrial exports to Britain in these circumstances we must keep our costs behind theirs. A keen sense of responsibility therefore, as I have said, for the common good should inform all negotiations for income increases in the coming year. Any increases must be covered at least by higher productivity. The focus must be on searching and agreeing ways and means of raising productivity so as to provide a better standard of living for all our people.
The current foot and mouth disease crisis transcends all debate on other agricultural topics. It has brought home to us very vividly how closely knit our economy is and how much each of us can be affected by what happens to another section of the community. It is only right at this stage that I should pay tribute to all our people at home and abroad and to the agricultural and other organisations who have co-operated with the authorities in the measures that are being taken to prevent the spread of the disease to this country. The safeguards that have had to be taken remind us in a striking way how easy it would be for selfishness or lack of appreciation of the needs of the situation to bring disaster to our whole community and to our whole economy.
The Dáil has recently had an opportunity of discussing at length the Government's decision to devalue the Irish pound. I propose, therefore, to confine myself to a summary of the reasons for this decision and the effects the decision is likely to have on the economy. The Government decided to retain parity with the pound sterling because, given the pattern of our external payments and our external trade, any alternative course of action would have been most disadvantageous for us. If we did not devalue we would, in effect, have voluntarily raised a tariff barrier of some 16.7 per cent against ourselves on all our exports to Britain. That would have been an absurd course of action for a country like ours, a country which is so dependent on increased exports for a continued expansion of production and employment.
Devaluation by more than the amount of the sterling devaluation would, on the other hand, have had seriously adverse effects on prices and costs because prices and costs would have risen by far more than the moderate percentage likely to occur as a result of devaluation. In any case, the present strong balance of payments position would have made it impossible for us to justify a greater devaluation than that of sterling to the International Monetary Fund. A devaluation in step with sterling will admittedly have disadvantages but there will be compensating benefits to be reaped provided the opportunities presented to us are seized.
Merchandise imports from non-devaluing countries will be dearer but the cost will be mitigated by diversion of demand, in some cases, to cheaper supplies in this country or in Britain. Supplies in non-devaluing countries are also likely to absorb some of the price increase in order to maintain their markets. The final effect on consumer prices, taking into account some increase in price in relation to imports as a result of devaluation because of imports to Britain of raw materials from non-devaluing countries, is likely to be moderate. In view of the time it will take to reduce stocks purchased at pre-devaluation prices, the rise in prices should be gradual.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce has made it clear that price control legislation will be strictly enforced in order to ensure that price increases are kept at a minimum. The major benefit from devaluation will be the opportunity provided for a very significant rise in our exports. Our goods will now enjoy a substantial competitive advantage in the European Economic Community, in North America and in other non-devaluing areas and will also have an advantage over goods from non-devaluing countries in the British market. Tourism will, of course, also benefit.
There should be no problem in increasing production quickly in order to avail of the new export opportunities since the substantial capital investment of recent years has considerably expanded our industrial capacity. Provided management act promptly to take advantage of these new opportunities and employees co-operate in getting our costs fully competitive, we should see a marked development of our exports to the Continent and to North America over the next 12 months. Unfortunately these markets are still unfamiliar to a number of our businessmen and it will require a definite exercise of initiative on their part to exploit them. Nevertheless, with the additional competitiveness afforded by devaluation, the rewards will be great for those who display this initiative.
As the Minister for Finance has indicated, we have been considering for some time past how best to remove the discrepancies between the Currency Act of 1927 and the Bretton Woods Agreement Act of 1957. It would have been undesirable to initiate action on this matter so long as the £ sterling was under pressure; action could have led to suspicion that we believed devaluation was imminent and might have helped to precipitate or accentuate it. We are now, however, free to make this technical adjustment and it is intended to incorporate the necessary provision in banking legislation which it is hoped to introduce in the next session. The external par value of the Irish pound will, under this arrangement, be that declared formally in terms of gold to the International Monetary Fund. The present relationship with the pound sterling will, of course, not be disturbed.
I should like now to deal very briefly with another current topic. I refer to decentralisation of some Government Departments. In my statement of 16th November last I announced the Government's decision to transfer the headquarters work of the Department of Education to Athlone and that of the Department of Lands to Castlebar. It is well to recall that the subject of decentralisation had been under consideration and discussion for many years and that, as far back as 4th November, 1964, the then Minister for Finance, Dr. Ryan, had told the Dáil that it had been decided in principle to transfer certain Government offices from Dublin. It seems to me that the only way in which to achieve progress in this matter was for the Government to take a firm decision to send certain Departments to named provincial centres. I fully realise that, in making a choice, the Government were open to criticism for not sending other Departments elsewhere. But this was inescapable.
When the Government had reached this primary decision, the Minister for Finance saw the representatives of the various staff organisations and told them that any matters they might wish to raise in connection with the transfers were open to discussion with officers of the Department. Certain matters have since been raised by the Staff Panel and discussion is proceeding in the General Council under the agreed scheme of conciliation and arbitration for the Civil Service. There has been, of course, criticism from the Civil Service organisations themselves that consultation and discussion had not taken place with them before the decision was announced. As I said, the duty of the Government was first to make the decision. I did not see that any useful purpose would be served by having negotiations prior to the making of the decision. No single Department, I feel sure, would have opted for transfer and the General Council could hardly have spoken for any single Department in that respect.
However, I want to say that I have a very high regard for the Civil Service, not only as Head of the Government but as an individual and a former civil servant myself, and I value highly the contribution they have made to the progress of this country. They are a responsible body and I feel sure that, as such, they will recognise that the decision of the Government is part of the general economic progress essential to the diversification of our economic effort. I believe that with goodwill, and I can assure that goodwill from the Government side, the difficulties that are bound to arise, and which I can see are inescapable in some cases, will be reduced to the absolute minimum.
With regard to the EEC and our current application, it is opportune now that I should summarise for Deputies the developments that have taken place in regard to our application for membership since the matter was last debated in the Dáil on the 25th and 26th July of this year. At the end of September the Commission of the EEC presented its report to the Council on the application of Ireland and other countries for membership. That report, the bulk of which was taken up with an examination of the problems posed by Britain's application, represents an important stage in the processing of the applications made. The main conclusions were (1) membership by Britain, Ireland, Denmark and Norway, countries whose political and economic structures and the level of whose developments are very near those of existing members, could reinforce the Community; (2) new members should, as a general rule, accept the commitments entered into by the Six subject to appropriate transitional arrangements; (3) that it would be necessary to reach agreement on a number of fundamental problems affecting Britain, principally, namely—
the re-establishment of equilibrium in the British economy and balance of payments, and an examination as to how the international role of sterling might be fitted into the Community's monetary system, — the principles and general direction of a common policy in research and technology — community financing, including agricultural financing, — relations to be established with various third countries, in particular the members of EFTA and the Commonwealth.
The Commission, as we know, recommended the opening of negotiations with all four applicant countries. It further recommended that negotiations should be so arranged as to permit the accession of all new members at the same time. This is a point we particularly urged — especially in relation to the accession of Britain.
The Commission's report was issued on the 29th September and came before the Council of Ministers at their meeting on 3rd October. Because of the short time available for examination of the report, detailed consideration of the report was postponed until the next meeting of the Council which was held on the 23rd and 24th October. At that meeting the member States failed to reach an agreed Community position and a further discussion was deferred until the meeting of the 20th November.
As Deputies are aware, the devaluation of sterling took place on 18th November and the Council meeting of 20th November decided in the circumstances to obtain an oral report from the Commission on the situation brought about by devaluation. The Report has just been furnished and it is to be considered by the Council at its meeting on 18th and 19th December. In the interval between the Council's meetings on 23rd October and 20th November I had an opportunity of meeting President de Gaulle in Paris and having discussions with him and with members of the French Government, including the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister. I have given an account of these discussions as recently as 7th and 22nd November in reply to Dáil Questions, and I do not therefore propose to go over the same ground again except to mention the main points.
President de Gaulle and his Ministers assured me there was no objection in principle to Ireland's accession to the European Communities. President de Gaulle adverted to the problems posed by Britain's application and suggested that, in the event of progress not being possible for a considerable time in regard to Britain's application, it might be helpful for us to have an interim arrangement with the Community pending full membership. While expressing appreciation of the French offer of support and goodwill in this connection, I emphasised that our application, at present before the Council, is for full membership and that we hope for an early favourable response to this. The statements made by President de Gaulle in the course of his press conference on 27th November have underlined how strongly the French object to entering into negotiations before the problems posed by the British application are solved and, to facilitate the solution of these problems, President de Gaulle expressed France's willingness to enter into an arrangement with Britain, under the description of association or any other name, which favours commercial exchanges. These remarks, while indicative of the scale of difficulties standing in the way of the enlargement of the Communities, do not constitute a reply by the Council to the applications made for membership. The matter is to be considered further at a meeting on 18th and 19th December and while we hope decisions reached at that meeting will clarify the situation, I believe some further delay will be unavoidable. If it is established that circumstances do not permit of the opening of negotiations for a long period, it will be time then to look at the possibility of alternative arrangements. I wish to emphasise, however, that any arrangement not expected to lead to membership within a reasonable period would have little attraction for us.
I would now like to say a word about my recent visit to Stormont, on Monday last, where I met Captain O'Neill and all the members of his Government. As the House is aware, I indicated over a year ago, shortly after my appointment as Taoiseach, my desire to contact Captain O'Neill at an early stage. It was my desire then, and still is, to ensure the continuation of the policy that was established in my predecessor's time, the policy which was so widely acclaimed throughout the country, the policy of contact and cooperation in this way in order to contribute to a better understanding between people on both sides of the Border and to avoid the sterility and frustration of the past.
In the meantime, the contacts at ministerial and official level continued, with beneficial results to both sides. These contacts have covered general economic matters, physical planning, construction, education, health services, cultural activities, electricity supply, development of peat resources, transport and tourism. These contacts are continuing, and, even if they did not produce any tangible results—in fact they are so doing — I regard this means of communication and discussion as useful, and indeed necessary.
There has been some criticism because of alleged lack of contact with Nationalist Members at Stormont. I might say in this respect that shortly after my appointment as Taoiseach, I had visits from a number of Nationalist Members and had very useful exchanges of views with them. I hope these contacts will also continue.
The Taoiseach is not forgetting any other Nationalist Members as well as——
When I say "Nationalists", I include all those who are members of Parliament who would be glad to have contact with all or any Ministers at any time——
My remarks were apropos the Nationalist Party but there are other people as well who are anti-Partition.
I do not wish to introduce any misunderstanding at this stage. My reference to the Nationalists included, in general, the Opposition — everybody — even though they may not be of that general designation.
That is fair enough.
I have met the person whom Deputy Corish is obviously referring to. What I wish to emphasise is that there is no reluctance on my part or on the part of the Government to meet at any time any Member of the Stormont Parliament at either Commons or Senate level, so long as we can arrange convenient times.
I do not want to cover all the field that could be covered, or to try to anticipate all the topics that will be referred to in the course of the debate. I shall therefore conclude on a general note. Prior to devaluation and the outbreak of the foot and mouth epidemic, I was confident that 1968 would be a year of continued progress. I am still confident it will be. If we avoid the deflationary tendencies that develop, we can make devaluation work to our advantage, particularly in increasing our exports, even allowing for deflationary measures in Britain, that is, providing it is decided to introduce them there. We have certain control over our activities and prospects in this respect. So, too, have we certain control over our prospects in respect of avoiding the effects of the foot and mouth epidemic occurring in this country. If we are successful, and success will depend to a large extent on our own efficiency, 1968 will be a year in which further economic progress can be made.
The House would have listened with greater appreciation of the progress which the Taoiseach referred to in respect of a number of matters if comparison were made with the actual decline in a number of spheres of activity during 1966-67. When the Taoiseach compared the improvement this year in house building, it must be contrasted with the very steep drop in the number of houses built by local authorities in previous years.
It is for that reason that we have, among other things, suggested that the economy requires to be reflated and that the expansion which has been so long delayed must be maintained at a continuous level. It is our view that the essential need in present circumstances is to reflate the economy so as to expand employment and exploit the opportunities for economic development. This can only be done by conscious and definite Government decision to initiate, where necessary, the appropriate activity.
The improvement in trade this year and the expansion in house building which have been referred to by the Taoiseach, occurred spontaneously rather than through any definite Government action. In respect of housing, though there was particular improvement, it had to compensate for the very serious decline in some recent years. If we compare the total number of houses built by local authorities in 1964—1,856—with the figure of 4,784 in 1957, and reflect that in 1966 there was a sharp decline — this aspect of our housing programme was referred to by the economic survey of OECD countries in terms that "house building, which fell sharply in 1966..."— the figures as I understand them showed an actual decline in 1966 of 17 per cent. It is true there has been an improvement this year but that comparison must be taken on the basis of the gap or leeway that had to be made good. However, over and above that, much more is needed if the economy is to be expanded and if the very serious backlog, not only in housing but in other areas, is to be overcome.
References made in the course of the Taoiseach's speech and also during the debate on the Department of Finance Estimates in respect of action which was taken do not refute the criticism made here that with the exception of the withdrawal of certain hire purchase restrictions in September and the earlier announcement by the Central Bank in respect of credit, no action whatever was taken to stimulate or generate economic activity; and it is important that we should reflect on the criticism in this respect which was made in the report of the Economic and Social Research Institute in relation to what has been happening. This is not a report prepared by politicians and the criticisms in it are not those of persons who might have political viewpoints. The report states, having examined the position of the economy:
To summarise these conclusions, it appears quite apparent from the evidence that the timing of short term economic measures from 1964 has been far from ideal. Both the Department of Finance and the Central Bank have tended to delay their decisions, whether restrictive or expansionary, so long that they have had a destabilising effect on the level of final demand rather than the stabilising effect which surely should be aimed for.
