We all have an obligation to work for full employment and to allocate moneys to the IDA and to other job-creating agencies but the mere passing on of money and agreeing to consolidation measures does not let us off the hook. We cannot pursue a policy of national loss which has been happening over the years to the advantage of sectional gain and then blame our failure to create sufficient jobs on other people. This is repetition but it cannot be emphasised enough; we have to keep driving this home.
As I have stated earlier, we all want to be advocates of the desirable goals. When somebody goes abroad hears a few words of a foreign language, immediately after coming home they want to learn that language because they think it may be handy. The minute they get into the language learning area they realise that they have to subordinate some other pleasures, that this is hard work and real sacrifice and then they do not want to know anything further. This may not be the best analogy but our people talk about having desirable goals but do not like making the sacrifices necessary to realise them.
The question of the fuller sense of national identity and social inter-dependence would not only have to be acknowledged, but accepted. The widespread feeling of obligation, because of the way society and the system has grown up and the abuses of it, is a very rare commodity. If we are serious about full employment and job creation we must take another look at ourselves as a society. In the area of leadership, tender mindedness has been unable to supply the unlimited credit that conscience of the whole nation. What is needed in this area is an outcry from the religious and trade union leaders, employers, other organisations and institutions which have an influence on public opinion. Unfortunately, it does not happen that way. Until such time as it happens that way, we can forget the whole question — I am thinking in terms of unemployment — and we can get back to where we acquiesce to an acceptable level of unemployment. I must be quite honest about this. This acceptable level of unemployment does not appeal to me. I may be attributing that to the community — and I hope I am not wrong in doing so — but I say so on the basis of evidence of special interest and sectional groups and generally speaking, the failure, to come together as a community to face up to the problems.
In my view, it is now essential for the leaders in the areas I have mentioned to start a process of arousing the conscience and hardening the will. If we do not choose to do this and implement the right policies, our own job creation agencies will not realise their fullest possible potential. The potential is there, but the groundwork has got to be done. The nation as a whole has to be influenced that they can do it. They have got to be embraced, if you like, in this overall broad strategy. I do not think that giving finance can change anything. I do not think that standing up and praising the fact that it is a good organisation can do anything either. At the same time, while we are standing up and doing this, either by action or design or because we are victims of the system we live under, we are putting impediments in the way of people who are seriously into the business of job creation. We, rather than the job creation agencies are failing to pursue this broad strategy. We want people to recognise it rather than pay lip service to it. We want to put it to those people who believe in the means and the end but we do not want to utilise the means because of the sacrifice that goes with it. They want that to be applied to somebody else. We have got to come to terms with that. To a great extent the Government are trying very hard in this area. It is a difficult job because of the damage which has been done down through the years, not only by one Government but by a series of Governments. Despite this the ground for advancement is being laid.
I do not agree with everything the Government are doing with regard to a broad strategy, but they have accepted the challenge to stand up and be counted. Their message is not a popular one, and we have got to appreciate that. For example, there are criticisms at present, over and above political paralysis, that we are an inept lot of people. There have been many suggestions that we are a tired Coalition. It is often mentioned — and perhaps it is right to draw attention to the numbers unemployed — that there are quarter a million reasons why job creation should be pursued with greater intensity than ever before. It is all right to talk about this but if one wants to be critical about it, it has to be realised that there is something that goes along with it. One just cannot get up and make a broad statement, apply the safety of generalities, and expect to create jobs. I do not know of any area where anybody advanced as a result of that type of criticism, catch cries or slogans. They are the easiest thing in the world to create.
At present there are arguments about the number of companies that go to the wall. I could accept the criticism about that. As an ex-trade union official, I feel very sore about jobs having to go. I was in a position where I had to negotiate a substantial number of redundancies due to modern technology and so on. It is not new. The unemployment trend started in 1979. In 1981, when unemployment figures were much lower than they are now, they stood at a post-war record. If you were making the argument at that time, that was the situation. If you were making arguments about redundancies at that time, they were actually outstripping job creation just as they are now. Agricultural incomes were halved in 1980-81. Inflation itself was running at a range of from 15 per cent to 20 per cent. Two years in a row 1980-81, the balance of payments deficit exceeded £700 million. Of course, trade resources overall were dwindling. It was not something new. Therefore, the criticism has to be answered to some extent and this is the way I choose to do so.
