Having dealt briefly with some aspects of the budget, I want to go into detail on some matters, because it is necessary and desirable that a little more information would be made available so that the public would have a clearer picture of what is involved in the budget provisions.
In relation to the EEC, with which the Minister dealt in page 7 of his speech, I should like to ask a few questions. I should like to know why the party that claims to support the workers are putting in jeopardy the jobs of workers in a variety of manufacturing concerns. The Echo Plant at Dundalk employs 900 workers and exports to the United Kingdom and Common Market countries. A firm called Core Memories in Coolock also exports to the EEC countries. Why should the employees of these firms be asked to vote themselves out of their jobs? Why should the workers of Technicom in Swords, Dublin, who are engaged in the manufacture of electronics be asked to vote themselves out of a job by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the members of the Labour Party? The same question could be asked about the employees of Nuclear Data, Limited, Cork, the EI Company at Shannon and other factories in Dundalk and Mallow. All these firms are mentioned in the book I have here, Export, volume 6, No. 1, 1972. Why should the workers of the Castlemahon Co-operative Society, who are exporting to the United Kingdom and Common Market countries, be asked to deprive themselves of a job by voting against entry into the EEC? The firm of Edwards and Sons, Clones, County Monaghan, also export to Common Market countries. Could Deputy Tully tell us why Navan Carpets, Youghal Carpets or Curragh Carpets should go out of existence? Perhaps the Labour Party feel that the more people there are on the labour exchange the better position they will be in to exploit such an unfortunate situation. Seeing that financial provision has been made over the years to enable industry to adapt itself to freer trade, it would be interesting to know why employees of the following firms should vote themselves out of a job: McGees of Donegal, Lairds, who won the 1971 export award. Rolon Caravans, who export to Common Market countries. Techtonics Research (Ireland), Erin Foods, Gouldings Fertilisers, Irish Biscuits Limited and Verolme Dockyard.
Why should thousands of workers be asked to vote themselves out of employment, notwithstanding the fact that over the years the Labour Party have consistently supported measures for the modernising of industry to meet greater competition? Why should the workers of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company, who also export to Common Market countries, be asked to take this drastic decision? This company has, under its five year plan, set itself a job-creation target of 7,500 by 1975: the first year, 500 and so on.
Bush (Ireland) also export to the United Kingdom and the European countries. The employees of Nítrigin Éireann would also put their jobs in jeopardy by voting against entry to the EEC. There are also firms like Arklow Pottery, Fleetwood Ltd., in my own area, Macroom Tapes, Wavin Pipes. It states here in relation to the Shannon Free Airport that all the firms who have aid, with one possible exception, a small firm, would welcome entry into the EEC as leading to greater expansion opportunities. Exports from the industrial estates, excluding warehouses, came to £36.7 million in 1970 and £32.9 million in 1969. With an allowance made for imports there was a remaining net balance of £19.4 million in 1970 and £13.7 million in 1969. All of these people are now being asked to dispossess themselves of employment.
This is what happens. These are only some of the very many industries that are being asked to dispossess themselves. Let us take the £6 million concern of Semperit in Ballyfermot. Why should the workers in Ballyfermot be asked to dispossess themselves of employment, to get on the labour exchange? Is it because the Labour Party or the Irish Congress of Trade Unions say so? Why should those employed in Guinness dispossess themselves just because the Labour Party tell them to vote "No"? Guinness are not dependent on James's Gate to supply the British market. If they have to overcome tariff barriers they will not produce here and their employees will lose their employment. The same applies to Dunlop in Cork. If these employees lose their employment those who supply them with foodstuffs, clothing, footwear and other commodities will also lose their employment. Building workers will lose their employment. There will be large-scale unemployment if workers accede to the request to vote themselves out of employment. The building industry will go to the wall again as it did in 1957 but, of course, the Labour Party have no love for the building workers. When on a previous occasion they had an opportunity of maintaining employment they sent them to Birmingham and elsewhere. The list I have read is only one of many. The remarks I have made apply also to the workers in Cadbury and Urney.