It went on to say:
The major lesson which thus emerges from this analysis of the recent past is therefore that the authorities should in future endeavour to so time their actions as to ensure as smooth a growth in final demand as possible, within the limitations set by the tendency of exports to grow along a somewhat erratic path.
This particular report referred to delays and unnecessary procrastination in reaching decisions. The most recent commentaries on three quarters of the present year adverted to the effects which devaluation would have and adverted to the position which would arise if the necessary action was not taken in time. It said for example:
The capacity of the building industry seems fully committed by projects under construction or already approved. The addition of a major programme of factory building or extension would strain the industry severely.
This reinforces the views we have expressed that some definite control and order of priorities must be established if the building industry is not to have the peaks and slumps that have characterised it over many years — everything is going full blast and then when there is a restriction of credit or a rise in interest rates and an inability to build or purchase houses a slump occurs, and then again when expansion is generated through an easing of credit or other facilities, at the same time large scale capital works by the State, semi-State or other bodies are undertaken. We believe some order of priorities, no matter what system is adopted to make it work, should be drawn up. It is obvious that there are many ways in which this could be operated and that some action must be taken in that regard.
The question of EEC membership was referred to by the Taoiseach. I feel the time has come when we must re-appraise the whole question of EEC membership. It is obvious for a very considerable time that the date which was set, and by which the Government on many occasions claimed that this country would be a member, 1970, has now no basis in reality, that in fact it is an exploded myth and that while formal consideration of our application by the Council of Ministers has been postponed until next week, there is a widespread acceptance by people directly concerned with the Commission, by commentators who have expressed views on it and indeed by the ordinary man who reads reports in the newspapers, that the prospect of EEC membership in the immediate future has greatly receded.
It seems, therefore, to us that it is unrealistic and impractical to wait ten years or so before considering the alternative. While a decade may not be unduly long in the life of a country, the prevailing uncertainty and insecurity involved in such a delay are such as to make it necessary to consider possible alternative arrangements. It is important, therefore, that we should study the question of what alternatives may be available and this prompts the need to review the present Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. When that Agreement was recommended to this House in January, 1966, we at that time accepted it as a stepping stone or an interim arrangement, pending the adherence of this country to the Rome Treaty. In fact, when that Agreement was recommended to the House by the then Taoiseach, he expressed the view that he saw it as facilitating our subsequent membership of EEC on the basis of full equality of status and opportunity with other members, as reported at column 1160 of the Dáil Debates of 4th January, 1966.
The position has now been reached in which it is obvious that adherence to the Treaty of Rome is unlikely in the immediate future and it seems to us that, without in any way withdrawing our application or minimising to any extent the pressures which we can bring to bear on the EEC Member Countries, we must re-appraise the whole situation and review the present Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. We expressed the view at the time that it was unbalanced and that the danger of an agreement or any trading situation in which disadvantages would occur to our position without proper compensations was unacceptable and in the long run could not be justified.
It is, therefore, appropriate at this time that the whole question should be reviewed. We believe there has not been full exploration or examination of the extent to which some solution other than the existing terms of the Rome Treaty could be negotiated. When people quote the terms of the Rome Treaty, or when the terms of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement are discussed, they are both discussed on the basis that they are immutable, that they are in some way comparable with the Ten Commandments, that they can never be changed. There is no doubt that the time is arriving, if the Common Market concept is to be expanded, when some consideration must be given to a compromise solution. It must be accepted that the belief that the terms of the Rome Treaty and the terms of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement are permanent and unchangeable has no basis in the context of discussions between sovereign States and Governments representing their people. None of those Agreements can be regarded as sacrosanct to the extent that no change or no alteration can be made. It is obvious that a small country like this has limitations on its negotiating capacity, in the sense that our influence in a large organisation of this sort must be exercised in conjunction with other applicant countries but that a combined effort of applicant countries seeking to secure the same advantages and the same benefits should offer some prospect for exploitation and examination.
We believe, therefore, that we cannot postpone further the consideration of alternative arrangements and that it is unrealistic and impractical to pursue the line which has been laid down that this country would be a member by 1970. Everybody recognises that, short of some extraordinarily unexpected development, that is not likely to happen. The Government have consistently urged industry, trade unions, agriculture and other bodies to prepare for EEC membership and to gear themselves for that situation. I, therefore, feel that we must examine what the Government have done in this regard and what steps the Government have taken to prepare, in the areas in which the Government are not merely responsible but are the only body capable of taking the necessary action. This has been more forcibly brought home as a result of devaluation.
In 1966, the gross domestic expenditure in this country on consumption and investment is estimated at £1,081 million; imports of goods and services were £430 million, of which about £158 million came from countries that have not devalued and £272 million from devaluing countries, the United Kingdom being responsible for all but £12 million of the latter figure of £272 million. The effect of devaluation on the prices of goods from countries that have not devalued is estimated to rise by 16? per cent. The average price of goods exported from Britain has been estimated by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research in Britain, which I understand is the most authoritative body of its kind and on which the British Government themselves rely for guidance, to rise by 7 per cent, plus an additional 2 per cent profit.
Taking in the case of exports to countries that have not devalued, a calculation has been made that this 7 per cent is made up as follows: an increase in import prices, plus 2½ per cent; the abolition of the export rebate in April, plus 2 per cent; the abolition of the selective employment premium, plus ½ per cent; increases in wage costs due to devaluation additional to any increases that might otherwise have taken place, plus 2 per cent: a total of 7 per cent. If, therefore, we examine the effect of this increase on the £158 million of imports of goods and services from non-devaluing countries, it is estimated that it will cost us £26½ million while 7 per cent on the £272 million of imports from Britain and other devaluing countries should cost £19 million.
This represents a total increase of £45½ million on gross domestic expenditure of about £1,125 million this year or a price increase of over 4 per cent directly due to devaluation, without allowing for increases due either to ineffective price control or increases in wages due to devaluation.
Is the Deputy relating the British percentage increase to Ireland directly?
No; I am only quoting the effect on the £272 million of imports from Britain. It is estimated that a 7 per cent increase will amount to £19 million if we go on that. If we relate it to the non-devaluing countries, it amounts to an estimated total increase of £45½ million.
If we consider also the increase in prices due to devaluation, which in Britain has been estimated at 2 per cent, it is reasonable to assume that the prices here will increase by between 6 per cent and 6½ per cent over and above any normal price increase other than devaluation. That, I feel, is substantially higher and this is where I feel that the Government have indeed been too complacent in this regard. Indeed, one of the criticisms that were expressed in respect of cost increases in Britain, both in the Bank of England Bulletin and the Report of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, was the fact that the effects of devaluation had been underestimated by the British Government. Allowing for the differences in the size of our economy, there is ample justification for the view we have expressed and the evidence is already available in the rises in price of commodities that have been imported.
I need quote only two of them. One is coal. From the figures given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, 60 per cent of coal imported here comes from countries affected by devaluation, 40 per cent from America and 20 per cent from West Germany. I am sure the Taoiseach and the Ministers have heard also that the builders' providers have been notified of price increases in respect of timber which will affect building. In two items already the increase is greater than the two per cent mentioned by the Minister for Finance.
This emphasises and highlights the urgency of a proper approach to the whole question of social welfare. We have consistently advocated that our health and social welfare services must be put on a proper basis. We dealt in our policy Towards a Just Society with the whole question of health services and social welfare arrangements. We recommended that the only satisfactory health and social welfare scheme is a contributory insurance basis. I think we must go further than that. It is here that the Government have not taken the initiative. We lag very much behind EEC countries in respect of our social welfare system.
If we are to provide our people with the social welfare benefits necessary in modern conditions, necessary to give even a reasonable or fair standard of living, necessary now to cover the very substantial increase in the cost of living, we must review the system and accept the responsibility for a system in which not merely will the contributions be graded on the basis of income but the benefits and payments paid on the same basis. In the past this was not accepted entirely by trade unions, or indeed by other sections in the community. I believe the time has now arrived when it is essential that a scheme based on graded contributions according to income, and benefits appropriate to such payments must be introduced if our social security standards are to be brought into line with the EEC countries.
There has not been opposition by the trade union movement. We had that in our programme for 1961 and they approved.
Who thought it up first?
There is general recognition that these changes must be considered, but considered also in conjunction with the present inadequate health services which are costly, inequitable and generally unsatisfactory. That brings before this House the urgency of an announcement by the Government as to what action will be taken to offset the steep rise in health charges on the rates which is foreshadowed for the coming year. When the present Minister for Education was Minister for Health, he made an announcement that in a particular year the increases over and above the previous year would not fall on the rates. Since then the Government have welshed on that decision. In every health authority in the country in recent weeks, preliminary examination has shown that the health estimates for the coming year would rise further. They are the steepest rise that has ever occurred in respect of the health services. It is obvious that the present rise is attributable to the unsatisfactory manner of paying for the health services from the rates. A proper health service can only be provided on an insurance basis.
At the recent Árd-Fheis, a Fianna Fáil Minister for Health promised that the Health Bill, which was promised two years ago, would be introduced before Christmas. We were told recently that it would not be introduced before the New Year. I want to get from the Government an indication of what proposals they have to alleviate the very heavy burden which will fall on the ratepayers this year in order to provide a health service which by any standards can only be regarded as unsatisfactory, costly and incapable of providing the standards to which the people are entitled and which we feel can only be made available on an insurance basis.
The foot and mouth epidemic has been referred to by the Taoiseach and it has been the subject of a number of references and discussion in the House in recent weeks. There is a special word of thanks due to those people in Britain who have voluntarily accepted the recommendation that they should not come back here during the holiday period in case they should be a source of infection. Deputy Clinton has indicated our view here that if in order to protect this country from the risk of infection, the Government consider, and the veterinary authorities consider, that further action is necessary over the holiday period as a result of the risk involved because of very large numbers travelling, we would certainly agree to the view expressed by Deputy Clinton that the docks should be closed for a limited period, before and after Christmas, to ensure that the position would be kept within manageable proportions. This, however, is a matter on which only the veterinary and other technical experts available to the Government can give advice. So far as we are concerned, we are prepared to support any necessary action in this regard.
The Taoiseach referred to the recent talks which took place in Stormont. We have always advocated contact between the Government here and the authorities in the Six Counties. In fact, we initially undertook the contacts in that regard, possibly with less publicity and less drama than attended developments in recent years. Many years ago action was taken in respect of the Erne drainage and hydro-electric scheme, in respect of the Foyle fisheries and in respect of the Great Northern Railway. We have consistently expressed the view that discussions and contacts on matters of mutual concern must have beneficial results from the point of view of our people on both sides of the Border. While we have regarded it as right that these mutual problems should be discussed, we should not allow these discussions to push into the background or under the carpet the other serious infringements of democratic rights of those broadly described as the Nationalists in the Six Counties. This discrimination, in respect of housing and employment and in respect of equality of voting rights, is a matter which must be kept in the forefront of any discussions. This discrimination also reinforces the inescapable obligation on the Government here to ensure that no shadow of suspicion can be levelled at our administration which would suggest that any aspect of our democratic principles would be allowed to be cancelled. The basic human rights of equal representation for all citizens of the State must be upheld, no matter what the consequences may be for individuals or particular areas.
We, therefore, welcome these discussions, but it must be understood that discussions of this nature, to be beneficial, must look at the picture as a whole and must take into account the interests of all sections of the people on both sides of the Border. The present discussions which have taken place following the earlier discussions offer hope for certain joint action in respect of common problems. While we regard joint action as essential and likely to lead to improved results in respect of a number of areas in which combined action can be effected, we must at no time lose sight of the problems which must be faced in respect of discrimination in certain spheres of activity, discrimination which by any modern standard can only be regarded as undemocratic and, indeed, out of line with modern thought, not only in this country but in other countries as well.
I, therefore, believe it is essential that in dealing with this problem we must ensure that in so far as arrangements down here are concerned our standards can in no way be threatened. Our approach to problems must be such that we can justifiably express our concern at the failure to deal with a number of matters which at present involve discrimination against a great many people who are entitled as citizens — Irishmen and Irishwomen — to the same treatment as their fellow citizens.
This is the first annual review for which the new Taoiseach has been responsible — the review of the year 1967. I must confess that it appears to be a review in the same old pattern. When the present Taoiseach, Deputy Lynch, was appointed Taoiseach, approximately 12 months ago, he disappointed quite a number of people and, I am sure, quite a lot of younger Deputies when he declared he would continue Fianna Fáil policy. I do not mind that as a broad statement. However, in view of the pattern of failure of Fianna Fáil policy over very many years, one would expect an effort to get a breakthrough. The review by the Taoiseach this morning is still the same clatter of statistics and the same pious hopes. There does not appear to be any new thinking. The year 1967 can be characterised, with the seven or eight years previous to it, as years of caution, confusion and conservatism on the part of the Government.
Government policy still appears to be geared to short-term requirements and, in some cases, to political ends. There does not appear to be any attempt to devise a plan or to approach the unsolved problems, both social and economic, which we have. Even though by-election results may be mentioned, I think it is correct to say that the Government have failed to capture the imagination of the people and particularly the younger people who appear much more interested in politics and things social and economic than ever before.
