I move:
"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."
I am willing to accept the Taoiseach's humble request that we should excuse any shortcomings. There were no shortcomings really except that it was rather difficult to find something definite, something concrete, something tangible of which one could take hold or in which one could find a clear statement of a clear position in relation to something. Like the Taoiseach, it may perhaps be my shortcomings that I cannot appreciate to the full his detailed analysis of the topics upon which he touched. I may not have got him down absolutely accurately, but I did find it just a little difficult to follow him in so far as I was trying to extract a definite statement on each of the topics with which he dealt. I must confess I failed in that respect and, to that extent, his speech was disappointing. However, as I have said, that may be my own fault.
I am glad that the Taoiseach did refer to the practice that had been established in my time of dealing with this Estimate by giving a sort of general review of the economic position and of Government policy. To some extent I sympathise with his approach in this matter in that I fully realise that, from the time of the debate on the Vote on Account down through the debates on the Budget, the Estimates and the Finance Bill, general economic policy and a background of the economic condition of the country come in for pretty detailed review. It is, at the end of the year, rather difficult to make a speech introducing the Taoiseach's Estimate considering that most matters of economic importance have already had a fairly general review.
I think that on the last occasion on which I had the privilege of introducing this Estimate I departed somewhat from the practice which was in operation for some years and, instead of giving an economic review of the economic condition of the country, I took two or three specialised topics which I thought of some considerable importance at the time. I have a most distinct recollection of the irrepressible Deputy MacEntee, as he was at that time, making a most violent assault on me because I dealt with the problems of emigration, and the growing up of cynicism and disbelief in our institutions and the general malaise with regard to politics and politicians generally. Deputy MacEntee, as he then was, made a most violent assault on me for departing from the usual procedure although I had given the reason that a few weeks before we had had lengthy discussions both on the Budget and on the import levies which had just been put on.
This Estimate gives an opportunity for discussing general public policy, particularly in the light of our economic background. While I have some sympathy with the point of view at the moment of the Taoiseach I would not be prepared to agree that anything would be gained by postponing discussion on this Estimate until December. I think it is generally felt that the period from the resumption of the Dáil to the Christmas vacation is one in which Bills are introduced. It is sometimes a problem to get legislation to keep the Dáil going and generally the Government has not enough Bills to do so. The whole attitude seems to be somewhat of a vacuum. I know that would not be a good atmosphere in which to discuss general Government policy which only emerges when the Budget proposals are revealed and when the economic policy of the Government, as evidenced by their proposals, becomes available to Deputies.
At all events it is a matter which we can consider but at the moment I find it difficult to see what Deputies could discuss on the Taoiseach's Estimate if they were told that such a matter was one for more detailed discussion on another Estimate and that such another matter would be relevant for discussion on another Estimate. Again they would be told that they could not talk on general Government policy because it is a matter that comes on in December.
I entirely sympathise and agree with the Taoiseach's attitude towards statistics and the necessity for improving the machinery. One of the most irritating things about statistics, and there are many irritating things about them, is that they are always out of date. I find it difficult to convince myself, not to talk of convincing my audience, about the value of statistics when they are always six, eight, ten, or twelve months out of date. I find it difficult to convince myself of the state of unemployment today when I have to go back to the end of December to find out the number of jobs which people had at that date as compared with the year before.
While the Taoiseach has not painted this afternoon any rosy picture of the decrease in the unemployment position the figures we have been working on are figures which show that there were 32,000 fewer jobs in December, 1958, than there were in the corresponding period twelve months before. I may be told that that figure is six months out of date but that is the figure we have. It would be of great value if these statistical matters could be brought more up to date.
I find it just a little difficult to find out what was going through the Taoiseach's mind when he purported to tell us of Government policy. His speech left me with the impression that he was largely skating lightly over the problems. While it must be appreciated that he cannot, and that he ought not, give any over-optimistic view of certain problems we might have had the benefit of a little more detail on the position.
Looking back at the year that has just passed, realising that two years and four months have elapsed since the Government were formed in March, 1957, and knowing that the present Government have already run more than half of their allotted span, I think we are not entitled, nor are the Government entitled, to take any very great credit for the achievements up to date. During that period we had a situation in this country which certainly did not inure to our benefit in the difficult time of 1956 and early in 1957. For the past two years the terms of trade have been in our favour and the policy of the British Government has been one of expansion and growth in economic activity.