I do not like to use the term that we have been facing up to clearing the mess, but the Government have had difficulties in dealing with the problems that have been growing from 1979 onwards. I am not suggesting that this mess will be cleared up during the lifetime of this Government. I do not think I imply either that I am satisfied with the redistribution of wealth in our society, but I am a realist and I recognise the difficulties of getting these things right. I like to be fair when it comes to the question of criticising the Government and give them credit where it is due. It is easy enough to stand up and say that redundancies are outstripping job creation but this has been a fact of life since 1979. This is the way it is going.
I would like to get back to my own situation for a moment and the question of negotiating away jobs. I do not like to emphasise it too much. However if you take a place like Guinness's, who were faced with great difficulties, because it was a very old brewery and because the plant had to be modernised, the problem there did not last too long a period because of the spin-off from what Guinness themselves had gained. When the season closed, malthouse workers used to get a full year's employment and Guinness made up the other eight months of the year from about 15 or 16 malthouses from all around the country, some from Athy, some from Wexford and so on. They had a casual list but in fact it was on contract to Harvey and McLoughlin, the builders.
There were 232 people employed by Guinness on a day to day basis. In most cases they got 11 months employment in the year. Richardsons of Tara Street supplied every lorry they had to assist in transportation. Warrens of Crane Street supplied dozens of lorries. Other carriers throughout the country also supplied lorries. CIE supplied trains and cars. Because of changes and new developments, all that is gone. That is not taking into account the fact that there were in the order of 4,000 people employed in Guinness at that time. In relation to direct employment, we are talking in the region of 1,200 or 1,300. That was all over a very short period of time. I have not taken into account many other things. There were a number of jobs lost which was outside the control of most people.
If you make the argument about redundancies outstripping the creation of jobs — naturally I am a little concerned, because I do not want to see that happening — it goes back to the question of somebody making the decision in view of the fact that problems existed and that the trade would go somewhere else and that you could save a number of jobs by following one of two courses. One had the option of having the beer brewed elsewhere at a cheaper rate, or of getting into line with productivity per person and retaining a certain number of jobs. Naturally, we took the latter option of saving the jobs for Dublin. There was evidence at that time that they could actually brew the beer away from here, export it back in, and have it all done for about 25 shillings a barrel cheaper, in old money at that time. That is a fact of life. Because we were part of the community we had to accept the difficulties that existed and we had to face up to them. That was over a 20 year period. We have had this kind of situation all along. It got greater emphasis in 1979 and onwards, and the difficulties are still there with us. This is the reason it is not easy for us to stay quiet when we are being lashed with criticism which is not totally justified.
Let us now look at the 1981 situation, when there was a deficit of £500 million, which was a shocking figure. It did not seem at that time that there were going to be any changes in economic policy. It meant for the third year running that about £½ billion more than the Government collected was going out in order to sustain services. One can see that there were great difficulties. For example, in the Estimates for 1981 there was an opening deficit of £7 million. It seemed a better picture, but ultimately when it was examined it was not any better than the one for the previous year. The implication there was that £½ billion had been borrowed and now you were into the third year in succession, which was a bit of a breathtaking thing when you consider it. This had to be met. A quarter of all the tax revenue collected in that year went towards servicing the national debt. Out of every pound collected in income tax, 60p went on the debt interest. This was a serious situation. I am not an economist. I can only deal with the question by reading from the economists of the day. It seems that we were in trouble with the foreign banks. They were not going to continue financing the Irish Exchequer at that rate of borrowing. If they had decided to cut off the credit the Irish banking system would have been able to supply the unlimited credit that would have been necessary for survival. I do not know enough about it. I suppose I would not be brave if I did not suggest that, with the state things were in at that time, a company running business was very likely to go into liquidation or be taken into receivership. One can see that the difficulties were going on from that time and they were not easy to deal with.