I do not blame the Taoiseach for what I am now about to say. There must be a certain amount of cynicism in the apparent pretence of the independence of this country in our attitude towards EEC and towards devaluation. These things are of great concern to people who would like to see this country really independent, particularly from the economic point of view.
The year 1967 is remarkable for its conservatism. The Taoiseach and Deputy Cosgrave referred to the Taoiseach's visit to the North. I do not think it caused any stir any place apart from the fact that the Reverend Mr. Paisley and some of his associates threw snowballs at the Taoiseach's car. Why did the Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland have to make what appeared to a majority of the people of this country a furtive visit to the North, a furtive visit to the second biggest city of this country? This also happened when the former Taoiseach, Deputy Lemass, visited Belfast. As soon as the Taoiseach's car was safely across the Border, the press, radio and television were told that Mr. Lemass had gone to see Captain O'Neill. I do not know why this should happen. It is a reflection on our Government.
It must be an embarrassment for the Taoiseach to visit another part of this country which is under what we hope is a temporary regime. We applaud the motives which inspired the present Taoiseach and the previous Taoiseach to visit the Prime Minister of the Six Counties. The Taoiseach listed the subjects which were discussed. We wonder if the problem of discrimination and other matters were discussed as well. If these visits consist of talks on matters on which there is 100 per cent agreement, then they are of no use whatsoever.
Many people in the North look to this country for some help, particularly with regard to discrimination. I suppose the Taoiseach will claim he is trying to bring about better relations with the people in the North. Deputy Cosgrave mentioned the approach of his Party in this connection. The Labour Party hope to establish a council of labour representative of the socialist groups in the North with the socialist Labour Party down here.
I suppose it is too much to expect that the Taoiseach mentioned Partition. At all international institutions now and at all these talks with people outside the jurisdiction of this State, it appears that it is infra dig to mention Partition. The President — Deputy Eamon de Valera, as he then was — and Deputy MacEntee were very vocal in the Council of Europe and on a few occasions in the United Nations about the injustice of Partition. Now, we do not seem to mention it.
Are the Government resigned to the view that there will always be a permanent Government in the Six Counties, thus partitioning the whole island? It is quite a long time now since we had a statement of policy, attitude or opinion on that subject from the Party who have been in office here since 1957. I am aware that people are concerned for matters social and economic in this country but this is one thing that has always been dear to the heart of Irish people and, we are told, dear to the heart of the members of the Fianna Fáil Party. The present attitude seems to be that such matters should not be mentioned. With regard to our application for membership of EEC, in the United Nations, in the Council of Europe, in the visit to Mr. Wilson, in the visit to Captain O'Neill, this is an unmentionable subject. Therefore, I would ask the Taoiseach to make some mention of present policy on Partition.
Another important event in 1967 for which the Government are responsible was the Budget which, again, was a juggle of figures. Thank God, our social welfare recipients got something out of that juggle. Apart from that, there was no new thinking, nothing spectacular, no new proposals, no new initiative. Our application for membership of the EEC appears to have been rejected. We must all live with devaluation. In this matter, we are not masters of our fate. I think all Parties agree that, inevitably, we had to do what Britain did.
I suppose 1967 could be marked as the year of the establishment of Taca. This was the most cynical, materialistic manoeuvre of the past decade or two. I shall not dwell on the matter too deeply or on the affiliation of the trade unions to the Labour Party but, as distinct from the affiliation of the trade unions, the establishment of Taca was a cynical, materialistic manoeuvre and appears nothing better than an insurance investment by people who believe — whether or not they get it — that there will be some benefit from supporting the Fianna Fáil Party and the Government by handing in big subscriptions.
As anticipated, the Taoiseach claimed 1967 to have been a good year. As far as the statisticians and economists are concerned, I suppose it was a good year. The Taoiseach says our productivity growth will have been about 4.3 per cent but in my view, the increase in growth is not a real indication of the state of the economy, because we also must have regard to the years 1966 and 1965. In 1966 there was virtual stagnation. The life of a country cannot be measured just by statistics trotted out for one year or for two, three or four years. It must be related to the slow growth in 1965. Our problem now is that we should not be satisfied with a 4.3 per cent increase in growth rate. Our attitude should be to try to catch up on these wasted years or years in which we had no increase in growth, in 1965 and 1966.
We are told that the balance of payments will have levelled out and that our external assets for the full year will be increased by approximately £50 million. We are also told that production was up in the second quarter of this year by 9.6 per cent compared with the same quarter of last year, that average industrial earnings will be up by 7.6 per cent and that labour costs will be down by 2 per cent. These are statistics and while many are impressed by statistics, particularly those who compile them, again, as I have often said in this House, these statistics do not tell the whole story. Usually they are selected statistics that are to the advantage of the Government but there are other statistics that must be mentioned, those mentioned to the ordinary person looking for a job, the person on social welfare, the person looking for a house. The statistics we have had, in my view, are designed only to mesmerise and confuse the ordinary person who may have only £2 12s 6d a week. When he is told by the Taoiseach or a Government Minister that growth last year was up 4.3 per cent he is not much concerned unless it is translated into an improvement in his income or standard of living.
We must discover — and it is to this we should apply ourselves — how these things affect people and apply to people. In this connection the Taoiseach spoke about wage increases and while I do not know the mind of the trade union movement in regard to the rates of wages and salaries they have at present, I think it should be pointed out, as regards labour costs having fallen by approximately 2 per cent, that a word of credit is due to operatives in the manufacturing industries.
I have said that we did not seem to have had any important event in 1967 for which the Government were responsible but there was a very important event, in my view, which took place quite recently in the Taoiseach's city and constituency of Cork. It may prove to have been the most important political event of the year. I do not refer to the by-election, where incidentally it was shown that the young people and urban dwellers were not absolutely satisfied with the policy of Fianna Fáil or convinced by their speeches but with an increased vote of 25 per cent, there were many more people in Cork city looking to the Labour Party and its policy for future political activities so far as they are concerned. I am referring to the important event of the teach-in that was organised by the university students and the theme — I forget the actual wording — was concerned with the illness of the nation. The evidence of the prevalence of this illness was in the number of people and the type of people who contributed and in the sincerity of the detailed papers they submitted. I think it must also be regarded as important because the Press, which certainly has its finger on the public pulse in 99 per cent of cases, gave it so much attention, as did also radio and television and other people not normally interested in politics.
This teach-in was started on the initiative of a young generation and it appears to me, having read all the papers that were contributed and knowing a little about the background of all this, that the younger generation and those who attend Cork University are not prepared to believe the claims made in the Cork by-election three or four weeks before polling day. I think nobody could question their concern, sincerity and interest. The big question that was asked at that teach-in and the question people are asking themselves, if not shouting it aloud, is: where is the nation going? They want to know what social philosophy should we transmit into policies. I believe our people will not for long more be satisfied with stop-gap policies of raising a few hundred thousand pounds or a million pounds to stop this gap or raising another million pounds to stop another gap or bringing in some legislation to satisfy this group for a while or making a regulation to satisfy that group for a while. We must have a philosophy and an all-over plan to implement it.
I do not want to appropriate the results of this teach-in for political purposes because I think there was no element of politics in it but it did emphasise two questions which are still unanswered. The first is: what type of society do we want and the second is, how do we achieve it? Some 45 years have passed since we got native government for at least portion of the country and so far these questions are still unanswered. Every single year we have evidence of the failure of policy for those 45 years. It must be apparent to the Taoiseach, to political Parties and to individual Deputies that a change must be made and that the whole system and attitude and policies cannot much longer be continued if the nation is to reach a solution of its economic problems because in 1967 we still have the same litany which it embarrasses me to read out because I do it year after year on the Taoiseach's Estimate, Adjournment Debates and at Budget time.
How can it be said that we have progressed over the past 12 months or over the 12 months back to November, 1966, when we know — and these figures are accurate — that there were 6,045 more people unemployed at mid-November than there were in mid-November, 1966? There can be no excuse about unemployment period orders because these finished on 31st October, 1966. There is some lame excuse in the document we got in regard to unemployment from the Taoiseach's Office to the effect that some people did not know that the employment period orders ended on 31st October and were very slow to apply for unemployment assistance or benefit. I do not believe that. I believe it is quite correct to assert so far as employment is concerned that it has disimproved to the extent of 6,045. At present, whether in receipt of unemployment assistance or benefit, there are 55,355 people unemployed, according to the statistics from the Taoiseach's Office.
We should be concerned about these people. They are people who will not be impressed by statistical information given in this House by the Taoiseach Deputy Cosgrave or myself. They are concerned immediately as to where they will get money to provide reasonable fare for themselves and their families over Christmas. These are the people about whom we should be concerned. We should not say: "Some of them are unemployed" or "A lot of them would not work; they are only so-and-so's." These are people of flesh and blood with wives and families and they must be provided for, no matter what their defects and shortcomings may be.
We still have the problem of emigration. I do not think the Taoiseach put a figure on it, but it still runs at over 20,000 per year which is a severe drain on our population. The flight from the land is still unabated, and yet we congratulate ourselves when we adjourn for Christmas, telling ourselves that the growth rate in the last 12 months has gone up by 4.3 per cent, that there is an improvement in our balance of payments, our external assets and so on. How is this to be translated into benefit for ordinary people? Let us not just look at the majority of the people. The business of this Dáil and the responsibility of the Government is to look after the humblest member of our society.
When the Taoiseach claimed there was an increase of 12,000 jobs since 1961, I think he quoted those in insurable employment, but, if my memory serves me correctly, this would be an entirely wrong figure, because during that period from 1961 up to now there were many thousands of people who were covered under the Social Welfare Acts for insurance and benefit purposes. In industry we still have the same pattern despite what the First and Second Programmes for Economic Expansion set out. In industry there is only the usual extra 2,000 or 3,000 new jobs per year. There is some increase, but it is not at all sufficient to take up those people who are forced to fly from the land. It is not at all in accordance with what the Government believed would happen as a result of the First and Second Programmes for Economic Expansion.
Need one talk about housing, the subject that has been debated here for so long? The record of the Government in the past year in that respect, to say the best of it, is not very good either. In September of last year there were 3,537 local authority houses in the course of erection. This year in September there were 4,174. This appears to be a big increase, but the requirements are such that we should have in the course of erection by local authorities 14,000. I do not say for a minute that the Taoiseach is not conversant with this problem. He meets with it in his own constituency down in Cork, but what are we going to do for these people? Are they to be condemned as married couples to living in flats, living with their in-laws for five, six or seven years before they can get a house? This is all allied to production and to the capacity of workers in industry. If they have not good homes, if there is unpleasantness by reason of living with their in-laws in flats that are three or four storeys high, how can they be good workers? I would suggest to the Government that from the point of view of increased production and efficiency in industry it is important that they should tackle this problem once and for all. We have had it here ever since the war, from 1946. A drive was made in 1948, but we still do not seem to be making any impression on this great problem of providing houses for our people.
I do not know whether the Taoiseach mentioned it or not but all appearances are that our external assets have increased by nearly £50 million. I have asked for quite a long time for someone to tell me at what level should our external assets be for safety to this country. In any case, I think it is financial lunacy to allow — I say "allow" deliberately — so much money to be invested abroad when this country appears to be starved of such money for investment. The Taoiseach — I do not know whether it was on his election as Taoiseach or at a similar time last year — made an appeal to people to repatriate their external assets for investment here. I do not think there was any response. Let me say this—I am talking personally — I am a believer in some physical control being exercised to prevent money from going out of this country. Why should a prosperous industry in Ireland that makes pretty good profits be allowed to invest money in another country, money that it makes here with Irish workers and possibly with Irish capital?
What about reciprocal action that other Governments might take?
I am talking about this country that needs this money for capital investment. It is a bit daft.
Other people can restrict as well, and we need investment from abroad to help us.
This time last year the Taoiseach appealed to people to repatriate money here that they have invested in Britain and other countries.
Voluntary repatriation. Compulsory repatriation would not work.
I do not think the Taoiseach believed this could be done, but the appeal appears to have fallen on deaf ears. In any case, this means that over the last 12 months we have been investing an increase of £1 million per week, mostly in the United Kingdom. As regards the Second Programme, I do not know whether it was the responsibility of the Government or on their initiative that the Second Programme for Economic Expansion was abandoned, but we can come to that later.
Deputy Cosgrave talked about our inadequate health services. It is a shocking thing that, despite promises of various Ministers for Health, this Act was passed in this House in 1953 and here we are 14 years afterwards and there has been no substantial improvement, notwithstanding all the complaints that are made in this House and in the local authorities. Although we have had many promises from various Ministers for Health in the Fianna Fáil Government, it is nearly two years since the now Minister for Education published the White Paper in which, to give him credit, many improvements were proposed in the health services. I wonder what has happened to them. Was there disagreement among the Government or was it for lack of funds? The Minister for Health, Deputy Flanagan, promised we shall have it next year. I questioned him yesterday on this and he said we would have it in this session, meaning the session up to July or August of next year. This would mean merely the introduction of it. Therefore, there does not seem to be any intention by the Minister for Health to have improvements in the health services made very quickly.
Deputy Cosgrave also mentioned — and I do not want to be repetitious on this — the social welfare question. He talked about the social welfare schemes they have in Europe and what his Party proposed in their Just Society. There is no use in being petty about this, but we proposed them years ago, and I shall leave it at that.