Those two factors, the fact that the terms of trade were in our favour and that there was a policy of expansion in Great Britain, ought to have inured to our benefit and the Government ought to have taken the opportunity, then to be availed of, to ensure economic growth in this country. I must emphasise that they have failed in that opportunity and wasted substantially that period of time. I shall not fight again the old battle of proportional representation. I have already stated my position on that—that instead of taking advantage of those opportunities of the last two years, and instead of putting into effect what they say now is their policy as outlined in the White Paper published in November of last year, they have had to rush the necessary legislation to do that in the last two or three months, in which matter we have greatly facilitated them. It became essential for us to educate the people during those months and, from the point of view of the Government doing the job it was sent here to do, much valuable time was wasted, and opportunities have been passed over which may never recur. We find ourselves, then, at the end of nearly two and a half years of a period when economic conditions from outside were favourable. The forces impacting on our economy from abroad were not in our favour; they were entirely against us in our time. We had the terms of trade against us. We had the economic recession in Great Britain and we had an adverse balance of payments and in that set of circumstances we were faced with a condition and a very serious series of difficulties which no other Government in this country had before.
I listened to the Minister for Lands last Sunday in Ennistymon making the extraordinary allegation that there was no such thing as a crisis, that Suez had nothing to do with us and the difficulties we were in. The Taoiseach has to-day, as I understood him, stated that in his view our economic progress— I am paraphrasing him; correct me if I am wrong—depends upon the concerted effort of all sections of the community. I have stated and restated that that is the fundamental approach from our point of view to the problems of this country but what sort of approach are you going to get? How will you harness together the united efforts of every section of the community, when we find defamatory observations and untrue statements about us and our policy being repeated and reiterated again and again by Ministers who ought to be responsible?
I do not mind their commenting upon the inter-Party Government or what they were or what they were not. We can deal with that in another time and in other circumstances. But, what I do object to is where these matters impinge upon the stability of the country and impinge upon the respect which our people ought to have for the institutions of our State. I do suggest to the Taoiseach that, when he has now taken upon himself this responsible task and when he has, I think in all sincerity, made certain resolutions, at least he ought to impress upon his Ministers that it is about time that they stopped making serious allegations against their predecessors in Government, about their financial policies and the ruination that was brought upon the country by these policies, and the country put in pawn.
The Taoiseach and his colleagues ought to know that these allegations are quite untrue. If a responsible Minister gets up in public for the purpose of getting votes and says that we had a crisis in our time, in 1956 and 1957, and that we gave the excuse of Suez and that there was no validity in that excuse, then I ask the Taoiseach to inquire from his responsible Ministers, from the Department of Finance, from his own Department, from the Central Bank, is there any truth in these allegations or was it not a fact that we at that time were faced with a series of difficulties entirely outside our own control, from forces from abroad, from conditions that we in fact inherited from the infamous Budget of Deputy MacEntee in 1952? Those were responsible for the policies that we had to put into operation and did put into operation at the expense of our own political lives.
I do suggest to the Taoiseach, when he is asking for that co-operation, that he ought to give that instruction, to put an end to that. At least, let him inquire from the responsible people to whom I have directed his attention—his own Department, the Department of Finance and the Central Bank—and we are prepared to be judged by their judgment and by the information they give to him and his colleagues. But, you will get no co-operation from the people whom we represent as long as these defamatory statements are being made nor as long as we have the sort of thing that the Minister for Health, the Minister for Social Welfare and the Tánaiste—all these high persons, as Pooh Bah said—make a speech such as was made in Dunshaughlin last Sunday. I shall refer to that in another context, in the context of economics and Government policy, in a few moments.
I suggest to the Taoiseach that, if he is sincere in his statement that his belief is that our problems require for their solution the concerted effort and co-operation of all sections of the community, then there ought to be an end to that type of false propaganda, however much they may hope to get political support for their Party. We are prepared to accept as part of our life as politicians that we shall get hard blows and give hard blows but, at least, any criticism that is made of us, any charges levelled against us, ought to be made on the basis of fact and on the structure of truth.
We have facing us at present, after two years and four months of the present Government's activities or lack of activities, a situation where things are in many respects very disquieting, very confused in certain aspects and, in some respects, very menacing indeed. We were told during the general election of two and a half years ago that the one thing that was required in this country was stability of government, that it was required for the solution of economic problems that there should be a one-Party Government with a clear majority in this House and with a policy that could be put into operation without any fear of political upheavals or Parliamentary disturbances.
