This debate opened on the basis that a serious unemployment situation had resulted and that the present Government's policy was inadequate to meet the demands of the moment. It was suggested that the steps taken and the policy operated to provide employment were sufficient to meet the country's requirements. I believe that at the commencement it was intended that this debate should be conducted on a serious basis.
I gathered from the speech made by Deputy Lemass that he had some facts which he proposed to put before the House and upon which he expected to convince the House that a situation existed which required immediate remedial measures. Having listened to Deputy Lemass and having examined the unemployment position, I find that not alone is there not a serious position but that the change in the numbers of people unemployed in the last three years has varied very slightly. While it is true that there still exists on the live register approximately 65,000 people—that is the grand total for men, women and juveniles— over the last three years that figure has varied very slightly. Whatever unemployment problem is there is one which has existed over a long number of years and one which Deputy Lemass himself recognised as a source of trouble, not alone to the Fianna Fáil Government but to their predecessors and one which is still a source of trouble and a problem for solution for the Government which has succeeded them.
If we take the figures for 1946, 1947 and 1948 we find that in 1946 there were 66,878 people on the register in the month of December; in 1947, there were 64,834; and this year there are 65,474. The variation, therefore, up and down over the last three years is insignificant. Whatever case can be made against the Government in relation to the unemployment problem it is one which, in so far as this Government has any responsibility, has not arisen in the last 10 months. Since the country has had responsibility for its own affairs three successive Governments have widened the opportunities for guiding our national economy. During that time different methods, varying in either form or degree, have been adopted to provide protection and encouragement to secondary industries in order to absorb those people who are unable to secure employment in agriculture, to provide employment in cities and towns for those who need it and, in addition, to absorb whatever numbers of the people are not able to secure employment in rural areas.
When we examine the results of these policies we find that protection has been given and encouragement afforded to secondary industries. That protection and that encouragement has varied in form or in extent. People who examine the question carefully and impartially will agree that over the last quarter of a century there has not been any marked or radical variation in the policies operated. It may be that the degree of protection or the form of protection to a particular industry, or group of industries, varied in accordance with policy or to meet changing times. What is often a sound policy at one particular moment does not always meet the requirements of a later period. By and large, this small country varies little in its mode of life as between one county and another. The policy that has operated does not afford any great room for difference. Consequently radical measures cannot be operated. I do not think the Opposition would contend that their policy differed radically from the policy which proceeded it or from the policy in operation at the moment.
For that reason, I think the case made by Deputy Captain Cowan that this Government has failed in the ten months in which it has been in office to live up to the promises it held out and that the people are disappointed at the lack of results, does not take into consideration the problems with which the Government has to deal, the difficulties that have to be overcome and the impossibility of any solution which would achieve in a short time full employment either in agriculture or in a combination of agriculture and secondary industries.
I think it is, however, no harm to examine the case that has been made by the Opposition that because of some change in policy in the last few months what Deputy Lemass described as "the reversion to grass" has resulted in the diminution of the number of people employed on the land and that there is a danger that if it continues the flight from the land will be even more accentuated than it has been in the past. I have here some figures which may show the position. It may be said that the years were abnormal. Between the years 1932 and 1938, 48,000 people left rural Ireland for employment in cities and towns, or at any rate left rural Ireland for the cities and towns. Between 1941 and 1946 the number of males employed in agriculture dropped from 555,000 in 1941 to 519,000 in 1946, a drop of 36,000. Whatever can be said for the contention that we have departed from the emergency tillage acreage, the facts do not bear that out. No land that was fit to be tilled was left untilled during the emergency; at any rate, no quantity that makes any matter. There was compulsion in those years between 1941 and 1946, and at the same time there was the added incentive of rising prices for agricultural produce. With a combination of those two forces acting on agriculture the increased acreage under tillage, either by compulsion or by increased prices or by both, the fact is that 36,000 people less were employed in 1946 than in 1941.