There has to be a realisation also of the sufferings of individual people. I quoted a case here yesterday, and I was disbelieved, of a man and his wife and one child who were trying to live on 30/- per week. I told the Minister for Social Welfare that I would be prepared to give the name and address. This, I pointed out, was not the entire responsibility of the Minister for Social Welfare. These people were at the mercy of the ratepayers, God help us, through the Wexford County Council, and this is all that could be afforded.
I believe the Minister for Social Welfare should re-examine the whole question of assistance in all its forms. No matter who is responsible now, he should have the responsibility of ensuring that people will not starve and will not have their health impaired because they have not sufficient money to buy food and clothing for themselves. These, as far as I can gather from the newspapers, are some of the problems that were discussed at the teach-in.
We must ask ourselves, therefore, and not just forget the question, what type of society we want. The Proclamation of 1916 describes broadly what the Irish Republic should be. It refers to equality, which means the equality in education, work, the right to enjoy a living at home, not abroad, and to enjoy it now, not tomorrow. The sort of society we want is a society which expands at a rate equal to or faster than European countries, because we have a long way to make up. I do not say this with any sense of bitterness towards the present Government. We must remind ourselves now and again of our deficiencies, the short road we have travelled and the little progress we have made in a relatively long time. We are still the fifth poorest country in Europe. I do not take any pride in that and will not flog it for a long time. We come fifth after Spain, Portugal, Greece and Turkey. The growth rate of 4.3 per cent this year is a good thing, but we have got to do more to be able to say to General de Gaulle or Dr. Kiesinger that we are now fit to enter the EEC. In 1966 there was virtual stagnation, no growth; and it was very small in 1965. Let us, therefore, not be complacent about the 4.3 per cent. It has got to be more next year.
There should be a clear statement from the Government as to the type of society we want. The Constitution does not tell us that in any great detail. The basis of the type of society we want is contained in the Proclamation of 1916 and the democratic programme of the First Dáil. It is well that we should go back to these and remind ourselves of the principles on which the Government was founded when the country got its partial freedom in 1921. We should not behave as any Conservative or Liberal Government. We have to be different in this country because our economic and social structures are different from those of Great Britain. If this is the type of society we want, we must hark back to those two documents. We cannot get that society unless we are prepared to take positive action to ensure that this will happen. There will have to be changes in order to have it done.
We in the Labour Party believe that the State must be involved in economic planning and not just programming. We believe it has to be involved to a greater extent than it is now in such matters of social development as housing, education, social welfare and health. It has to be understood that all the resources of the State, natural and financial, must be devoted to the public good. One of the big lessons of the teach-in in UCC, and again emphasised in the NIEC Report on Full Employment, was that the State must get involved and must involve the whole community. We are not a politically conscious people in that we are not involved and the majority of our people do not appear to be concerned about what happens in local authorities or in Dáil Éireann. The duty of the Government, through its leadership, is to get the community involved. It would be fair comment to say that hundreds of thousands of Irish people are only concerned with politics a few days before an election or on election day when they mark 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
People have to know where the nation is going. This lead can only be given by the Government. This has to be brought down to the social level in the country, and certainly has to be brought down to the industrial level. How many workers have a clue as to why they are working, what they are working for and what is expected of them? The attitude at present appears to be — and nobody can blame them for it —"So long as I am getting my money and putting in my hours, that is my only concern." This is because there is not communication between management and worker. If this is to be done, and it needs to be done, the initiative will have to come from the Government. They can take their lead in this not alone from the Cork teach-in but from the NIEC Report on Full Employment.
It is difficult to talk about a programme that has not yet been published. One wonders whether the Third Programme for Economic Expansion will be the solution to the many problems we have at present. I mentioned the abandonment of the so-called Second Programme. This has now been recognised — whether it was meant by the Government or not I do not know — as purely economic forecasting and certainly not planning. The First Programme was all forecasting. One was encouraged in the Second Programme by what appeared to be a little more detail, not so much about what should be done but what it was expected would be achieved. I do not know whether or not the Government deliberately used the First and Second Programmes for political purposes. It appears to me, even if they did not have any great hand in having these Programmes implemented, that when things went well they took credit for them and said it was their Programme for Economic Expansion; but when things went wrong, they blamed outside influences such as devaluation or something like that.
We are told by the Taoiseach that the Third Programme is to be more or less related to Ireland's position within the EEC. I have a certain amount of sympathy with the Government in the present position of our EEC application. It is a bit daft to be talking about Ireland's application. If General de Gaulle told Britain in the morning that she could become a full member in a month's time, our membership would automatically follow.
However, what we are concerned about at present is the operation of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement. We were told that this Agreement was a sort of exercise to gear us for the EEC. This exercise has caused some hardship in some industries. I will not say it is widespread yet. The Taoiseach knows that one of the industries in Cork city was affected by the terms of the Free Trade Agreement. I know in my constituency fertiliser manufacturing industries and others around the country are going to be affected by this Agreement.
It is not quite true in relation to the Cork case. The restrictions there are still applicable. They were applicable before the Free Trade Area Agreement. There was a falling-off in the demand in export markets for other reasons.
If that is so, why was it necessary to put on the extra tariffs?
There was an Imposition of Duties Order passed last week or the week before.
It was not related solely to the Free Trade Area Agreement.
I do not know what the other complications are, but the Free Trade Agreement did have an effect on this industry in Cork. It is also going to have an effect on the manufacture of fertiliser and agricultural machinery. This is after only two reductions in our tariff protection. I agree with Deputy Cosgrave when he says there should be an immediate review of the Free Trade Area Agreement. It appears to me we are not going to be in the EEC for quite a long time. I do not think Deputy Cosgrave was absolutely right when he said Fine Gael "told you so". If the credit for telling you so should go to anybody in Fine Gael, it should go to Deputy Esmonde who has always been saying it. We have a different attitude. We believe we could not go in immediately as full members and we have been vindicated in that by the experience of the Free Trade Agreement.
It is difficult to know what the Ministers of the Six are going to decide next week. I think the writing is on the wall. Britain will only get some sort of accommodation by way of association. I read in the paper this morning that Dr. Kiesinger, the Chancellor of West Germany, has suggested in a certain way, in a tacit way, that Britain should consider the idea of some form of association. Therefore this country will have to consider whether it would be to its advantage, in consultation with Britain, if you like, to look at some form of association with the countries of the EEC, particularly in view of the fact, as the Taoiseach has said this morning, that our industrial products are now becoming much more attractive and competitive within Europe.
I do not want to delay the House on the business of the foot and mouth disease. I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. This dreaded disease could be a disaster for this country and should it come in, in any form, needless to remark, my attitude is — and it is the attitude of my Party and I have consulted them — that I will support the Minister in all the efforts he may make to ensure that this disease does not come into this country. I know he can be criticised for doing this and not doing that. He is taking what precautions he can without doing damage to the economy, and he is asking people to take precautions which he believes will keep this disease out. He may have to take drastic measures but he can count on the support of the Labour Party.
I believe that at this stage we in the Opposition should take note of the activities and the record of the Government over the past 12 months. My opinion is that this Government believe in the maxim that if the lie you tell is big enough and if you tell it often enough, people will believe it.
I am particularly interestd in the social welfare aspect. I am convinced that society demands and expects that the function of any democratic Government is to examine the needs and the faults of every aspect concerning social welfare. We do not have to be reminded that social welfare has come about to a major degree by evolution. Long before Governments and organised groups saw the need for benefits for the poor, the humble, the handicapped and the invalids in society, voluntary societies organised themselves to support those people. Then the trade unions and other people at that level in society began to notice that certain things were required and we had different organisations coming into being primarily for this purpose, such as the National Foresters and the Ancient Order of Hibernians to a degree. The Parliamentary Secretary looks across at me but perhaps if he examines his conscience, he will find that that ancient Order did play a very prominent part.
From these very small beginnings, it became obvious that the Government must hold themselves responsible for the provision of social welfare benefits, and rightly so. That being so, I am quite satisfied that it is still the desire of society that more money should be spent on and that better benefits should be provided for the less fortunate people. For that reason I strongly support any move to create better benefits, and any move to ease the hardships which many people still suffer in 1967-68 in this Catholic and Christian country. We must examine the position with which we as public representatives are confronted in our own constituencies. I could name a litany of hardship cases where people are expected to live well below the poverty line. I could name numerous cases in my own constituency where people are living in such conditions because they are a wee bit too proud to bring it to the notice of their neighbours.
On the other side of the Border, in Tyrone, for example, when an inspector goes to visit a family which has applied for assistance, his job basically is to give money away, to examine in detail the requirements of the family, and to provide the money, if it is necessary. I wish to emphasise that I am not being personal when I say this: when an inspector goes out to visit a family here which has applied for social welfare benefits such as unemployment assistance, home assistance, unemployment benefit or disabled persons' allowances, it seems as if a directive had been issued by the Department to this effect: "How can we prevent giving money to them? By what method? What legislation can we use to prevent these people from becoming recipients of any assistance from the State?" I do not think this was the original concept of social welfare benefits.
The foundations for social welfare benefits were laid by voluntary associations and it was at a later stage only that Governments became involved and were prepared to accept full responsibility for their provision and implementation. I do not say that as an Opposition Deputy saddling the Fianna Fáil Party in Government with all the responsibility for this, but it is my function as an Opposition Deputy at this point to accuse the present administration of falling down sadly on the job in this regard. While many advances have been made, they have been petty and much too late. Twelve months ago, when the Labour Party in Great Britain found it necessary substantially to increase unemployment benefit to their pensioners in the Republic of Ireland, an army of civil servants, inspectors and investigators visited the homes of these people and reduced the benefits payable to them by the Irish Government. I had occasion to speak to a number of these people. In one case, I visited the home of a widow of a man who was self-employed while in this country but who some 14 years ago had to emigrate owing to scarcity of work. Unfortunately, that man met with a fatal accident in England. By virtue of the fact that he had stamped an insurance card, his widow was granted a pension by the British Government which, because her husband was working for such a short time in England, was very small. Therefore, this woman, under the means test, was granted an Irish pension. Her total income from the British and Irish pensions amounted to £2 10s a week—£1 5s from the British Government and £1 5s from the Irish Government. When the British Government increased the pension to £2 10s, officials of the Department of Social Welfare, on instruction from headquarters, investigated the case and the Irish pension of £1 5s was rescinded.
I visited that woman's home on an occasion when her son was home on holidays with his British wife. I found myself in the position of having to defend a Fianna Fáil Government from the attacks of this young woman who could not believe that a society that could not provide a living for her late father-in-law, would, when an alien Government provided her mother-in-law with a pension, rescind the Irish pension.
This is a common feature of Fianna Fáil administration of social welfare benefits and I protest strongly against it. I realise that it is difficult to devise a scheme that will be faultless and incapable of criticism from this side of the House. I concede that many improvements have been carried out but I repeat that they have been too late and that too little has been done.
The maxim of the Government seems to be that if you tell a lie that is big enough often enough people will believe you. Recently, there has been a great deal of talk about free transport, free education and increased housing. If one were to listen to speeches of Ministers, particularly senior Ministers, when they speak, not in this House but outside the House, at Taca dinners and functions which in many cases are pretty shady, one would not imagine that we were the fifth poorest country in Europe but that we were leading the way.
As a Donegal man, speaking on behalf of the people who have sent me here, I can put in a nutshell the record of the Donegal County Council in the matter of housing. The Strabane Urban Council, with a population of about 8,000, have built 50 per cent more houses in the last five years than have all the authorities in the County of Donegal—Donegal County Council, Letterkenny Urban Council, Bundoran Urban Council and Buncrana Urban Council. This is the acid test. A person living in the parish of Clonleigh can look across to Strabane and see the housing progress that has taken place there, whereas in the Town of Lifford housing is scarce. The Parliamentary Secretary may smile.
I am smiling at the fact—and the Deputy will appreciate it—that he had to draw the attention of the House to the fact that he represents Donegal. For a moment it seemed as if he were representing the Six Counties.
He is about the only one here who can represent them.
The Six Counties?
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary might explain himself and then I could deal with the matter?
The Deputy referred so often to the Six Counties and to areas within the Six Counties and seemed to view through rosy, technicoloured glasses the advances made in the Six Counties, that he must have felt embarrassed, seeing that he had to emphasise the fact that he represents Donegal.
I am certainly embarrassed, due to no fault of mine, due to your mismanagement and maladministration.
The Deputy seems to look at them with only one eye.
We cannot have an argument across the floor of the House.
You are having it.
We should have a few more people in the House to hear what Deputy Harte has to say. I call for a quorum.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
Before Deputy O'Donnell asked for a quorum and during the time when there was no Fianna Fáil member in the House with the exception of the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Davern, I was dealing with the question of housing and the Parliamentary Secretary interrupted to say that for a moment he thought I was representing a constituency in the Six Counties. As a matter of fact, the parish of which I am a native is divided by the Border; there is one half of it in County Tyrone and the other half in County Donegal. I consider I have more in common with the Irish people in Tyrone than I have in many ways with the people in Cork. This is but natural and the Parliamentary Secretary cannot find fault when I make comparisons between conditions on the Northern side of the border and conditions here. If I embarrass the Parliamentary Secretary by creating the illusion that I am not patriotic I apologise to him for it.
Who stole the Six Counties?
They are forgotten about now.
