In discussing this Estimate it is not possible to consider in detail, but rather in general, aspects of Government policy or general economic policy as the case may be. The returns which are published for agriculture during the past year indicate a reasonably satisfactory result but that result can only be maintained if measures are taken to provide a basis for further expansion.
Reference has been made here on a number of occasions recently to the need for speeding up the measures for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. I believe we have not realised sufficiently the urgency of that problem. Just four years ago the scheme was initiated. It commenced after the signing of the Grant Counterpart Agreement with the United States and compared with Britain, which is the principal market for livestock, we are many years behind. They have had over 20 years experience of intensive measures. I should like to hear from the Government what steps will be taken to speed up and to expand that service. When the scheme was initiated four years ago, the sum of money provided initially was probably sufficient to start it and additional sums have been provided since. However, in view of the declared policy that by 1960 many areas in Britain and a number of ports of entry will be cleared of tuberculosis and that animals not free from the disease will be refused entry into those areas, it behoves all of us in this country and the Government, as the responsible authority, to expedite, and do whatever is necessary financially to expedite, the expansion of that scheme.
The other matter concerning agriculture which I wish to mention is the Agricultural Institute. Just over four years ago I negotiated and signed the basic agreement with the United States ambassador for the use of the Grant Counterpart Fund. Although discussion had been proceeding for some years prior to the negotiation of that agreement, a great deal of talk and criticism flared up from a variety of interests, some of them vested interests, concerning the establishment of the institute. I refer to that for the reason that some of the most vocal critics of the delays, of the lack of progress and the failure to implement policies or programmes, are those who themselves by their action refuse to allow that institute to be established. Nobody presents reasonable criticism or even unreasonable criticism over a certain period but ultimately decisions must be taken and, although it is now just over four years since that agreement was signed, the institute is not yet established. Because of the criticism and objections made by a variety of interests the legislation to establish it was delayed. It was initially introduced in our time and the present Government has continued it and the Act is now law.
I notice that the necessary steps are being taken to establish the institute. I think it true to say in this matter that, whatever other criticism may be levelled at either or both Governments, the delay was not due to Government inactivity or lack of effort, planning, co-operation, or goodwill on behalf of any of the responsible authorities in the various Government Departments. But the delay in this case has extended already over a period of four or five or six years and now, with its establishment imminent, it will take another year or two before any worth-while results can be expected from the institute. It is a good thing, however, that the controversy has ended and that the institute is on the point of coming into existence. People who utilise the freedom which those without responsibility can use for the purpose of criticism, for the purpose of objecting to proposals which are made, should ponder the consequences of using that right without measuring fully the responsibility which should attach to it.
In the case of industrial development, the past year has seen little expansion apart from some increase in output. I believe it is now generally recognised that the weapon of protection as a means of developing industry has been exploited nearly to the full and that, in fact, in some cases, protection alone, while providing assistance for an individual industry or even for a group of industries, may create problems elsewhere. Quite recently an example of that sort occurred where a duty was placed on certain cotton goods. That duty has raised the price of a variety of articles of cotton to the trade generally, for the purpose of providing protection for an individual factory or one or two factories, as the case may be. I mention that because I believe that real progress in the future will have to be on different lines and that the highly competitive conditions which exist at present whether or not the Free Trade Area comes into existence —and that is extremely doubtful— make it imperative that efficiency, technical skill and knowledge should form the basis on which our industrial fabric should be framed.
There is general agreement in the House on the desirability of securing foreign investment and foreign technicians who have knowledge and experience. I do not believe we shall see any great contribution from foreign investment here and I think we shall have to rely, as in the past, to a very considerable extent on our own resources. We have had some notable examples of foreign technicians providing the know-how, technical skill and experience either in collaboration with Irish technicians or alone, and even in recent times we have had such examples in the case of the oil refinery and of those who have come to develop the mineral resources at Avoca, but on many occasions when we speak of the need for new industries we overlook our responsibility for maintaining existing ones and in some cases overlook the burdens placed on these industries either by the general level of taxation or by taxation in specific cases.