Whatever case there is for the proposition that tillage gives more employment than, as is alleged, grass it does not bear examination in the light of those figures. But I do not think that this Government or, for that matter, any Government that has responsibility in this country, would be likely to abandon tillage and to revert entirely to grass. The fact is, and it has been recognised by everyone whose opinion matters, that the most suitable agricultural policy that can be pursued here is one which pays attention to the mixed form of farming, one which has often been put in the phrase "one more cow, one more sow and one more acre under the plough". I believe that every Party in the country, every person who has any knowledge of agriculture, will accept that view and that they will see in it the best hope of increasing not alone employment and agriculture but the prosperity of those engaged in it as well as the prosperity of those who live in the cities and towns. This year, in order to encourage farmers to increase their acreage of wheat, the price fixed was 62/6 a barrel. Last year it was 55/- plus a credit fertiliser document for 2/6. I believe that monetary inducement has had an effect on farmers. The returns of wheat to the mills this year, even allowing for the good harvest, bear out the view that more wheat is available than was available for last year or, as far as one can see, for any other year. The price this year for barley was originally fixed at the beginning of the sowing season at 45/- a barrel and it was raised at the harvest to 50/-. Last year it was 40/-.
Messrs. Guinness have announced that the price which they will pay to contract growers next year is 57/6. I think that on those two headings, the prices for cereals, every monetary inducement short of compulsion—and I do not think any farmer in this country either on this side or the opposite side is in favour of compulsion in normal circumstances—that can be given is given in order to encourage the maximum acreage of cereal crops. So that, from the point of view of what steps the Government can take to stem the drift from the land, if the case is made that tillage will provide more employment than any other form of farming, then on that heading alone we have done as much and, under these two particular items, more than our predecessors. At the same time an agreement has been concluded under which Irish cattle will secure a higher price on the British market than was formerly obtained. That price will be available for the next four years. For the main items, therefore, of agricultural produce we have a guaranteed market and guaranteed remunerative prices. We have, in addition, secured a guaranteed price for bacon when it is available up to 27,000 tons. We also have a market of a guaranteed kind for butter when it is available. It has been alleged that because of the lack of direction, the lack of a coherent policy, the lack of agreement among members of the Government there is no impetus for industrialists and no guarantee that industrialists can plan ahead with confidence.
I think the sooner Deputies in the Opposition or elsewhere realise that this Government is working as a team, in agreement on a published policy, the better for them and the better for the country. In so far as public policy has been announced and in so far as decisions have been taken whatever the policy which has been outlined by the Government that policy has the united backing of every member of the Government as long as this Government is where it is pursuing an agreed policy, the policy to which the Government as a whole subscribe. It has been suggested here that whatever about our speeches and announcements in public the drive and initiative and the action which is required has not been given to industrialists who seek guidance or protection. There has been no single fact put before this House by which anyone can test the accuracy of that statement. There is not a single industrial application that has come before the Department of Industry and Commerce that has not had sympathetic and expeditious consideration. Not alone is that so but quite a number of industrial products have now been provided with protection, either by quota or otherwise, since this Government came into office. There were a number of hosiery factories on short time. I am not alleging anything against Deputy Lemass, that it was as a result of his action. It is true that the duties which were formerly in operation were suspended by him but they were suspended in circumstances which left him little option, but it is equally true that the suspension was retained for longer than the trade considered necessary. These suspensions have now been lifted and a number of factories that formerly found it difficult to continue employment are now working full time.
Mention has been made of the chairmen of individual firms who have complained. I think it is no harm to say that a number of firms who applied to the Government—for that matter who applied to the previous Government for protection—and who secured protection and who subsequently found that the protection or assistance was not adequate were always prepared to use the weapon that unemployment would result unless immediate action was taken. Irrespective of what the consequences were on the rest of the community, irrespective of what effect that action might have on prices, irrespective of the influence it would have on the supply of goods of that kind to the rest of the community, they were always prepared to use the weapon that unemployment would result.