Not Fianna Fáil anyway.
The people living in the village of Lifford have not had a house built by their local authority since 1952, whereas their neighbours across the border have had about 1,200 houses built in the rural and urban districts of Strabane. Is it any wonder that my constituents ask me why the houses are not being built, that they ask if the fault lies with the members of the local authorities, or with the manager, or with the engineering staff, or with the Government? The fault lies with the Government. This was a policy decided on by Fianna Fáil when they took office in 1957.
In the White Paper which he prepared for the First Programme for Economic Expansion, Mr. Whitaker said that it was bad economic policy to build houses. Apparently it is better policy to build luxury flats in Dublin than to build cottages. Apparently it is better to pay £600 for a bathroom for the Minister for Finance and another £600 for a bathroom for the Taoiseach than to provide homes for the people of this country. The local authority in County Donegal has designed a programme of temporary dwellings. That is something which was being done 20 years ago by the British Government and other Governments which had been involved in war.
This country was neutral at that time and a former leader of Fianna Fáil boasted that it was good policy to be neutral. He boasted of the benefits that would come from neutrality but I do not see them. As Deputy Corish has said, the only effort that was made by any Government to re-house our people was made by the inter-Party Government, the first inter-Party Government. Fianna Fáil criticised that Government for squandering money, members from Dublin constituencies claimed that too many houses were being built in Dublin. When I came in here as a young Deputy one of the first speeches I heard was by Deputy Burke who said that there were so many houses being built in Dublin that the crows were flying in and out the windows.
You are misquoting Deputy Burke.
It would be difficult to do that.
That is the Deputy who suggested that we take up a shilling collection to put the country on its feet.
If the Deputy is quoting he should give his reference.
I am not quoting. I am stating what I heard him say when I was a young Deputy. I was very impressed by Deputy Burke and what he said made me examine my conscience and ask myself if we had made a mistake.
What he said was that there were so many houses vacant in Dublin because of the mass unemployment in the city at the time.
Acting Chairman
The Parliamentary Secretary should allow Deputy Harte to continue his speech.
Thank you, Sir. The Parliamentary Secretary was not a Member of the House then. Nor was Deputy Dowling and, if the new system of election is adopted, I do not think Deputy Dowling will get back again.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy must try to relate his remarks to the matter before the House.
Before I was so rudely interrupted I was dealing with the question of houses. I represent a constituency in the northern part of the country; I am a member of its local authority and I am convinced that if the Government was at fault there would be one reason for it and that would be its dismal record in relation to the re-housing of our people. I have had occasion to go to the former secretary of Donegal County Council to appeal to him to allow a person to go into a house which had been condemned because the house in which that person had been living had collapsed. A local authority is forbidden to allow any person into a house which has been condemned and out of which the tenant has secured a local authority cottage. The former county secretary told me that there was no way in which he could prevent the unfortunate lady for whom I was appealing from taking possession of the condemned house. The house in which she had been living had collapsed.
That was some six years ago. That widow and her six or seven children are still living in that condemned house. She has made repeated applications to the Donegal County Council for a tenancy of any house that became vacant only to be unsuccessful in her application because the Donegal County Council could not give her a house while others were in greater need of housing. This woman is living in what I describe as slum conditions, living below the poverty line. That is the situation the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is prepared to defend. That is the situation which prompts Deputy Dowling from Dublin to jump in and say that the reason why there were more houses in Dublin in 1957 was that there was so much emigration.
I will tell the Deputy about it later on.
Order.
I have not got a copy of the paper from which Deputy Corish quoted, but he gave figures issued by the Government Information Bureau, an office under the direct control of the Taoiseach. Figures have been circulated to Deputies indicating there are 100,000 fewer people in employment today than there were in 1957. I am sure Deputy Dowling must have received these figures, but he may not be anxious to discover what the true position is. The difference between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil is——
That we tell the truth.
Order.
——is that when Fine Gael are in opposition they behave responsibly. When, on the other hand, Fianna Fáil were in opposition they behaved irresponsibly. Fianna Fáil were in opposition in 1957. They saw an opportunity not to get back into office but to get back into power and they used every weapon at their disposal to pull down the inter-Party Government. The inter-Party Government resigned.
They disintegrated.
They resigned for democratic reasons in order to give the people their democratic right to elect a Government. One of the weapons used by Fianna Fáil to put the inter-Party Government out of office was the promise made by the then Tánaiste, Deputy Lemass, that he would create 100,000 new jobs.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Wives get your husbands back to work. Get your sons and daughters back home. Get the wheels of industry turning. These were the slogans in 1957 during the general election campaign. Perhaps Deputy Dowling was not a member of Fianna Fáil in those days. Perhaps he was not really very interested in which Party got into power. I shall send Deputy Dowling copies of the posters and slogans which the Fianna Fáil Party used during that campaign.
To come back now to the irresponsible attitude of Fianna Fáil in opposition, to their anxiety to get back into power, not into office, in order to permit those who have more power in the Fianna Fáil Party than Deputy Dowling has, people who have never at any stage offered themselves for election to either the Dáil or the Seanad, to hold the reins of government. I refer to the people who are in control of Taca. They are more powerful within the framework of the Fianna Fáil Government than the back bench Deputies in the Party. Deputy Dowling knows that full well. So does every other Fianna Fáil Deputy.
Is that democracy working as it should work? Is that the difference between office and power? Is that why Deputy Seán Lemass made a promise of 100,000 new jobs? Was it because he wanted to get back into office to create 100,000 new jobs? Was it because he thought the inter-Party Government were not governing as he thought they should? Or was it because certain individuals close in the inner circles of Fianna Fáil wanted power and were prepared to support the few individuals, who had, perhaps, the courage of their convictions, who offered themselves for election to this House, so that these could be used subsequently to enable their supporters to put themselves in an advantageous position for the purpose of better personal gain?
These are the thoughts that pass through my mind. I must confess I have still to be convinced to the contrary in the light of the record of successive Fianna Fáil Governments and in the light of the fact that far from 100,000 new jobs being created there are as Deputy Corish pointed out, 100,000 fewer in employment now as compared with 1957.
There were 100,000 unemployed in 1957.
The figures do not show that.
Order.
Deputy Dowling tells us what he has told us on many previous occasions.
And I will tell it again.
Order.
Put him out. He is interrupting all the time.
When Deputy Lemass made this promise I believe he was relying on the goodwill of the people to give him and his Party the greatest majority any Party ever had in this Dáil. He got a mandate from the people to implement his promises. The sad position is that, after ten years of Fianna Fáil administration, we have now 100,000 fewer people in employment as compared with 1957. Emigration is running at the rate of 20,000 a year. Over 120,000 have emigrated since 1957.
They left their new jobs.
Unemployment is running at the rate of 73,000 at the moment and that figure does not take into account those who are unemployed but in relation to whom there is no record in the Department. This is the sad record of a Government elected by the people in the belief that they would be in power and not just in office. It is, of course, the poorer amongst us who will ultimately pay the piper.
I do not wish to prolong the debate. I intended to be brief and would have been brief were it not for the interruptions. The Government have failed on many counts. The Government should now re-examine their policies and think afresh. They should now accept the rest of the Fine Gael policy in relation to a just society. They have taken over some part of it; they should now endorse the remainder. They should improve social welfare. They should build more houses. Even though it may not be strictly the responsibility of the Minister for Social Welfare I feel that, as Minister for Social Welfare in a Government which should be directly concerned with the welfare of all our people, there is one aspect which merits consideration.
I refer to something which came accidentally to my notice in the last month or so in regard to our scheme for boarded out children for whom local authorities pay as little as £1 a week to the foster-parents. It may not be the proper place to say this but I am saying it because I believe that something should be done to rectify the position. Let us not get confused between boarded-out children and legally adopted children where parents legally adopt a child and provide for it through their own industry without further help from society. I am talking about foster-parents who provide a home for children because they want to give them family love and affection. Because they do this local authorities pay them £1 a week for the child's maintenance. This amount is much too small. Recently I had a motion before the Donegal County Council asking the Department of Social Welfare to increase the higher limits and I was told that this was the function of the local authority. A directive should go from the Government to local authorities to discontinue this low figure of £1. The Donegal County Council propose to increase it to £2 and when this comes up for ratification I propose to stick firmly to a proposal that it should be increased to £3 a week. Foster-parents are doing a magnificent job and many of them, if not all of them, would, if they could afford to, take these children and provide a home for them for nothing. There is no reason why we should take advantage of the love and friendship which these foster-parents have for children who come from homes. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to take a note of this and to pass it on to the Minister for Social Welfare, that a directive should go from the Department of Social Welfare to every county manager indicating that an increase should be given forthwith for the maintenance of these children.
I propose to take advantage of this debate to deal with a specific matter which I have been charged by my Party to deal with, that is the question of health services. In 1966 Deputy Donogh O'Malley was Minister for Health and he announced a wonderful new scheme, an amendment to the outdated health services that we had, over radio and television and in the press. It is true that amidst the blaze of publicity with which this was announced he did state that it would take some time. As far as I remember, he said it might be up to November of 1966 before we could hope to have a Bill which would incorporate the substance of the proposals in the White Paper. I might say, as one representing health in the Labour Party, that we welcomed the White Paper's proposals which, while they did not represent the complete health service which the Labour Party would have desired, at least were a considerable step in the right direction.
What has happened since then? The first thing was that Deputy O'Malley was transferred to the Department of Education. Whether that was promotion or demotion I cannot say. I do not know what gradings the Government have in regard to these two Departments. Certainly it was with regret that I read that Deputy O'Malley had been either promoted or demoted away from the Department of Health. I am quite confident that Deputy O'Malley was quite sincere in his desire to improve the health services and that he had personal knowledge of the need for their improvement. I am quite certain that if he had not been transferred an amendment to the health services would have been introduced in this House before this, with a definite date in regard to when they would come into force. Whether he was too progressive in his ideas or not I do not know but the fact must strike the ordinary person that immediately he went into a different Department his ideas so changed the outlook of the Department of Education that what could be termed a revolution has taken place in that Department.
While I am in agreement with what he has done and with what he says he intends to do to make education free for all, and while I congratulate him on his ideas, I regret that he has been transferred to this Department before he finished the job that is so essential in the Department of Health. There is little use in educating people to the highest standards if in the first instance many people are unable to carry out their normal production because of illness and because they have not the wherewithal with which to provide the remedy which they could obtain from the medical profession. It may be said that nobody has to suffer because of a lack of money but only yesterday I had a case brought to my attention of an individual who has been certified by his doctor as being completely unfit to keep on his employment. He was recommended, not only in his own interests but in the interests of the public, because he was driving a mechanically propelled vehicle, to go to hospital immediately. Otherwise he could have dropped dead at any moment. He told me: "I have no insurance; I am self-employed; I have no income other than the amount I derive from my work. What will I do?"
When I saw the county manager and the secretary of the health authority, they were willing to co-operate and help but the total amount they could give him by way of disablement benefit and home assistance was £3 12s 6d a week on which to keep a wife and two school-going children while he was in hospital. I realise this is social welfare but I want to bring home the point that a man in that position cannot afford to go into hospital even though he will not be charged there. The solution is to combine health and social welfare, to treat them as being complementary to one another.
I am convinced that Deputy O'Malley was sincere in his intention as Minister for Health to introduce an amended health scheme long before now. However, the Cabinet or somebody denied him the opportunity to do so. When he went into the Department of Education, he introduced a revolutionary idea there. Had he stayed with the Department of Health, we would now have a new health scheme. I have no doubt that the present Minister, Deputy Flanagan, would like to see improvements. He announced recently that before the end of this Dáil session, we would see the introduction of an amending Bill. The trouble is that if we have not got it in the morning's post, we shall not see it until February. The Minister said it would take 12 months to implement. It will take longer because it will have to be debated here and in the Seanad.
Is the health of the people of this country so unimportant to the Government? Are they not interested in the health of the ordinary working people of the country? I admit that all those on the poverty line, those in the low income group—up to 30 per cent of the people of the country— are covered for medical attention at dispensary level, in hospitals and, if they need it, for expert opinion and for surgical treatment. That covers, at most, 30 per cent of the population and this number is progressively diminishing because their wages have increased but the means tests have remained stationary. Is this promise of a new health scheme to be held over as a gimmick for the next election? Will it be used as a carrot in front of the people to try to help the Government to keep their seats? I am quite sure members of the Government are aware that when a man with a wife and two children who is earning £10 or £11 a week goes to a doctor it costs him at least £1. That is so in my constituency and I am prepared to substantiate it with receipted bills stating "By visit, £1." One can add to that a prescription which can cost from 30/- upwards. The Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Davern, Deputy P. O'Donnell and other Deputies listening to me know this to be true. The fact is that such people have to continue in their employment when, if their health was attended to, they could go back into productive employment instead of allowing their condition to become chronic. This is of great importance.
We read a lot about strikes. According to the figures, Ireland headed the list of west European countries last year for man-hours lost because of strikes. This year we are the third highest. Has anyone asked how many man-hours are being lost because of illness? I have not the figure for this year, but in 1965 the number of hours lost in this way was 14 million. All of that could not be prevented—it is an act of God—but the greater part of it could if there were proper health services. Then the number of man-hours lost because of strikes would not appear so big.
