This debate has ranged over a considerable number of subjects even in the short time we have been discussing the Vote on Account. It has helped to give a number of important pointers which the Minister, I hope, will find of value when coming to the consideration of the Budget and the policy on which that Budget must be founded. The contributions from both sides of the House have been of help. The contribution, in the first instance, of the Minister for Finance in introducing the Vote, could not have been particularly enlightening beyond a statement of the case for the consideration of the House.
I was, however, rather concerned at the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs' treatment of the problem. Admittedly, he was particularly careful to confine himself to verifiable and factual statistics which, I have no doubt, were of a non-controversial nature. But he made some comments or drew some conclusions from those statistics which appeared, to me at any rate, to suggest that the implications of those statistics upon the lives of our citizens did not appear to have penetrated very deeply into his political conscience. He said —I hope I am not misquoting him— that we could go on for some considerable time without feeling the effects of outside influence. It would be a very serious thing indeed were these sentiments to be shared to any extent by his colleagues in the Cabinet.
It has been emphasised by the Opposition that the position is extremely serious at present, and I believe that we have gone long past the time when one could say that we have yet to feel the effects of outside influences. There is at present a very high level of unemployment. Both sides of the House deplore this unemployment, and I do think it very wrong of the Minister so to confuse himself or to blink facts to that extent, in order to bolster up his case. I suggest that it would be much better for him to admit the facts and the conclusions from the many statistics that he produced, and then provide for the House a solution to the problem. Listening to both sides, I have, as I said at the beginning, been considerably assisted in my attitude as a most fervent and unrepentant believer in what the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs describes as a high-level planned economy, a political philosophy usually associated with what has been described as the achievements of the welfare state.
I am a completely unrepentant believer, as I have said, in the conception of a Government that can so organise the activities of its Ministers and Departments of State by intelligent anticipatory planning for the future that by such planned co-ordination of the different Departments, particularly Industry and Commerce, Agriculture and Finance, it can ensure that the weaker sections of the community—the very young, the very old, the poor and the sick—shall, out of the community purse, be cushioned against the effects of the accidents of life in modern society.
The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs made some slighting references to the chaos in Great Britain, following the activities of the Labour Government, but he made no references whatever to the tremendous achievements of that Government. He made no attempt to deal with the tremendously beneficial results which have accrued to the ordinary people of Great Britain as a result of the activities of the Labour Government's few short years in office. Equally I would suggest he was not being completely fair when he attributed the blame for Britain's present economic troubles to the activities of the Labour Government. It is quite obvious to everyone that their preoccupation with a defence economy, forced on them by the particular policies which they have followed, made it practically impossible for them to achieve a balanced economy and to live the normal life of a modern State.
I sincerely hope that, contrary to the Minister's views, we shall have a Government here who will be prepared to copy, not only the Tory Government in England, which he says is much too far ahead of us, but also that we shall have a Government here which will have the courage, the self-confidence and the sense of social responsibility to want to copy, in the years to come, as many as possible of the achievements of Labour Governments in Great Britain, New Zealand, Sweden and other progressive nations. I believe that we are now passing through a very important phase in the evolution of the development of our State.
Tremendous contributions have been made by the older generations of politicians on both sides of the House to the achievement of our present status. When physical courage and idealism were required, they were freely without question forthcoming from those politicians, many of whom are here present now. The territorial or political freedom which we at present possess we owe to their sacrifices, and we in our generation should try to achieve economic independence and the establishment of a State in which there will be a modicum of social justice for the underprivileged in all sections of society.
I believe that since the foundation of the State three very considerable contributions have been made to our economic independence for which individual members of this House were largely responsible. The first development provided power for industries and for domestic life. For that I think we must pay tribute to the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the Cumann na nGaedheal Government— Deputy McGilligan. He was apparently the first to realise the importance of the development of hydro-electric power. He developed the scheme despite the attitude of those who doubted the possibilities of its success.
I believe that the next contribution of value was made by the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, again in relation to industry and power. I refer to the development of peat as a source of power for our industries and as a fuel to meet our domestic requirements. We owe a considerable measure of the development which has taken place to the Minister, together, of course, with his development of industries. It is quite obvious that mass production is now creating a situation which our industries will have to face. That, I suggest, is a most important consideration for them since it is possible for modern mechanised industry to produce sufficient in one week to meet the requirements of our whole State. If, for example, Solus Teo were to introduce the most highly mechanised bulb-producing machinery into its factory it would be able to satisfy the requirements of our whole market in a matter of weeks, and then, of necessity, would have to close down. It is obvious, I think, that if our industries are to go ahead and to justify themselves they must accept this development of mechanisation. It will demand from them that they will have to budget for an export economy and when you budget for an export economy in industry you are budgeting for competition against the United States, Great Britain and other countries. That is a problem which is facing the Minister. It is one which, I am quite certain, he is completely capable of handling and of dealing with to the satisfaction of both sides of the House.
Deputy Costello, the former Taoiseach, in the course of his contribution referred to the necessity of showing our gratitude to the United States of America for the assistance which they had given to us in the last few years. I should like to add my vote of thanks for the loan and the grant moneys which they made available to us. At the same time, we must surely keep our minds clear as to the reasons why this money was made available. We should suffer no illusion that it was done because of any particular concern which America had for our security, well-being or general prosperity. Recent events in connection with the Mutual Security Act have shown that there is a purpose, and was a purpose, behind the American intervention, as an international moneylender, to give us this large help. Mr. Truman has recently been very clear and candid on that point. He has told us that the reason why they came over and helped was because they could then draw upon the tremendous man-power in Europe in case they had to decide to go to war. I think that the Government have taken a very wise step in refusing to enter into any commitments either with the east or the west, that we should do our best to maintain our neutrality and economic independence, and that we should pursue our own life in our own way and as free as we can from outside commitments or interference.