Concerning job creation, I do not know what the IDA's role is in relation to cooperatives. I think it is a very important area. The IDA people know that the number of jobs needed in the coming decade will be much higher than it was previously, even if the percentage of the labour force did not rise further. If one takes account of the projected growth in the labour force, the continuing level of job losses in manufacturing industry and the decline in the number in agriculture, the number of new jobs required outside agriculture is likely to be in excess of 20,000 per annum up to 1991. We have a very big task here. I have suggested that we need this broad strategy. I have pointed out that we cannot stand up and support the IDA and other agencies and pat them on the back. I am sure they do not want to be patronised in that way anyway. We cannot do that unless we make up our minds that there is a broad strategy there which has to be followed. If the broad strategy is not followed then the whole idea of job creation becomes affected.
At present we are trying to reduce unemployment by indirect means. The emphasis must still be on creating an attractive environment for private and, in particular, foreign investment. Somebody might say that Senator Jack Harte is not an advocate of the system. That is very true, but he is also a realist and he lives in the system. That is what the majority of the people want. Therefore, when I speak in the context of looking for private enterpreneurs and so on, it is on the basis of reality: that is where you have to find people who are going to come in and set up jobs. It has long been recognised by the trade union movement that a mixed economy is the most acceptable and most workable for the Irish industrial climate.
The question then occurs, when we are dealing with the broad strategy that we have to know if the wealth created in industry does not go automatically to the creation of employment. We have to have means by which we make sure it gets there. We cannot bring industries into production. Indirect efforts are made and we get a certain amount of resistance. We are always in a situation where there is a time lag and particularly in a depression period when the demand is reduced and industries everywhere are under extreme pressure to survive. It is clear to me that, in fact, the whole question of sacrifice to create full employment is more talked about than actually meant.
I must reiterate that we have to begin very quickly to get religious leaders, the group leaders, community leaders, trade unions and employers' leaders to try to harden the will of people. As long as we do not act in that co-ordinated way we will always have this piecemeal situation and the reaction from the special interest groups, as I said earlier. They will not have regard to the fact that the Government have been working on the business development scheme. We are doing reasonably well out of it. The Government have made it as attractive as possible. Many people will not have regard to the fact that the National Development Corporation Act was recently passed and that that will start playing its part in job creation. Therefore, they will not be tuned in to making the type of sacrifice that is necessary. Some other form of leadership is needed in this area to assist these agencies.
The Minister mentioned in his Second Reading speech the management committee on industrial policy which has been established. This is another good thing. Unless we can get the group leaders and the special interest people to sit up and take note these things can go for naught. The inference there is that the follow-up is the most essential thing in the world. One can create the climate but the follow-up has got to be dealt with. For example, the company development approach which involves the IDA, the IIRS and Córas Tráchtála who are working closely with selected companies is the right combination. It does not matter whether we tell people about the 56 company development programmes approved by IDA during 1985. They must still have the climate in which to implement programmes. If we do not face up to the difficulties 56 companies may not be enough to meet the situation nowadays in order to deal with the question of employment.
The regionalisation of the IDA's small industrial programme is also a very good thing. It was completed in 1985 and is now available to the IDA offices. The people of the mid-west and of the Gaeltacht areas are going to benefit by it. On the whole question of follow-through, we must through local services and through many other means try to influence special interest groups to give leadership in the sense of calling for the sacrifices that must be made to bring about the creation of jobs.
It is good to see the new marketing initiatives but how far will those initiatives affect the fellow who is looking for retrospection or something like that and who is prepared to let the community suffer as long as he gets his retrospection payments? It is not sufficient to say to the IDA: "We have consolidated all these Acts into one Act and we have repealed certain Acts to facilitate you." We cannot just say that we have a broad strategy here and if only we could get all sides to toe the line with regard to that strategy, the IDA could work much more effectively for us and we would be recognised as a much stronger force throughout the world and could attract more people into the country. I have no doubt that, in fact, we would attract a substantially larger number than at the moment. We will need to attract more people into the country in the future.
The whole question of industrial relations here is very very important. There is much work to be done in that direction. If we keep in that direction we can only deal with the situation piecemeal, thus creating many problems. May I ask what time is the debate on the agriculture motion, please?