Strikes will happen as long as one human being employs another. Employers will always seek to get more out of employees and workers will seek to get more for their labour. It is natural to have such disputes. No Government can change human nature in that respect. But by providing reasonable and fair health services we would make up what we lose by strikes by giving to the working people, those who produce the wealth of the country, the medical attention they need. In this country, particularly where we have the Hospitals Trust or the Sweepstakes which have poured millions of pounds into the equipment of the hospitals over a long number of years, the Government and the local authorities have been allowed a saving which very few other countries can get. We have got millions of pounds from a lottery devoted to health. I am all in favour of that, but the fact is that notwithstanding those millions of pounds spent in equipping and building our hospitals, which normally the Government should be financing, we have a health service that is not comparable either with that of our colleagues in Northern Ireland or our colleagues in Great Britain.
I know there is a difference between the two countries. I know one is highly industrialised, with 50 million people. I know that in Northern Ireland they are probably subsidised by Great Britain so that they can carry on, but the fact is that a health service in this country could be financed even at the cost of extra taxation. I would, just as for the redundancy, add on the money: turnover tax, retail tax, and all those other things have brought in millions of pounds. I think up to £14 million has been brought in under the turnover tax, which is something we did not have, say, ten years ago. That £14 million would more than finance a no-means test health service in this country.
What was that money devoted to? It was not devoted to a health service. We have the fact that at the present moment men are forced to go out to work to provide for their wives and children in a condition in which they are not able to give of their best, and worse than that, in a condition where the fact of their going to work is decreasing their chances of ever regaining their health.
Those things are true. This is not just a fallacy. This is not just a Labour Party man making a case for the people from whom he is likely to get votes. This is something I know. I am quite sure every person listening to me and those not here listening to me must know in their hearts that there is in this country a need for a health service. I can be told by Deputy O'Higgins that "We in Fine Gael, and I as a Minister in the Coalition Government, provided the Voluntary Health Scheme". That is quite true and it is a good thing. I do not want to take from it but the fact is that if I, being a member at the present moment of the Voluntary Health Scheme, get a heart attack this evening in this House, when I go to renew my application, I will be told: "We will cover you for everything except a heart attack. If you break your leg or if you get pneumonia, we will take a chance but if you get a heart attack, we will not cover you." I am more likely if I get a heart attack to repeat that but in the case of any illness that is likely to recur—I challenge the Voluntary Health Board here and now to say I am wrong because I can produce proof of this—the applicant will not be covered for it. When he seeks renewal, he will not be covered or if he is covered, it will be at an increased premium or a reduced payment to the hospital.
That is not good enough. That is where the scheme falls down. What is the most prevalent illness in this country, although I should not call it an illness? It is childbearing. Is that covered by the scheme? Can newly-wed people, when they get married, seek insurance to cover the normal results of marriage, the birth of a baby? They cannot. There is no policy they will issue for this. The result is whether it be a doctor, a dentist, a worker or a labourer, the birth of a baby is a costly thing. I have known cases, where things did not go right in the maternity hospital in my constituency, where a charge of up to £140 or £150 was demanded from people with a wage, an income, a salary, call it what you like, of £15 a week.
Is there any reason those people should try not to have children? They just cannot afford them and there is no provision in the Voluntary Health Insurance—it is the middle income group I am talking about—that can cover this. I know we provide hospitals where wives from the middle income group can go. I know we provide good services but unfortunately there is a stigma and a class distinction when people are forced to admit that they cannot afford to have their baby in the normal hospital or home adjacent to them, that they have to do that in public institutions, by the mere fact of accepting the condition that they have to accept, this stigma of having their babies at the expense of the ratepayers.
I do not think that should be. I do not think those things should be allowed to take place. I would support the Government, and certainly as far as my Party are concerned, we will support the Government, in any proposals they put forward to raise money to finance a free health service on a no-means basis. There is no such thing as a free health service because everything has to be paid for but we should have a no-means health service which will cover every person, just the same as in Britain.
It will be costly. I know that I will be told we cannot afford it but I suggest that the Cabinet should consider if we can afford not to have it. I believe sincerely that the time has come, especially if we ever enter the EEC, when we will be forced to adopt a new outlook on both the health and the social welfare services. I would appeal—this is the one reason I am talking in this debate—to the Taoiseach to press his Minister for Health to introduce as speedily as possible, either a complete new Bill giving wider scope for a no-means test health service or else, if we have to do it gradually, provide that the health service now available for the lower income group will be available to all insured workers, and for the sake of the ten per cent or 15 per cent that would be left out, I suggest that they should do away with the queries, investigations and questionnaires there must inevitably be when a means test is part of the service. With the inclusion of the ten per cent or 15 per cent it is as well to have a complete, utter and overall no means test health service in this country similar to that in Britain and Northern Ireland.
I, as one of the Labour group in this House, voted against the Free Trade Agreement with Britain. The Fine Gael Party and the Government felt that it was a good exercise in preparation for our entry into the EEC. Many Labour speakers felt and said that they were afraid that the reduction of 10 per cent each year up to 1974 would inevitably mean unemployment, that it would mean the closing down of industry and further emigration because if a factory closes a man who has given 20, 10 or 15 years service will find it very difficult to get alternative employment in Ireland. It is true he will get something under the Redundancy Bill. Yesterday we saw £75,000 divided between 500 workers. It is very little recompense. We said it would cause unemployment. I challenge anyone to say we were wrong. Rawsons, a boot factory in Dundalk has closed. It is true it closed as a result of a fire but did we not have the prospect of a gradual reduction in tariffs for the boot and shoe industry? I would imagine that that firm would rebuild and continue on if it were not for that. We had Dunlops Tyres and Tubes in Cork and again the market beginning to be flooded until the Minister had to step in and fix a quota. We had the motor car assembly industry until a voluntary agreement with Britain saved us from having thousands of people out of employment. These things only hold at the present moment. This reduction of ten per cent continues. While it is now perhaps 30 per cent in another three or four years it will be 60 per cent and by 1975 it will be gone completely and we will be competing with the might of highly-industrialised Britain and our workers will be forced out of employment with some kind of hand-out from a redundancy fund. We warned the Government that that exercise is a dangerous thing. We are still convinced we were right in that.
When we enter the EEC that exercise will be of some use. It will have been a gearing up to face the competition not only of Britain but of West Germany, Italy, Belgium and the other countries of the Six.
I was one of a deputation that went for a very short period of three days to discuss with some of the high officials of the Commission the prospects before Ireland on entry. I must say we got every consideration. Any questions we asked were answered honestly as far as we could judge. One of the things I, at least, found out was that we were taken to be part of Britain. We were not being accepted as Ireland. While it was admitted that we were a republic we were told that anything Britain got we would get and if Britain did not get it we would not get it. In other words, it depended completely on whether Britain went in and the concessions she got. Then our case would be examined and perhaps we would get special concessions.
On industry we have nothing to gain. I feel anyone can accept that. We have nothing to gain other than that from their monetary fund they would provide the means of establishing industries that would be willing to come to Ireland on the same basis as they provided for Southern Italy. That was the gain. Little it is. The fact is that no kind of subsidy, nothing, could be given to our existing industries that would give them an opportunity of selling in the EEC countries. They had to produce at the same cost as the highly-industrialised areas of Britain, West Germany, Belgium, Italy or anywhere else. In other words, it appeared to me at least that it was impossible for any firm in this country other than the most efficient, highly-organised, well-financed firm to survive.
What will happen here? Will we have wholesale unemployment? The object I would hope of doing anything by the Government or by anybody in charge of this country would be to keep people here. The answer you have from the EEC is: "If there is no work in Ireland you can go somewhere else, you will have free entry to West Germany, Italy, Britain or anywhere else". That is not an answer. I fear greatly for our industries in the EEC. I do not believe that the Government have been clear on this. They have promoted a feeling in the country that everything will be grand when we enter the EEC—if we enter the EEC. There is a question as to whether we will ever enter the EEC but that is another subject. Supposing we get entry tomorrow the Government say we are fit, willing and able to go into the EEC. I do not believe that. I think it is dangerous talk. I think the Government are carrying out the exercise of the small boy passing the graveyard whistling to prove he is not afraid. I think prestige is behind some of this propaganda that we are willing to compete with Birmingham, that we are able to produce the same things as Coventry or some of those highly-industrialised places. I wonder have some of the Cabinet or people behind this talk been around. Have they seen these countries? Have they been to West Germany and Italy and the various other places?
It is true there is some compensation probably for the agricultural industry but not all that much. The only thing we learned from our visit as far as I am concerned was that we had one wonderful advantage here in Ireland as regards agriculture. We have a rainy, mild climate that gives us grass practically the whole year round and we can rear our cattle without store feeding them and probably we would be able to sell our cattle either on the hoof or in cans or processed in some way to the different countries of the EEC at a price that would pay our people. As for dairy products—and they are a by-product of cattle; milk, cheese, butter, particularly butter, they were trying to sell butter to China and other places at half the cost of production to get rid of it. There is an overflow, so there is nothing in that way that I can see as advantageous.
The one redeeming feature was that our cattle industry might be competitive, in the EEC countries, but even in that there is a flaw. The meat consumed in the EEC countries is not the type of beef we rear. It is hand-fed and killed at a year and a half. I saw the different type of beef and it is completely different from what we normally have. Outside Great Britain, it appears to me you will find it difficult to send either live or dead beef until it is priced. You will find it difficult to get the price which is being indicated by people if we enter the EEC.
I would suggest to the Government that there is a good deal of talk about a referendum and a good deal of talk as to whether we should have single seat constituencies, whether proportional representation should be retained and whether we should recognise divorce. All these things according to the papers are to be put to the country as matters of importance. It is true that under the Constitution there are many things we must put to the country but I would suggest incorporating with the referendum the question: Do you, the electorate, consider that entry to the EEC as a full member should be carried out? Many of us prefer a period of association. First and foremost, I might say that I agree with the part that if Britain goes in, we must go in. They are our biggest customers and it is only foolish to ignore this. We must keep our link with Great Britain whether it is patriotic or not, and go with them.
That is true.
We must consider the question of what advantages we might get in close association with Great Britain without taking it on ourselves to compete against what might be called industrialised countries. That should be put to the people and it should be considered much more important than whether or not we should recognise divorce or whether or not we should have single seat constituencies. They are all matters which must be dealt with but this is a thing that need not be dealt with. The Government have said we are doing it. Have they the right to say that? As a Government they can do it; but I suggest that if it is put to the country as a whole and if all the advantages and disadvantages are explained, they may find that the people are not as anxious to jump into the Common Market as the Government tell us.
I believe, as I said before, that the Government are exercising a prestige idea in this—we are ready, able and willing to take our place. We had the spectacle of a Minister quite recently turning on the trade unions, that they had not the right to decide what they did, to affiliate with the Party of which I am a member. Surely these people have as much right to affiliate to the Labour Party, as, say, an employer's organisation has a right to contribute to Fianna Fáil? The Chairman of our Party indicated that we would be willing to put on record the finance secured from the unions, provided each industrialist was also compelled to produce what he contributed to any political Party. We had this spectacle, but the Minister for Labour should remember that you can lead a horse to the well but you cannot make him drink. Should he antagonise the trade unions? We can deal with that very easily. We do not want to make any political issue of labour disputes. These are things to be decided between employers and trade unions, but when a Minister attempts to do what the Minister for Labour is proposing to do, to bring in legislation that will compel us to accept a decision, I am afraid he is piling up for himself a lot of trouble.
I would suggest to the Minister for Labour that he should be very careful as to what type of legislation he brings in and, above all, that the only legislation he brings in will be agreed with the organised workers of the country.
I said that I thought Social Welfare and Health should be under a combined Department. I still feel that. I think the effect on health services and the loss due to the increased money needed to provide a good health service can be balanced out by the fact that you will not have so much dependence on social welfare. The amount of money and the conditions in which social welfare benefit can be got at present are deplorable. People are not living on it; they are existing on it. Surely to goodness 30/- a week unemployment assistance for any individual is not sufficient to keep him alive, to clothe him and give him shelter, but that is what individuals are getting if they have the bad luck to be so long unemployed that they have to exist on it for six months.
I know it can be said that it is extended to 12 months but there are conditions for extension. There is the condition that if you draw it out to 12 months, you must requalify. It is not just extended to 12 months simply like that. There are conditions which make the present state worse than before. Surely to goodness more effort should be made by this Parliament to give more to old people who have contributed by hard work and honesty to the present wealth of the nation? Surely this Government can bring up the scale of benefits beyond what they are for old age pensioners, widows and unemployment assistance recipients who are, as I said, not living but merely existing on present benefits? As far as my Party are concerned, we will support any legislation for providing the necessary finance, provided always that legislation imposes the burden in proportion to the ability and liability of the people.
Traditionally, the Taoiseach's Estimate gives the House an opportunity of discussing the affairs of the nation, particularly as they were effected during the past 12 months. During the past year, we have had considerable talk about our entry into the Common Market. Apart from discussion in the House, the Taoiseach and other Ministers have visited each and every one of the Member Countries of the EEC. Perhaps at this stage it might be no harm if we were to consider for a few moments why we should seek entry into this modern Utopia.
We should remember that it is less than 23 years since each and every member of the six Common Market countries was beaten into the earth. Their cities were laid low. Their population was plundered. Their industries were gone. Agriculture was nonexistent. They were defeated nations, some of them defeated twice within the short period of 30 years. We had England, one of the victorious countries, and Ireland, with a benevolent neutrality— Ireland, with no adverse trade balance, no adverse balance of payments; Ireland, with more external assets than she ever had—and England, cock o' the north.