There was a time when the British sent over their recruiting agents here. In order to build up their armies and to increase their strength, they took our young men to fight in their wars and to build up their empire. Now, we are seeing the American dollars being sent across for a similar purpose. I, at any rate, would endorse the attitude of the Government in that regard.
As I have said, I believe that this Budget can be a most important turning point in the development of our State as an independent democratic Republic, working towards the integrity of the country as a whole. But I cannot see how we can possibly develop a sound economy with the present policy. Let me add that, in my view, it is no different from the policy which, generally speaking, has been pursued by two Governments since the inception of the State, with the exception of what was done by individual Ministers. In my anxiety to develop the social services aspect of Government through the health services by better living conditions, with provision for widows and orphans and so on, I found that one of my troubles was that in the absence of a real prosperous agricultural economy the drive towards the balancing of the books of the nation could not be properly developed. To-night the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs gave us copious figures. These showed that there has been little if any improvement in agricultural production since 1938, 1944 or whatever year it was. Deputy Dillon tried to prove the contrary. The main point, however, which arose from the debate was this, that there has been no appreciable change in the level of agricultural productivity over the last 25 or 30 years. I could give figures but the House has been pretty well sated with figures, and so I shall not dwell on that particular point. It is quite obvious to anybody passing through from east to west or north to south of the country that Ireland is not producing anything like the maximum output of which the land is capable.
I believe a courageous Minister for Agriculture is more necessary than any other single Minister in the Government. A Minister for Industry and Commerce will always largely be confined within the limits of tariff walls, quota restrictions and other penal impositions on imports. Every nation has to take such measures as a protection. We do it ourselves. At the end of the next ten or 15 years the only single valid international currency will be food. Indeed, food is almost the only currency at the moment. Anything, therefore, that we can produce off the land stands a good chance of being disposed of at fairly remunerative prices in the international markets both to-day and in the future. Other nations less fortunate than ours are at present committed to spend their agricultural man-power, transferred into industry, in building up a defence programme. We, on the other hand, have an opportunity of developing our agricultural production.
A courageous policy in relation to agriculture is essential, and an agricultural survey of every county should be carried out in order to assess the optimum productivity of the land. It should be instilled into the farming community that they hold the land in trust for the people and it is their duty to increase the productivity of their land to the maximum of which it is capable. Before we can have a well-balanced economy the farmers must be given to understand that unless they are prepared to take on the responsibility of developing their holdings to their maximum the Government will have to take control and re-allocate the land to those who are prepared to make the best use of it. Compensate the dispossessed holders, by all means, but ensure at all times that the land is so worked as to give its maximum productivity.
If one travels from one end of the country to the other one sees vast acres untilled and untouched by the hand of man. These grazing-areas are capable of a tremendous degree of production if properly and conscientiously worked. Again, there should be—and this will require the courage of a strong Government willing to face the realities of the situation—an end to the conacre system. I am well aware that such a move would not be vote-catching from the political point of view, to say the least of it, but we should not delude ourselves. The time will come, perhaps not immediately, when we will see an end to dialectics here in this Assembly and get down at last to the real problem of providing solutions to the many evils and ills which afflict our society at the present time.
The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs told us that he has a long-term policy, but he did not tell us what that policy is. It is about time we showed a little more faith in the intelligence and understanding of our people, and a little less of the "Hush, hush, secret weapon" attitude towards the solution of these evils. Both sides to-night, and on previous occasions, have illustrated clearly and effectively in the figures of under-production, the absolute bankruptey, lack of courage, lack of determination to face the realities of the position as we see it, and the failure to get down to a really effective policy of providing the balanced economy this country so sorely needs; that is, an economy which, looking ahead for ten, 15 or 20 years, the ordinary common-sense farmer or business man will be willing to accept for the improvement of his own enterprise or his own farm.
How, in God's name, can any country continue to proceed with a lackadaisical laissez-faire attitude towards the serious problems confronting it? The Minister referred to a figure of 70,000 in relation to unemployment and a current 25,000 emigrating or, as I used to interject in the inter-Party Government, 50,000 unemployed and 20,000 emigrating. We have no right in face of that to feel complacent or self-satisfied. We have no right to feel that we are achieving anything like the degree of intelligent Government for which so many paid such high sacrifice 30 and 40 years ago.
Courage is necessary. It is easy to mouth platitudes. It is easy to hurl accusations from one side of the House to the other: "You did this,""Why did you not do that?" and "We will do something else when we get back." The fact of the matter is that the statistics quoted by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and by Deputy Dillon together with the figures for unemployment and emigration, show there has been no constructively coherent collective policy directed towards ending the common ills that afflict the modern State. There is a planned economy in New Zealand and Sweden.
There was a planned economy for a few years under the Labour Government in Great Britain, and that Government achieved many things. Though I may be the only one here prepared to come forward and declare that I believe this to be the only solution to our problems, I can wait, because I feel sure that, in time, it will be borne in upon the people here and outside that our native Governments have failed in the last 30 years to order or govern the State, as it was their duty and their responsibility so to govern and order. I move to report progress.