The firms I have mentioned are only a few of the firms exporting to the European market and the British market. Over the years and in this year every effort was made to ensure that we would be in a viable position to meet the freer trade. Other Deputies may have more detailed knowledge of factories in their constituencies. These are just a few to indicate what the people are being asked to do in the referendum in relation to their employment.
The strategy of the budget is to ensure expansion of industries and the creation of job opportunities. It does not ask people to cut their own throats and to put themselves on the dole to ensure that there will be no family income.
This anti-farm workers' party, the Labour Party, want to ensure that farm workers will have no employment, that the many farm workers who could find good employment within the Common Market will find themselves unemployed. I should like to hear what Deputy Murphy has to say about this. Why does he want to put farm labourers on the labour exchange? We want every possible job. We want to ensure that jobs will be available. Irish workers are being asked to cut their own throats. They did that before at the request of the trade union movement and the Labour Party. The Labour Party on a previous occasion showed no love for Irish workers when it came to a question of closing down industries and selling the equipment necessary to provide jobs. Now they are showing the same irresponsibility in relation to the EEC.
Congress has indicated in the document issued that we are a very viable community and that, in fact, over the years, the Government have made wonderful efforts far beyond what is indicated by the Labour Party or anyone else. They tell us in one breath of the highly vulnerable textile and clothing industries. Before I deal with that I want to deal with the position in general. They have asked Irish workers to cut their own throats, to throw themselves on the labour exchange just because they say so. They have given no indication that there will be jobs for the people employed in Guinness, Irish Biscuits and the various concerns I have mentioned. They have told us that every provision was made, that we are viable and can meet any type of competition. The gross national product increased from 1958 to 1969 in Ireland by 58.5 per cent and in Britain by 40 per cent.
I quote from the document Economic Freedom:
It is an extraordinary fact that in an Irish Government document no reference is made to economic growth in Ireland for comparative purposes.
To repair this omission we give in this article a table, constructed on the same basis and showing growth in GNP in the European Economic Community, the United States, Ireland and the United Kingdom. It will be noted that while the EEC occupies the lead position in this decade with an increase of 78.9 per cent. Ireland compares with the United States with a GNP growth of 58.5 per cent (United States 61 per cent) the United Kingdom follows on with a growth of 40 per cent.
This is the great country across the water that when a Labour Government is in is the greatest country in the world but when there is a Conservative Government in it is not worth a curse. It is clear that congress has done some research and acknowledged that the Government have over the years made an excellent effort and have equipped us and have been doing their job and have brought us to the pitch that the GNP has increased. However, that is not the whole story. I quote congress's document again:
The implication of the Department's document is that by joining the Common Market we are joining one of the fastest growing economies in the world.
No attempt is made to analyse the structure of the GNP in each country. In our second graph we break down the GNP and give the figure of average annual growth in industry. It will be noted that Irish industrial growth in 1958/1968 was exceeded by only one other country, Italy. Industrial growth in Ireland was as high as that of the Netherlands, 6.8 per cent; higher than Denmark, 6.5 per cent, or Germany, 5.9 per cent, or France, 5.5 per cent, or Belguim 5.5 per cent, or Norway, 5.3 per cent, or Britain, 3.3 per cent.
It shows the considerable progress in development of the average growth rate in industry. This is very important. We are told that nothing had been done over the years, that no effort had been made but congress tells us that we have done a marvellous job, have equipped ourselves and are in a position to compete with almost anybody.
I quote:
The third table compares average annual growth in the agricultural sector and it will be seen that here, while the growth was respectable by agricultural standards, we did not head the list, being superseded by Britain, France, Netherlands and Germany. Why then was our overall growth rate lower than the growth rate of the EEC countries? There are two reasons. The first and by far the most important is the fact that our agricultural sector is so much larger than the agricultural sector in any of the OECD countries or any of the applicant countries. Italy has 23 per cent engaged in agriculture, which makes an 11.1 per cent contribution to GNP. Denmark has 13 per cent of its population engaged in agriculture, which makes a contribution of 9 per cent to their GNP, but Ireland has over 28 per cent employed in agriculture, which makes a contribution of 19.7 per cent to our GNP.