The present Government got that position which they asked for two and a half years ago. They had the biggest majority that any Government in this country ever had. Is not the position that, since they came into office with that clear majority and one-Party Government, first, that they had no policy until last November and, secondly, that practically since they came into Government there has been nothing but instability, insecurity, talk about general elections, discussion about proportional representation, a Presidential election, a referendum and now an election as a result of a change of Government? That is what has been brought about by this clear majority and this strong Government.
Our people are still talking around the lobbies of this House and outside about the possibility of a general election. Stability of Government is essential but, if you cannot get stability from a Government formed as this one is, with a clear majority and from one Party, with no fear of anything going wrong in the Division Lobbies, and if as a result of that, we have had nothing but instability, insecurity, and uncertainty, is there not something wrong?
A position of uncertainty exists at the present time, because, as I say, there are still rumours going around that there may be a general election and that there will be a general election if something happens in these three by-elections. That is two years and four months after the Government was formed. That is very bad. It may be that that position has emerged from the ill-fated and ill-advised proposals of the Government, of trying to change the electoral system and trying to change the Constitution, that these brought disunity and disrupted our efforts and did away with that notion, which the Taoiseach said is essential and with which I am in full agreement because it is part of my political philosophy, that there must be, in order to find some solution for our problems, co-operation from all sides of the people reflected here in the Parliament of the people.
It may be that that disunity and the strife that it caused, all during a period of certainly nine months, is responsible for the condition existing at the moment but one thing is absolutely certain and that is that the country has not got the advantage of that stability, the pursuit of a single-minded policy, carefully thought out by a Government that has a clear majority in the Dáil and sits down to do its work in the sure knowledge that it is pretty certain, as certain as things can be in this life, of a period of life of at least four years and possibly five.
So that the ordinary people of the country may go about their business, undisturbed by political strife and political animosities, or the fear of dislocation caused to business and industry by general elections and other analogous procedures that cause similar effects, I must earnestly suggest to the Taoiseach that he should consider it worthwhile framing his policy and directing his colleagues in the Government to secure that co-operation which I believe, and which he says he believes, is essential for the solution of our problems. You will not get that by making divisions in the country, by making false charges against previous Governments or by trying to get political advantage by making false statements and erroneous statements about men who did their jobs in difficult times.
Leaving that aside for the moment and looking at the country's economy as it stands, there are disquieting features about it. The Taoiseach himself, in the course of his remarks, did not give me the impression that he was satisfied with the employment position. It is gratifying that he did not try to over-paint the picture and to give a false impression of what the position is because everybody knows that the position is serious, if not dangerous. Certainly, in the City of Dublin, there is very, very serious hardship, caused not merely by employment and the fear of unemployment, but caused by Government policy in raising the cost of living by abolishing the food subsidies. That resentment exists in the City of Dublin and in other towns and cities of Ireland I am certain. I cannot speak for rural districts but I do know there is very serious disquiet over hardship caused by the rise in the cost of living, brought about by deliberate Government policy in taking away the remaining prop of the food subsidies, and also caused by fear of unemployment and distress. I hope the Taoiseach is right in his suggestion, from the figures, that emigration has become, more or less, static. I doubt it. We all know how difficult it is to find out exactly what the figures for emigration are.
It is easy to talk about emigration, and nobody was more eloquent about emigration and the haemorrhage of our national life blood than the Taoiseach and his colleagues when they were over here. We knew the problems that afflicted the country at that time and to gain political advantage out of it was not for the national good. On the emigration front and the unemployment front is there anything to be smug, complacent or remotely satisfied about? We have the position, adverted to by the Taoiseach in the course of his remarks, of our adverse balance of payments.
I always took the attitude, and I am on record in this House, both on this side of the Chamber and on the other, that we ought not to be obsessed by the problem of an adverse balance of trade. It is a matter which must be carefully watched. It is a matter that should be properly safeguarded, and there should be every possible examination given to the consideration of what is causing an adverse balance of trade and whether it is likely to continue for a period of one, two or three years. Senator Professor O'Brien dealt with this matter very adequately, and in his usual expert way, in the debate in the Seanad on the Finance Bill. He said that the adverse trade balance was a thermometer indicating whether the country was suffering from a fever or not. Judging the country's economy by that test, I think that the thermometer is certainly over and above the normal and gives a warning sign to the public not to overstate the position.