Any industrialists in any part of the country who get protection, who receive Government assistance, or are in some way in receipt of benefit from the State—because it is the State rather than the Government that confers that benefit—also owe a debt and have a responsibility to the community and I think Deputies opposite will agree with me that it is not fair to use the weapon that they will be forced to dismiss men when they find difficulties in meeting competition or are obliged to make application to the Government for further assistance.
As regards any applications that have been received, no delay that could have been avoided has resulted. These applications must be examined, not alone from the effect they will have on cost but from the point of view of the capacity of a particular industry or group of industries to supply the country's needs. When people allege there has been delay, or that the Government is not taking appropriate action speedily, they should advert to the fact that there are other interests in the community besides the particular concern or industry in which they are interested. In that connection it is no harm to say that not alone by reason of the benefits which have been given by the reimposition of the duties I mentioned earlier, but in addition by the efforts which were made and the results that have been achieved by the agreement made with England this summer, we have given complete and convincing evidence of the anxiety of the Government to take whatever steps it can, and that it finds possible to take, to provide industrialists with assistance and protection and with a market as well.
I need not at this stage go over the ground covered by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Taoiseach in the course of the debate on the trade agreement with Britain. Deputies and industrialists know that there were, and there are still, numbers of goods which we wish to sell and which we have surplus to our home requirements. We are willing and anxious to sell them in England, if they will let them in. We succeeded in getting a variety of goods in that, up to last summer, were not permitted. We are still pressing them to accept other goods, but so far they have refused. In the near future officials from this country will conduct further negotiations on that matter and I hope they will secure an adequate market for various commodities for which we wish to secure entrance to Britain.
I do not think it is right or fair to suggest that this Government has not the confidence of industrialists. If the evidence which we have given, in the form of the various trade agreements, but particularly those with Britain, France and the Netherlands, of the steps which have been taken, and the Government's interest in industry and its desire to encourage those who are prepared to risk their money and devote their skill and enterprise to promoting industrial development, is not convincing, then I do not know what further evidence can be given. There is no action that we know of that can be taken which will have a more immediate or effective result than some of the steps I have mentioned. If at any time industrialists make representations to the Government that they have schemes and require assistance— that they require the intervention of the Government with Governments abroad—this Government is only too willing and anxious, on behalf of individual industrialists or any of the organisations which represent them, to take whatever action they consider can be taken to secure an outlet for our goods.
To suggest, as some Deputies have suggested, that the country has no confidence in the Government is, I believe, merely an individual expression of opinion. Whether Deputies opposite like it or not, we are the Government here; we have the backing of the majority of the people and are implementing the policy on which we have agreed. It is a policy which has brought, in some cases, substantial benefits, in other cases benefits, but it is a policy which has, at any rate, improved conditions for many sections of the community. So long as we have the backing of the majority of the people, we will pursue that policy. I hope it will be possible, as time goes on, to improve on it.
It is undoubtedly a fact that everything which the most optimistic amongst us hoped would be possible may not in ten months have been achieved, but I think anyone who has experience of administration realises that a number of people confused wishful thinking with the realities of the situation. A number of people may have made promises in the course of the last election and they find these promises have not been implemented as speedily as they might like. The fact is that in so far as any action that this Government can take to provide a market for industrial goods and for agricultural produce is concerned, then they have this year taken that action and taken it effectively.
Some reference was made in the course of this debate to the cost of living. It is alleged that we have not reduced the cost of living and that the steps we have taken have not resulted in any substantial benefit to the community. I must remind Deputies that one of the earliest measures the Government took was to repeal the taxes on beer and tobacco. We have succeeded in securing a small reduction in the cost-of-living index as applied to all essentials. In addition, clothing and other commodities have come down in price. The actual drop in the cost-of-living index figure is slight. During the past 12 months the largest wage increases that this country ever experienced became operative. Some of these increases were granted before the Government took office, and some were granted since. The fact is that the highest wage increases ever to come into force became effective within the past ten or 12 months. We must take into consideration the added purchasing power that has become available.