Again, they go on to indicate the wonderful advances we have made here, how we have equipped ourselves, and how we have equipped ourselves in various budgets by making money available for incentives of all types in order to ensure that we would be viable.
As we have seen from the second and third graphs, the lowest industrial growth rate in any of the ten countries is still higher than the highest agricultural growth rate. Our industrial growth rate was nearly three times as much as our agricultural growth rate, but countries like Belgium with only 5.6 per cent of its population engaged in agriculture, or like Germany with 10.2 per cent of its population engaged in agriculture, end up with a higher growth rate than we do, simply because of the higher proportion of industry as compared with agriculture in these countries.
There is one other factor. The contribution of services. Our contribution in this sector is low at 3.3 per cent, but the services sector very largely depends either directly or indirectly through taxes and Government expenditure on the other sector.
Ireland from 1958 to 1968 had a 97.7 per cent industrial growth rate against 84.4 per cent in EEC countries.
In order to meet European competition we have taken measures in various budgets and have provided the necessary incentives to industry. This document to which I have referred is important but is contradictory to what we have been told by the Labour Party during this debate. Credit has been given by the ICTU to the industrial development that has been carried out but the Labour Party tell us we will not be able to compete. There is reference to the cost of women's clothing in this document:
Women's clothing prices include two medium-priced summer dresses off-the-peg from a multiple store, a pair of medium-priced nylons, a pair of day shoes. As in the case of men's clothes we selected mass-produced, well-known makes so we are not considering high fashion wear in this context, but the ordinary popular quality in common use.
We are told that in Brussels the clothes selected cost 124 per cent above the Dublin price. The price in Dublin was 21.85 dollars, in Brussels it was 62.80 dollars, in Paris it was 85.40 dollars and in Dusseldorf it was 64.33 dollars. If we have an advantage in the price of women's clothing of 124 per cent, surely it must be obvious that we will be successful in the EEC. One page of this document contradicts what is said in another page—probably one page was written by a member of the Labour Party and the other page by a trade union official. If we have such an advantage over the other EEC countries, it would indicate that we will come out on top when we enter the Community. These facts are stated in the document entitled Economic Freedom issued by the Campaign Committee of the ICTU.
It referred to price increases. The statements made by the Labour Party speakers are in total contradiction to statements made in this document. This shows the campaign that is being conducted in order to ensure that the money we have provided in the present budget and in other budgets in relation to equipping ourselves for the EEC will be wasted. The ICTU document states that the trade union movement would insist that price increases arising from membership would be compensated by increased wages. It is quite right that the trade union movement should seek increases to offset any disadvantage the workers might suffer. This document indicates that we will be able to carry on and expand our exports. The sentiments expressed about dumping are completely different from those expressed in this document.
The document refers to a study carried out by The Financial Times: the ICTU are getting sophisticated lately and they have changed from The Irish Times. The survey compared the cost of a suit off-the-peg and a good pair of shoes purchased in several cities. In Dublin the price was 89 dollars; the price in Brussels was 84 per cent higher than in Dublin; the price in Dusseldorf was practically the same as that in Brussels; in Paris it was higher, and in Rome—the cheapest of the Common Market countries—it was 52 per cent above the Irish price. This shows that in relation to men's clothing and footwear we have a tremendous advantage over the Common Market countries.