I want to refer to one matter discussed here on a few occasions recently. That is the decision to continue and, by reason of the Government's alteration of a decision, to maintain the duty on newsprint. That duty affects an industry that gives a great deal of employment directly and indirectly. It was originally imposed as a temporary measure to deal with the balance of payments problem but it was never intended to remain. It has recently been made permanent. That adds a burden to all industries in the country coming within the ambit of the duty, especially newspapers and periodicals using newsprint. That industry gives a great deal of direct employment and the indirect employment is probably even greater. It is a duty maintained at a time when encouragement and assistance are being offered to external investors to invest here. We are maintaining at this time a penal tax on an existing established industry.
Not merely is it a burden directly but the newsprint industry here has to compete with a very powerful industry of a similar nature in Britain that is enabled to flood this country with a variety of periodicals and newspapers and it has available far greater resources, a far larger reading population and, in consequence, is in a position to throw on to this market the surplus left over when it has satisfied its home needs. I therefore believe this is a special case in which a decision should be taken. I pressed the Minister concerned, the Minister for Finance, on it and he said it was not possible to revoke it this year, at any rate, because of the revenue factor involved. I understand the total amount involved is about £100,000 and, at the rate at which revenue was running this year, it is obvious that sum would not seriously affect the revenue return, while the advantages which would be derived from revoking the duty would be considerable.
Another industry which is sometimes referred to as offering great possibilities for expansion, and for which in this year's Budget a small sum of money was set aside for publicising it, is the distilling industry. That industry, in the main, provides male employment and draws its resources from home-grown materials. It has a great tradition behind it but it has to compete with one of the most financed competitors in the world, the Scotch distiller. I believe that the measures taken, both by this Government and the previous Government, are entirely inadequate to extend whiskey sales in the dollar market. I believe that not merely should further steps be taken but that the whole question of the level of taxation on that industry should be re-examined.
In seeking to encourage external investment here we have recently amended the Control of Manufactures Acts. I do not think anyone is entirely happy about the method in which that was done. In fact, it is questionable whether in some respects the whole atmosphere surrounding that discussion has not made the position worse, even if the actual statutory and legal position is somewhat better. No restrictions of any sort should be placed on the entry of foreign capital into this country. We have had extensive experience by different Governments of the comparative lack of success of our efforts in that sphere and I believe that the primary success of our industrial development will depend on our own exertions and our own capital. Whatever about the acquisition of technical knowledge or skill, in the main we shall have to rely on our own capital here. If we are to attract external investment no legislative provisions of any sort should be allowed to interfere, or even to give the suggestion that there is here what are regarded as bureaucratic and State restrictions which are so strongly resented, particularly in the United States and Canada.
The most pressing problem for a great number of people is the high and rising cost of living. The abolition last year of the food subsidies caused a very serious increase in the cost of bread, flour and butter. Over the last 12 months while there was an eight point increase, I think, in the consumer price index, the cost of food alone increased by 13 points. The cost of bread increased by approximately 50 per cent., flour by over 70 per cent. and butter by a considerable sum.
Subsequent to those increases transport charges have pressed heavily on users of the public transport system and, in addition, health charges have been increased, pressing on in most cases the same section of the people. While all are affected by increased prices charged for food, a great many of those who have been obliged to bear increased transport charges in the way of bus fares, have also been obliged to meet the increase in health charges because they are the people who come within that category. It is, therefore, important that no action of the Government should make that situation worse.
Recently we enacted a measure dealing with the purchase of tea. I do not want to go into the detailed administration of individual Departments, but this is a matter of general public interest. That measure confines the purchase of tea to a company set up under statute. I have read a letter which that company has sent to a tea trader who is not a member of it, informing him that if they are to provide services—and they are the only company authorised to import tea—they will charge 5 per cent. for those services. This man is not in a very large way of business but he said it would mean £18 a week additional in his case. That charge, of course, he will have to recover from the purchaser who is, in effect, the consumer.