We took steps to deal with a very serious balance of trade crisis caused, not by us, caused not by any policy of any of our colleagues or of the Government, but caused by external factors over which we had no control. We rectified that position and handed over the economy of the country to the present Government in a condition where it was improving and where it did, in fact, improve as a result of the efforts we made. It deteriorated slightly last year and now, at the end of six months of this year, certainly the figures that are available —not to overstate the matter again— give some cause for apprehension.
The figures for imports show a very high degree of increase indeed. That may be explicable, as the Taoiseach said, by certain considerations, by unexpected imports caused by the adverse weather conditions of last year. If that be so then it is something to ease the worry and to calm any fears and apprehensions that may exist, but I doubt if that is the whole explanation. That is pretty well the only explanation the Taoiseach gave. On the other hand, there is the fall in our exports which is a very much more serious matter than the increase in our imports—which may be transitory and may be explicable by passing circumstances—but, if our exports fall, and if they continue to fall in the way that the trend appears to give at present, then we are in for a very serious position indeed.
We took steps, by way of import levies, to remedy a serious situation. Those steps are no longer available to the Government and if, by any possible chance, conditions do turn against us here and we have an increase in our adverse balance of payments and an adverse change in the terms of trade then the position is going to be very serious indeed. What is dangerous about the present position is that not merely is there an increase, a very big increase, in imports and a pretty big decline in exports, but also there is the fact that those things occurred at a time when favourable trading conditions existed so far as forces from outside were concerned. Prices that we had to pay for our imports remained low, very much lower than in our time. Prices that were got for our exports remained pretty constant and pretty high. They show some tendency to go down now, that is, export prices, but I hope that is only temporary. At all events, in that state of affairs where you have a big adverse balance of trade in the first six months of this year then there is serious ground for apprehension.
I do not know if the Taoiseach can assure the House, and through the House the country, that something is going to happen in the next six months, or even in the next year, that will avert the danger but, unless he can, he ought to tell the House and the country what he proposes to do about the problem. In our time the conditions of trade, the terms of trade, were very adverse indeed. Export prices were going down and import prices were going up. Freight charges and freight rates were catastrophically high and, while we had the situation as far as the balance of trade was concerned in hand, causing, unfortunately, unemployment and while the situation was in the way of diminishing, we had the Suez crisis causing shortage of petrol here. Of course, the Minister for Lands said there was no Suez crisis— because it did not happen in England why should it happen here? If there was no crisis does anybody know why we had petrol rationing when garages had to close down causing unemployment?
We had all the repercussions from the Suez crisis going out like waves in a pond when a pebble is thrown into it. Yet, at Ennistymon, the Minister for Lands said there was no Suez crisis. That sort of thing ought to stop and stop immediately and never be repeated. That was the situation we had to face and which we did face at that time and if we had the position that faced this Government in the last two or three years we would be very happy. If the terms of trade had changed to what they are now, we would have had no balance of payments crisis at all, even if the amount of imports increased. That is the situation that should be appraised and a stop should be put to the utterly false propaganda and misrepresentations throughout the country in which many of the Taoiseach's Ministers are indulging.
The only key to the present situation as, I think, the Taoiseach knows and fully appreciates, as everybody does, lies in increased exports. I think the Taoiseach said so this afternoon. There can be no doubt about that proposition. We cannot contemplate any possibility of increasing the speed of our economic activity, encouraging the expansion of industry and of agriculture unless we are able to export our goods. We shall have this recurring nightmare of a balance of payments problem year after year, or certainly every few years, unless we increase our exports. The only real way to increase our exports is to increase our agricultural exports. I think the Taoiseach gave but one sentence in his 40-minute speech to recognising the absolute importance of the agricultural industry. For the rest, I think he spoke about matters other than agriculture and that appears to me to be the distinguishing mark of the present Government's policy, certainly as indicated by the actions and activities they have undertaken in connection with their hope for expansion of our industry, either manufacturing or agricultural.
Look at all the Bills that we have passed and what do you find? Is there a single item or a single one of those Bills that has anything to do with the agricultural industry? The Minister had only one sentence in his entire speech about agriculture, recognising its importance and the way we relied upon it. Industrial activity, he said— if I have taken him down correctly— would give more variety of jobs. I think that is what he said and he can correct me if I am wrong. He said that industrial activity would mean a variety of jobs but here we have to face up to a situation now that is of a very menacing character. I used that description at the outset of my remarks. It is here that the menace arises. Look at the amount of our exports, even while exports are increasing, and compare the volume of the products of manufacturing industry as a percentage with the volume of our total exports. I think it would be an understatement to say that in comparison they are infinitesimal.