Last night I dealt in detail with the cost of foodstuffs but there are a few points on which I should like to elaborate. The price of entertainment is important from our tourist point of view. The document issued by the ICTU refers directly to workers—the workers who have been asked to put themselves out of employment. The document takes an instance of four people going out for a meal. They each have two aperitifs, and two bottles of vintage wine. They go to see a cabaret and travel five miles in a taxi. They have a bottle of champagne while watching the cabaret. All this costs 165 per cent more in Brussels than in Dublin; in Paris it is a little cheaper than in Brussels Dusseldorf is cheaper than either place but still is 50 per cent higher than in Dublin. This shows that it will be possible for the workers to treat themselves to an evening out at a much smaller cost than that obtaining in Common Market countries. This will have a tremendous effect on our tourist industry. It will be a tremendous encouragement to visitors to realise that they can have an enjoyable evening for a comparatively small amount of money. I wonder how many workers in Ireland could enjoy such an evening out at present? I think this list must have been compiled by a trade union official with a fabulous salary. The workers will be comforted by the fact that they will be paying 165 per cent less. If the congress figures are correct, we have a distinct advantage here which is what we are told we have not got by members of the Labour Party. Either the Labour Party are wrong or congress are wrong. Apparently, congress got these figures with the aid of The Financial Times and they are set out in great detail to convince the people that the situation in the Common Market will be different. If we have all these advantages at present we cannot lose them. We should get cheaper wine and champagne.
This document goes on to say:
One would expect a considerable variation in a field of this kind but it is interesting to note that although an evening out involved the consumption of wine and champagne notably dearer in Dublin than on the Continent, in every case the cost in the Common Market is substantially higher than in Dublin.
The tourists will be glad to hear this. We are told we have priced ourselves out of the market but The Financial Times which appears to be the bible of congress now tells us we are in a very important position and that we can measure up to any competition.
On the other hand, Irish workers are being told to get out of their jobs, to close down Cadburys, Guinness's, Youghal Carpets, Navan Carpets, Curragh Carpets, put the building trade out of operation and close all the factories I have mentioned which are exporting. If the workers do that they will not be able to have a night out.
I should like to deal in a little more detail with the dishonesty in relation to foodstuffs. Again The Financial Times is the paper that congress adopts as its bible from which it quotes. I said last night that the items in this food basket which amused me were the aspirins—no doubt they would need them if they vote themselves out of a job because they will have plenty of headaches—and the roll of toilet paper which would be cheaper if we do not go into the Common Market. This would be a terrible burden no doubt on the people if we do enter the EEC. Then they tell us we would have to eat tinned beef. Irish people do not eat tinned beef; we have the best beef in the world and that is what we eat. But congress indicates that we would be on bully beef if they had their way. They also speak of the litre of table wine. I know all the Irish people will have a litre of table wine if we do not go into the Common Market. We are told about ground coffee which is not affected in any way by Common Market prices as it does not come from Common Market countries. It is tins of Nescafe that come in here. There is talk of the white loaf or its equivalent, whatever that is. Is it a bread-and-water diet that is envisaged? We are told of the kilogram of sugar, a litre of the best quality cooking oil, a kilogram of butter, a kilogram of rice, a kilogram of potatoes, twelve eggs, two kilograms of chicken and a kilogram of steak. Apparently, you have the steak and tinned beef at the same meal.
It is interesting to note that this is the type of propaganda that is being put out. On another list we are told of the increase in the price of tea to £1.20. Of course, tea is not affected. Mr. Ó Loinsigh, chairman of the defence committee for the EEC, admitted the other night that this food basket they had presented to the people is a little different from that presented in The Financial Times. The Financial Times man must have a few bob more than the man dealing with the Common Market Defence Committee. We have then two food baskets, one that will be 20 per cent dearer and the one Deputy Corish spoke of that will be 23 per cent more. The one that is up by 23 per cent includes the pound of tea at £1.20, which does not go up, the sauce which does not go up, and the ground coffee which does not go up. This type of dishonesty is being used despite the fact that over the years we have been building up our economy to meet this situation.
We can see how dishonest the campaign is. The Labour Party have been engaging in a dishonest campaign against entry to the EEC and this must be exposed. In due course I hope to have a fairly comprehensive list of factories and workshops where workers are being asked to vote themselves out of employment. I hope in this debate the Labour Party will tell us, when workers in Counties Louth and Sligo, in Coolock and Swords and at Shannon vote themselves out of a job, what employment will be available to them. I cannot see any result except that there will be many more people at the labour exchanges. At the same time, we must remember that we have equipped ourselves with all the advantages required to enter the EEC and we have the growth rate indicated by congress to back up the other wonderful contributions that have been made through the years.