I believe that any measure that affects a commodity so vital to the community, because this country is a very great consumer of tea—we consume in the region of between 22,000,000 and 24,000,000 lb. of tea per annum and I need not stress or elaborate on the importance of tea as a beverage in every household in the land—and anything that involves an increase in the price of that commodity because of a State decision, or the decision of a Government Department, is a matter that requires urgently to be re-examined.
The news in the last few days shows a a grave international situation because of events in the Middle East. Much of the unrest is of long-standing, aggravated by attempts to employ artificial remedies where an entirely different approach was, and is, essential. World events may have serious repercussions on this country. What is happening elsewhere is not passing unnoticed here and is influencing the minds of many people. So far as this country is concerned our interests and the interests of a great many, if not all, small countries lie in the preservation and maintenance of peace which is vital to our very existence. Many of the problems which exist in the world have their origin in mistaken policies adopted in the past. The area at present affected has been for a great number of years a source of potential trouble. We can only hope that the authority of the United Nations and the influence and power of the Free World will be such that world peace will be maintained.
As far as this country is concerned, the only remaining political problem is the solution of Partition. While differences arise on the method of achieving that aim, all Parties in the House and all sections outside are agreed on the aim of a united Ireland. Therefore, it is vital that care should be taken to ensure that national policy must be decided by Dáil Éireann and the Government responsible to the Dáil. Whatever decisions and actions are carried out must be based on the views of the majority of the people. While there is general agreement on the aim of ending Partition and of a united Ireland, differences have arisen in the past, and even exist at present, on how that aim may be realised. Public representatives in all Parties and those who have responsibility for guiding public opinion have in existing circumstances, and particularly in the light of the international situation, a heavy responsibility to see that public opinion is moulded and influenced in the right direction. It is not sufficient to say that nothing has been done about the Partition problem or that, because Partition still exists, the very existence of it entitles any group in the community to take whatever action they think is appropriate.
Frequently, too much attention has been paid to publicity and not enough to the requirements of a practical policy. Publicity may be useful or it may not. Where it wins sympathy and understanding for our objectives, it is beneficial but if it shows us in the contrary light, it is not helpful. Therefore, it is essential that we should realise that the solution of Partition, in common with a number of other problems, depends on our own exertions and on our own efforts. What has already been achieved here—the winning of freedom for the State established here—was, in the main, due to our own exertions and to the exertions of those who have gone before. With the exception of the very generous and welcome help extended by the United States and by our people in other countries, in the main, that success was due to our own efforts. Therefore, it is obvious from experience of our own history that the solution of the problem of Partition depends in the main of the people in both parts of the country.
We must seek to ensure that national policy is so directed that all sections are attracted to the idea and to the ideal of a united Ireland, that where necessary we should review existing policies or actions, continue those likely to lead to progress and reject those that have been found to lead nowhere or which fail to achieve what was expected from them. It is vital that no support should be given to any irregular force, no matter for what purpose. Anyone who, by the expression of opinion—and particularly those in public positions whose views carry weight—encourages these activities should ponder the consequences of his action.
Unfortunately, many of the mistakes made in the Middle East and in dealing with problems, including our own, are traceable to mistakes in British foreign policy over a long period. To proceed on the basis that conditions in the world to-day are the same as in the days of Palmerston is a contributory factor to many of the difficult problems existing in so many places. To-day, however, the dominant role in international affairs is played, not by Britain, but by the United States on the one hand and Russia on the other. The United States has repeatedly given evidence of a capacity for world leadership and it has not the colonial record that has been such a difficult legacy in the case of British foreign policy. We look with confidence tempered with anxiety, at the heavy responsibility which the Government and people of the United States have to bear, recognising that great sacrifices will have to be made to preserve the liberties of the Free World. What has been achieved by our own people can be extended, provided we show the same unity of purpose and the same determination to solve this problem as was shown in securing the establishment of an independent State for this part of the country.
The only other matter I should like to refer to is to ask the Taoiseach if he has any information on what progress has been made concerning the Lane pictures. Have there been any recent developments? One gathers the impression that not the same public interest is focussed on this matter as was the case some time ago. I should be glad to hear if any recent developments have taken place.