Now we must admit, to use the words of the famous British statesman of those war years, that it was blood, sweat, toil and tears that gave England and her allies victory in World War II. There is no doubt about it, blood, sweat, toil and tears were there in abundance. Less than 23 years afterwards, do we ask ourselves why should Britain go begging for admission into an alliance, into a trade agreement, with those six countries who, 23 years previous to that, were smashed into the ground?
We should realise that if it was blood, sweat, toil and tears that gave Britain victory in the War, it certainly was blood, sweat, toil and tears that gave the six Common Market countries the affluence which they have today. While they were working, unfortunately Britain was neglecting and living in the glory of her victory. As a result of the decadence that set in in Britain —when I say "Britain", we are tied to Britain in so far as entry to the Common Market is concerned—I believe the Common Market countries today are afraid to admit Britain into an alliance and into an agreement lest Britain might bring them down to the level at which Britain is today.
Quite recently, I had the privilege of attending a conference with a former Lord Chancellor of England, a former aspirant to the leadership of the Conservative Party. I asked him what in his opinion, were the chances of Britain's entering the Common Market. He said we had no chance. He described Ireland and Britain as "these islands". In his opinion, we have no chance of entry into the Common Market until our economy improves and develops and practically approaches that of the Common Market countries. I said to him: "In your opinion, wherein lies the remedy of our failure to gain admission?" He said his answer was a cruel one. He said: "I am afraid, empty bellies."
I am not referring to the Labour Party in this country, for which I have nothing but the greatest respect: I am not referring to the Parliamentary Labour Party in Britain because I have nothing but the greatest respect for the present Prime Minister of Britain and his Ministers: I think they are the most courageous politicians that Britain has seen in the past decade—but just imagine a Labour Government in Britain at the moment and remember that most of the personnel of this Government of Britain were members of and leaders of and officials of trade unions but they are unable to control the trade union movement in Britain to-day. The Prime Minister there, Mr. Wilson, is faced with the degrading position that he sees the benefit of the hard work and the sweat which he put into the Labour administration in Britain since he took office being wilted away by means of the serious strikes which are taking place over there.
Is it an example, for instance, to members of the Common Market with which they are so anxious to be associated? I know some people will tell me that strikes are more common in France than they are in any country. It is a strange thing that a strike in France never damages the economy. It is more in the nature of a protest. They may even use physical force but they never damage the economy of the country, such as is happening in Britain. So long as that happens in Britain, and so long as we are tied to Britain, our chances of entering the Common Market are in my opinion nil.
Supposing, for a second, we did gain admission to the Common Market, what have we to offer? I am in full agreement with Deputy Kyne that our industries will close up practically overnight. We cannot possibly compete with the highly-organised industries not only of Great Britain but of the six Common Market countries. If we realise that our industries will collapse, what alternative have we to offer the Six or what alternative is left to us to better our economy?
We shall have to realise that the four major traditional industries of this country are agriculture, tourism, fisheries and afforestation, together with the various industries based on agricultural raw materials. The sooner we realise that, the better. We must ask ourselves this question: "Supposing we get admission, have we geared our agriculture, our tourism, our fisheries, our afforestation to gain maximum profits from our entry into the Common Market?" Take agriculture. Is it not a tragedy that, at a time when we are seeking admission to the Common Market, at a time when we know our industries must collapse if that aim is achieved, our Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is at loggerheads with our farmers—because the National Farmers Organisation represents the farmers of the country?
Surely it is essential, if we are to gear our agricultural industry for entry to EEC, that the Taoiseach should step in and either replace the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries or act as mediator between the Minister and the NFA? I am not saying that the Minister is right or that the NFA is right: I am not making any charge. However, when we have these two parties, the main executives of agriculture in this country, at loggerheads, agriculture cannot and will not go ahead and we are retarding any efforts that should be made for entry into EEC.
I agree that our cattle trade will receive a considerable impetus if we enter EEC but the type of dead meat required in the Six is not the type we traditionally produce. He points out that we have surplus milk. That could be remedied. We could produce more veal. Deputy Kyne said that the type of animal killed on the continent is the animal up to 18 months old. My experience is that they kill them from roughly eight months to 18 months and my idea is that if many of our dairy cattle were turned over to calf feeding, we could increase the cattle population, turn them over quickly and put them on the continental market as the exact type of beef the continent requires. That would absorb some of our surplus milk and at the same time, increase our cattle exports and give our customers the type of beef they require. That should be our aim were we to enter the Common Market. Meantime we have this dreadful disease of foot and mouth in England. Should it come here—which God forbid—the only thing we would have to offer and our only asset in the Common Market, our agriculture and particularly our cattle, would be completely wiped out. It would be catastrophic for the nation if that disease came here.
We should ask ourselves are we taking all the necessary steps to prevent it. I do not believe we are serious and realise the danger that is near us. I would certainly advocate closing the ports but there is not much use in closing the ports unless we can do it in conjunction with the ports in the Six Counties. I am certain there should be closer liaison between the Six Counties and the Twenty-Six on this matter. The Parliamentary Secretary, who is present, may say they are doing everything possible, but if the danger is so serious, we should call out the Army to assist in doing what is required. There will be great danger for this country in the next few weeks because, whether we like it or not, some of our less responsible migrants will come home and there is always the danger of their bringing the disease here. We should be alive to this fact, particularly when the Dáil is in recess and, particularly now that Britain appears to have it under control, it would be a tragedy for us should it break out here.
I wonder if our approach to our fishery potential is adequate? In today's papers I notice that we are getting a loan of £5 million from Norway for the fishing industry. Some time ago we received a similar sum from France. We should remember that the fishing industry does not consist of those who actually fish, that many more are engaged in it. If our boatyards had been geared for it, we could turn out fishing boats here as good as those of France or Norway. I think the only reason we have gone to these countries is to get another financial loan and it is just too bad if we, at the expense of our boatyards, must give employment in France and Norway in return for these loans. It should not be done.
Seeing the number of Frenchmen who are appearing on the western seaboard, I wonder if there has not been some quid pro quo for this loan, apart from the employment it gives. Quite recently I have seen a number of very good secondhand boats purchased in France and brought in here and these boats could equally well have been built here and give employment here while providing the type of boat our fishermen require.
Deputy Harte was interrupted by Deputy Dowling, or the Parliamentary Secretary, regarding the importation of beef from the Six Counties. It was Deputy Dillon who permitted beef to be imported on the hoof from the Six Counties when he was Minister for Agriculture. He was very severely criticised for it at that time by both Deputy Smith and Deputy Blaney. They both since became Ministers for Agriculture but they have not changed the scheme in any way, and I think it is a very good thing that we can import beef from the Six Counties because traditionally our cattle export is in the form of store cattle and the more stores we can export the better. Through the blunders of Fianna Fáil, we exported beef to Britain to compete against our own stores fattened over there. It is a very good thing that these cattle on which the subsidy has been paid in the Six Counties can be brought in here. That is all I want to say about it.
May I refer to the Taoiseach's visit the other day to the North? We were all glad that he had gone to meet Captain O'Neill but we were all very sorry that he had done so in the manner in which he did go. Why should the Taoiseach, the Prime Minister of this State, have to creep stealthily into the Six Counties part of this country? Why could he not have gone in, being publicly announced and received, as he was entitled to be? It is a bad thing that there should have been all that secrecy about his entry into part of our own country. I am certain he was not afraid of what might be described as the nationalists of the Six Counties and unless there was some fear of the Paisleyites, I can see no other reason for the secrecy, and I sincerely hope that when Captain O'Neill is invited down here to return the Taoiseach's visit, he will not be received in this stealthy manner, but that if there is to be a lunch for him, it will be announced in advance so that if people wish, they can turn out and give him the reception to which he as head of a State is entitled.
I have already spoken of tourism. We are not gearing ourselves to receive the potential return from it that we would and should get, were we to enter the Common Market. We are building far too many luxury hotels and instead of looking to America and to those from the continent who can afford to come here, we should look to the Six Counties, to England, Scotland and Wales for our tourist potential. I believe there are sufficient people there with sufficient goodwill towards us to come here for a holiday, provided we bring to their notice some of the advantages which we did have but which are slowly fading away, in relation to the cost of various things. One of the attractions of the Channel Islands and, for that matter of the Isle of Man, is the low cost of intoxicating liquor, wines, beer and cigarettes. When one comes to examine the financial returns of the Channel Islands, one finds that the greatest source of revenue is the duty and excise on tobacco, despite the fact that this is much less than it is in Britain.
I believe we would not suffer in any way were we to reduce the excise duty on spirits and beer—if necessary only Irish spirits and Irish beer and cigarettes. We would double our turnover of these duties and at the same time attract to the country tourists who are anxious to come here, provided we can offer them something they cannot receive at home. Our climate is exactly as it is in Britain; perhaps it is a little wetter than it is in Britain. We must have some incentive to offer them, and if hotel prices are the same as they are in Britain, that is not an incentive. We should have another look and see what we can offer these potential visitors.
We should also ensure that those who come here for farmhouse and guesthouse holidays are given the amenities to which they are entitled and that the villages and towns to which they come will have these amenities for them. It is dreadful to think of the manner in which some of our water schemes are being held up in the Department of Local Government. There is one tourist area in my part of the country, namely, the town and surrounding area of Ardara and the neighbouring town of Glenties. Early in 1965, Donegal County Council advertised for tenders for a water scheme. In September, 1965, they accepted the lowest tender subject to the sanction of the Minister for Local Government, and that was sent to the Minister in September, 1965, for his approval. We are still awaiting sanction of the tender for the water scheme for Ardara and that locality. Here we have town planning, and we are told: "You cannot build here or you cannot build there," but the one thing we do want to build is a reservoir and pipelines for a good water supply to these towns. It is one of the reasons why I detest this Town Planning Act. It is not what we are going to be permitted to do, because it will be years and years before these things we envisaged we are going to do will be done, but it is the prohibitive clauses to which I object. If this is a typical example of the amenities for potential visitors to this country, it will slow up the development of tourism.
We hear a lot of talk about employment in the West. One of the things the Government are doing, as and from 31st March next, is abolishing minor relief schemes. That is a blow to the West that the West does not yet realise. During the peak period of unemployment, in the height of winter in the west of Ireland—and when I say the West, I mean the North-West as well—minor relief schemes were something the people sought and got. These schemes were distributed on the percentage of unemployed in electoral areas. This is being abolished completely, and improvement schemes are being introduced, schemes for which local contributions will be required from those who wish to participate in the schemes, and the poorer areas which were benefiting under the minor relief schemes will no longer get their fair share of the rural improvement schemes. When I mention the fact that up to about 1964 Donegal County Council allocated £66,000 for minor relief and rural improvement schemes, one can realise the amount of employment that was given there during that period. Unfortunately, in 1965 that sum was cut to £33,000, and we are now informed that this is all we may budget for in the years immediately ahead. I know the hardship that will be caused to the people in my area and in the West generally.
I have already said that as a result of the infamous O'Malley health scheme, more damage has been done in the west of Ireland than in any other part of the country. Everyone remembers the old dispensary system whereby dispensary doctors looked after all patients in the locality. When the O'Malley scheme was announced, we were told that dispensary doctors would be no longer employed and that there would be a free choice of medical adviser. What has happened in the meantime? These dispensaries of the West, as they become vacant, are no longer advertised by the Local Appointments Commission for permanent appointments. Advertisements are put in for temporary medical officers, with the result that nobody is applying for them. In my own part of the county, we have now one dispensary doctor for three dispensary districts, and I know for a fact he cannot possibly attend them. We have now four dispensaries in my county vacant, and no person will apply because it is only temporary medical officers that are being sought. If the Minister for Health intends to introduce a Health Bill, then the sooner he does it the better, because if he does not, he will leave large tracts of thickly populated areas in the west of Ireland without any doctor whatsoever.
Speaking on the Estimate for Education in this House some years ago, I first mentioned a marriage between Trinity College and the National University. I remember distinctly referring to the advantages that could be gained from this marriage. I am very glad indeed that the Minister for Education has seen fit to announce that these universities are to be united. However, I hope something will be done and that it will not be like the Health Bill we were promised, that the Minister will, possibly, be removed before the marriage is solemnised. I should like to welcome the scheme he announced.
Primary education is causing a considerable amount of trouble and worry at the moment. Single-and dual-teacher schools are being closed and multi-teacher schools opened. This is something Deputy Dillon and I advocated about six or seven years ago, but while we advocate that, we also advocate that the parents of children affected should be consulted and their grievances should be heard. That is essential if we are to get the goodwill of the parents. Without the goodwill of the parents, the closing of these one-and two-teacher schools and the establishment of multi-teacher schools will not be the success they should be.
There are a number of schools in my area which could and should be closed, but the method of the announcement of their closing has caused considerable concern in the locality. I am satisfied that had the Minister, his inspectors or his employees taken the parents into his confidence prior to the public announcement of the closing of the schools, told them of the advantages to be gained from multi-teacher schools and told them that free transport would be provided, he would have got much more goodwill than he has. Although I was one of the few who first advised that single-and two-teacher schools should be closed and amalgamated with multi-teacher schools, I do it with the reservation that the parents should first be taken into the confidence of the Minister's employees and so obtain their goodwill.