There is still, I admit, a shortage in respect of a number of goods, some of them perhaps essential goods, but the fact that the cost of living has dropped slightly at best and, at worst, has remained static, is no mean achievement. The measures we have taken have resulted in many substantial benefits to many sections of the community. At the same time, steps are being taken, as has already been announced, in regard to increases in the pensions of numerous State pensioners, particularly old age pensioners, widows' and orphans' and blind pensions. Deputies have already referred to the increases which were the subject of a Supplementary Estimate yesterday for members of the Civil Service.
I think that whatever case can be made against the Government, there is no case on the unemployment figures. It is true that for a long number of years there has been in this country a hard core of people who are unemployed. I do not say that they are unemployable but there has been over a long number of years a figure which shows little variation. So far as the difficulties that have arisen owing to the transition from a state of war to a state of peace are concerned particularly in respect to the turf workers, these have been offset to a considerable extent by the money which is being made available for employment schemes and rural improvement schemes. Sums made available in that way have been expended on schemes which have absorbed a number of these people.
It may be that in the future other steps will be required. It may be that circumstances will arise after the emergency period, as has been the experience in other countries, which will bring about a period of depression but up to the present there has been no evidence that there has been any real depression under any heading, whether in regard to agricultural produce or industrial commodities. There has been a fair demand for goods despite the increase in the supply of many commodities. The level of demand remains fairly constant.
If in future we are obliged to take measures which have been operated in other countries where State investment has been extended in order to provide employment, then that matter will be considered but I think it is no harm to point out here that, comparing this country with other countries, there is at present a very high level of State expenditure on capital works of one kind or another. Deputies are familiar with the electricity supply scheme, the rural improvement scheme, the Bord na Móna scheme, the arterial drainage schemes, reafforestation and the acquisition of land. All these schemes contribute to employment. They are examples of State expenditure to prevent or alleviate hardship and at the same time to provide capital assets of a lasting nature which will enrich the community as a whole.
The International Labour Office some years ago published a book setting out the experiences of other countries which felt the impact of post-war depression. Whatever our experiences here in the past were, no depression comparable to that which obtained elsewhere ever arose here. We were fortunate that it had been so but, if in future as a result of the greater supply of goods and as a result of the increased production in Europe, by virtue of the Marshall aid, and the other measures which Governments are operating to increase production and to make goods available, we here are obliged to take further measures to provide employment and to stimulate more investment in capital works than is available from private enterprise, then the steps which are been taken in other countries will operate as a guide to us. I do not think anyone can contend that at the present moment there is any evidence of a situation that requires a drastic or radical State policy in order to deal with the problem of unemployment. It is true that there is still a large number of people who for a period, short or long, find a difficulty in securing employment. As I have mentioned the different schemes such as arterial drainage, rural improvement schemes, temporary employment schemes are all being operated, so far as it is possible, to alleviate any hardship resulting from the transition from a period of emergency to a period of peace.
I think this Government after ten months of office deserves the confidence of the people. I believe it still has the confidence of the majority of the people. Despite the tone of disappointment in the concluding remarks of Deputy Cowan, I think the people still recognise that a change of Government was desirable. Not alone have we the confidence of the people but, in addition, we have the confidence which grows among colleagues working together—a confidence which has been improved by the experience of cooperation in implementing a policy which will result in improving the conditions of every section of the community, a policy which we hope, when our period here is ended, will enable us to say, that we have left the country in a better condition than that in which we found it. If we can do that, then I think Deputies opposite can safely adjourn to the 16th February, satisfied with the ability of a Government which they expected, or any rate which they pretended, would not last six weeks and which will then be a year old. They have every reason to be satisfied with the numerous achievements in the political and economic sphere which have brought great benefit to the country.