We also welcome what is now described as free secondary education. It is a very good thing. Unfortunately, too few people are enabled to partake of it at present. It applies only to what may be described as non-boarding school students. Most of the colleges and schools are geared for boarders and very little advantage is derived by the parents of these children except in islands and isolated areas where the children are given free education in the secondary schools. Every effort should be made to establish more secondary schools and more comprehensive schools. It should not take four or five years from the date of the first announcement of a comprehensive school to the laying of the foundation stone. That time-lag somehow detracts from the benefit that could be derived from the school, were the foundation stone laid within six months of the announcement. I am satisfied something good could be done by speeding up the putting into effect of the various schemes when announced.
We have also been informed that the West will shortly be saved by the transfer of two Departments to Castlebar and Athlone. I know Departments that could be transferred with considerable advantage to the State. The headquarters of Bord na Móna could be sited in no more ideal spot than Athlone. The Department of the Gaeltacht could be sited in no more ideal spot than the capital of the Gaeltacht, Galway. The Sugar Company could find no better spot for their headquarters than towns in the south like Mallow and Carlow. But to root up two Departments and transfer them to the homes of two Minister is not going to solve the problems of the West. Neither will the abolition of the minor relief schemes benefit the West in any way. What the West wants is work, not dole. There is no recipient of unemployment assistance I know who would not swop it for work any day. By giving a farmer on an uneconomic holding unemployment assistance, you are not solving the problems of the West. If he could be given some auxiliary employment with the proper remuneration, much more would be done for the West than is being done at present.
Fianna Fáil should be known as the Party of broken promises. When I think of some of the promises I heard them make since I came into this House, I often wonder that they do not blush. I remember being over at a by-election in Mayo 16 or 17 years ago and I remember a Minister and two surveyors and an engineer marking out the site for a biscuit factory. I think the first sod was actually cut. Then I think Deputy Calleary got in here and we forgot about the biscuit factory. Some years later during a by-election in Roscommon, I remember two Ministers and The Sunday Press announcing on a Sunday morning the drainage of the River Shannon. I often think that, if Deputy Dunne would record his story of the drainage of the Shannon and if some person set it to music, it would be one of the best sellers of the West. We are still waiting for the drainage of the Shannon and the biscuit factory in Mayo.
Newcastle West is getting its factory.
It is your man who claimed credit for it.
He did not get in. We tried to anticipate what you were going to do.
It is like the boys still using the boats in Kerry. Let me conclude with this plea. It is now 51 years since the 1916 Rising. We have a few veterans of 1916 left. We also have a few, but very few, veterans of the Black and Tan War. These are the days of increases in social welfare pensions and other amenities. Let us give the remnants of the soldiers of the army that gave us our freedom some little comfort in their dying years. None of them is under 65 today. The mere pittance on which they live is something of which we should all be ashamed: so few who did so much. Let me appeal to the Government to give them the social justice to which they are entitled in their last years.
The Taoiseach's speech on this Estimate and the Government's record over the past few years do not give us much ground for hope. When the new Taoiseach came into office, many people hoped, whatever their politics, that since he was the first Taoiseach from outside the Civil War period and was a Taoiseach from this generation, he would lead a Government that would break new ground. But his speech today and the record of non-achievement over the past year does not give much ground for hope in the years ahead. Perhaps the most prominent feature of the year has been the number of visits to foreign countries. During the recent Cork by-election there was a welcome home arranged for the Taoiseach through Blackpool—a welcome home from his visit the previous week to the President of France. When all the welcomes home, the ballyhoo and the celebrations are over, one asks what has been the achievement of these visits and one comes up with a rather blank: "Nothing". Certainly there do not appear to have been any concrete results from those visits.
Now our whole EEC policy is in ruins. We might as well honestly understand that. The overall objective of this Government has been to get into the EEC, but it appears that that must now be postponed for the immediate future. That appears to be the situation, but there does not appear as yet to be any frank recognition on the part of the Government that that is the case. Apparently they are still acting on the belief that membership is a possibility for us in the near future. On 19th of this month, the Council of Ministers are meeting in Brussels to consider the application once more, and the signs are that it will be postponed, and Britain's application also. The entire strategy of the Government has been to keep step by step with Britain's progress and if Britain's hopes are postponed indefinitely, so are ours.
The Government have not been as honest as they should have been in letting the public know the facts of life, and letting them understand that the only possibility of our being accepted as a member of the EEC was as one market area for Great Britain. The Government's strategy has been to keep away as much as possible from the awkward situation of being a separate country, and at all times to keep our application closely coinciding with that of Britain's. That was the principle acted upon in the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement.
That was a bad bargain. It has been said before in the House but, for the record, this Party voted against that Agreement because we considered it a bad bargain and a bad Agreement. The excuse given by those who did not oppose it was that they saw it as an essential step nearer to the EEC. That was the Government's defence for signing the Agreement, that it was an essential step towards admission to the EEC. Perhaps we are simple people in the Labour Party but it appeared to us to be a bad bargain and we voted against it. We came to the conclusion that it was not worth supporting and we did not support it, irrespective of what might be said about us. We looked at all the features of that Agreement and we considered that it was not a good bargain. We felt there was a great threat to our industrial work force, and that the advantages to the agricultural community were not as great as some people who supported it said they were. We now see that events have borne out our action on that occasion.
The Government's defence for signing that Agreement was that it was an essential step in their policy towards admission to Europe. Now that policy is in ruins because, so far as we can see, Britain will not be admitted in the near future. We know that during the past week the President of the Commission, M. Rey, has been in Britain attempting to get the British Prime Minister to consider other forms of relationship with the EEC, with what are loosely lumped together as associate members. We understand that the British Prime Minister has rejected such a change in his application. This Government will presumably take the same line, following their policy of going step by step with Britain.
We must understand that our application for full membership is doomed for the foreseeable future. That being the case, one would have thought that in his speech here today the Taoiseach would at least have begun a reappraisal of the European application policy his Government have been pursuing. There is no hint in the Taoiseach's speech of any possible changing emphasis in our application. We are still going full steam ahead for full membership; yet, in a matter of roughly two weeks the Council of Ministers will be making a decision which will postpone our application for full membership for the immediate future.
It is a great pity the Taoiseach did not indicate the alternative courses which this country should now be pursuing. This, I imagine, should be the real significance of the Taoiseach's Estimate speech, and this is the way we should approach it in this debate. Not only should the Taoiseach's Estimate speech be a record of the past year but it should be a pointer to the changes there may be in the Government's policy in the coming year. At least if there are reasons to be depressed as a result of events in our economy over the past year or two, let us know what the Government's plans are for the coming year. There is no evidence in the Taoiseach's speech that there is any fresh thinking in Government circles. We are still holding on to the policy we have had since 1961 towards Europe. The reality is that the attitude of several European countries suggests that Britain's application will be postponed.
There are also people who believe that our prospects for membership of the EEC would be improved if something drastic happened to the President of France. We would be extremely naïve if we believed that only one man stands between us and our admission to membership of Europe, and that if the President of France were no longer there, our application would be accepted. We would have to be very naïve to believe that his is the only objection to us as a member. I suggest that the President of France is supported by the majority of Frenchmen. His Party is very strong. I suggest that there is a strong body of opinion in France and Germany and other European countries against the admission of Britain at this time. We have this in common. When we look at the outside world, we see everything through British spectacles, and when Britain looks at Europe, she sees all the objections lumped together in one man, the President of France.
We should attempt to understand the European objections to British membership. They are grounded chiefly in the feeling in many European circles that Britain's economy is over-penetrated by American interests and that Britain, if she is admitted, will become the stalking horse for American interests. This would apply with more force to an economy such as ours which is tied hand and foot to Britain's, and we have recently concluded an Agreement to tie ourselves even more completely to Britain. The official policy of the Government is to have the Twenty-Six County area tied completely as a regional economy of the United Kingdom. If that is their policy, we cannot be surprised if France and other European countries do not accept us as a separate country. In all probability, the majority of French people were surprised to learn that we have even some independence. To many people on the continent, we are merely an offshore island of Great Britain. If there is any hope of our national identity being understood by the European countries, the more we learn to stand on our own feet the better.
First and last, in our approach to the EEC we in the Labour Party have grounded our objection to full membership at this time on the unpreparedness of the major portion of Irish industry. We do not believe that Irish industry is ready for Europe, and we have said so and I think it is right. We could not see that there would be any possibility of withstanding competition in the European Common Market. There have been others in this House who think—I do not know whether they have examined the facts fully— that we can take on the full brunt of competition with these pretty complex economies on the Continent. We have said that we do not think we are prepared sufficiently for it and we have said all along that if the EFTA countries together with Britain finally tie themselves up in some kind of membership of the European Economic Community, if they tie themselves in some relationship with the EEC, then, obviously, our country must also attempt some kind of trade relationship with the EEC, not full membership, but a trading relationship, that would protect the interests which we think may be damaged by full membership. This goes under several terms of associate membership. We have pointed to countries that have been successful in getting relationship with the EEC which has protected their own interests. We consider, from first to last, that our interest in the EEC must be grounded upon the self-interest of this country in protecting its own industry and its own agriculture. We should not become victims of any European enthusiasm that would have the effect finally of injuring our own interests. It is the country we are elected for; it is the interests of this country we should be concerned with first and foremost.
There is no part of the Taoiseach's Estimate speech which suggests the least iota of doubt as to the present conduct of our policy towards Europe. We are sailing happily ahead towards full membership. Unfortunately, the facts in the outside world suggest that full membership will be postponed for quite some years.
There is talk of a third economic programme. We know that the previous economic programmes have largely also ended in a rather sorry state. We know that according to the OECD reports on the economies of member countries from 1960 to 1965 we occupy the proud position of second last in the league of countries who have a certain economic growth. Of a selection of European countries which record the growth for those years, we occupy second last place. Remember, the examination of these economies for this five-yearly period roughly covers the period when we were being told that our economy had never had it so good, that at no time in our previous history had we made such progress. Yet, by European standards, we are second last.
This should give a realistic picture of just where this country stands in performance in relation to the countries surrounding us. We are second last in the league of growth countries. Remember, some of these countries which recorded growth did so against the background of continuous growth practically since the second World War, whereas we had an economy which was static or going in the other direction and our best period found us in the position of second last in the growth achieved in those years. Obviously, a great deal of things have to change around here before this country can be said to be going in the right direction, whatever about achievement.
Again, the Taoiseach's Estimate speech is just a collection of tired, old clichés. It does not suggest any new departure. It does not give the least suggestion that any departure or change is necessary. It is going to be the same as before and, presumably, then, the same kind of record, especially in the economic sphere, as we have had over the last few years.
This year has been chiefly marked by useless visits, publicised visits. I am sure that Press correspondents have done their best to make each visit interesting. Some important papers have suggested that the world has been changed as a result of these visits but there is no indication of any result achieved. Perhaps the most notable result of the visit to the French President has been some controversy about the interpretation of a statement first delivered in French, as to what exactly it meant in English, and when all the various interpretations were discussed the result would seem to be that there had not been any real encouragement forthcoming. The French President said to us that they would have no objection to our having associate membership with these countries, that, in fact, they would ask us to consider such a course. Quite obviously, he was being ironic because he knew the position that this country was now so tied to Britain through the agency of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement that, on the continuance of present policies, there is no possibility whatever that this country can consider any independent initiative or independent relationship other than that permitted by the British Government. But, the President of France can be permitted to be ironic. If a sovereign, so-called, Government approach him in their application towards Europe he may be permitted to be ironic if he says to them, "Have you considered associate membership?" Obviously, the policy of our Government permits of no manoeuvre of this sort unless the British change. If the British change next week their application towards Europe to being an associate then we will probably follow after a 30-second interval, which is more or less what we did in the case of devaluation. We hold the world record in the race after British devaluation. I do not know if the Fiji Islands were before us but our Minister for Finance was able to say 30 seconds later that we, as a sovereign, independent nation, were following after the British decision on devaluation and following even in the same relationship. We have already made our comments on that. It was a sad predicament in which our Minister for Finance found himself at that period. The lesson must be learned. If a so-called independent Government, by every initiative abroad, hands over its capacity to manoeuvre, and if the entire object of our policy abroad becomes one to keep step by step in line with Britain in their approach to major issues, then we must expect that the situation will turn against us and that if devaluation comes to the larger partner it must certainly come to us.
Let us look at the countries that were forced to devalue after the British decision. We can see that in those countries which did devalue there were several reasons in their own economies as to why they should adopt this course. We fail to see any reason in the make-up of the Irish economy why we should be forced to devalue other than, as I say, this policy by which we have to suborn our own interests to those of Britain. In the case of Denmark they did not devalue by as much as Britain. In the case of Spain there were good domestic reasons why they should devalue. It was a very convenient happening for Spain that Britain did devalue because it saved Spain from having to do so on their own initiative and saved the Spanish Government the embarrassment of devaluing their own currency. In the case of New Zealand there are the special circumstances of New Zealand being a storer of wool and the international price of wool falling at this period and other good reasons why they should devalue but there is no reason that could be suggested in the make-up of the Irish economy at home as to why we should devalue other than the plain, crude reason that so closely now are our policies knitted with those of Britain that no longer can we do anything that differentiates us from Britain.
It has been a year of visits and visits that have brought no results. The most recent visit is that of the Taoiseach to Captain O'Neill in the North of Ireland. They discussed foot and mouth, I understand, and snowballs were thrown. I do not know if there was any other concrete information coming from this meeting. Probably, we will have to hear about it.
Debate adjourned.