The necessity for exporting our industrial products is realised and is absolutely urgent and must be kept in mind but even if we must concentrate on getting export markets for the products of our manufacturing industries the amount that will thereby be gained, no matter what is done by this or any Government, will be the smallest possible contribution to our general overall problem. It would seem to be the view of certain people, particularly of some members of our business and commercial community, that there was no industrial policy but a tariff policy and, for 25 years under the auspices of the present Taoiseach, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, that tariff policy was let rip to its logical or illogical conclusion. We are now going to reap the false fruits of that rather bad policy, which was ill-conceived and not entirely designed for the circumstances of this country. It was brought in without adequate consideration and entirely too fast. We had the view on our side before Fine Gael was established, at the time of Cumann na nGaedheal, that the entire basis of our policy was the building up of a sound agricultural industry first and on that basis erecting a strong structure of industrial effort.
During 20 years of Fianna Fáil administration, all the effort was concentrated upon building our manufacturing industries to the utter neglect of agriculture. We are paying the price for that to-day. I think the Taoiseach himself did say in one of his speeches —I think it was on the Estimate for Industry and Commerce—something which certainly, to my mind, conveyed the impression that our manufacturing industries, which were built up behind the shelter of a tariff wall, must now look after themselves and could no longer rely upon the restricted home market we have here and that they must export.
That is the situation that has arisen and must be faced but it is not going to be faced easily nor are the results going to be obtained without some very adverse effects on employment, nor without general uneasiness and personal loss to workers in these industries. There has been a period of something like 27 years, from 1932 to 1959, during which restrictive tariff policy under the present Taoiseach when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce, got full rein. On the two occasions when we were in office we recognised there was amongst industrialists and business people a certain suspicion of our attitude towards Irish industry. I objected to that and condemned it on the basis that Irish industry had been made the sport of politics, but we did endeavour to carry on that policy because you cannot reverse engines all of a sudden like that. We did the best we could in order to keep things going and increase employment. We did more than that; we improved the policy and demonstrated the fact that there was an industrial policy which was something better than a mere tariff and quota policy and one that caused tremendous cost to the community through the neglect of our principal industry, agriculture.
At least we gave two very valuable contributions to the building up and strengthening of our industrial fabric. We gave incentives to export for the first time, shortly before we left office. We gave these incentives by way of tax remissions and other incentives of that kind. In our first period of office we established the Dollar Export Board which ultimately gave birth, if I may put it in that way, to Córas Tráchtála Teoranta which is doing an extraordinarily good piece of work in getting markets for our industrial products. We are entitled to take credit for that. That was something that had not been done until we took office. It was done by that Coalition Government that the Minister for Lands was so eloquent about in Clare last week.
At least we have that to our credit and this also—we established the Industrial Development Authority under Deputy Morrissey when he was Minister for for Industry and Commerce. The Taoiseach, when he was over here in Opposition, denounced the establishment of the I.D.A. and said that when he would get back into office he would repeal the Act. I was faced with the resignation of a couple of people I wanted to put on that Authority because of what the Taoiseach said then when he was in Opposition. The I.D.A. was set up in the teeth of opposition from the Taoiseach but he kept it on when he returned to office and all credit to him for that. Even though he had opposed the measure and even though I was faced with the resignation of some people who would have given very valuable service on that body, the Taoiseach did keep on the I.D.A. when he came into office as Minister for Industry and Commerce and it has given extraordinarily good service in the development of industry.
In addition to that we established the principle of foreign investment and put it into operation—something that had been neglected for very many years by Fianna Fáil but which we now see in operation under the present Government. We now see the results of our policy in the remarkable growth of foreign investment in Ireland. It is a complete change from the policy imposed in the Control of Manufactures Act which prevented the full development of Irish industry and investment by foreign enterprises we might have taken every possible step to encourage and to invite to operate in this country.
These are some of the matters of industrial policy to which we gave our little contribution. But now the present Government, or any Government succeeding them, are faced with the position that a structure has been built up here behind high tariff walls. We have the Taoiseach himself—as I and my colleagues interpret it and as the country interprets it—admitting that this policy of wholesale self-sufficency has been a failure and that we must now, because of the restricted home market available and because of the change that has taken place in international economic affairs, take drastic steps to adjust our situation from the point of view of our industrial structure in order to meet that very difficult situation.
For some time past we have this situation confronting us. It was very shortly described and not very well detailed by the Taoiseach—I did not expect him to do so—in the course of his remarks. We have the Common Market, the six countries in agreement on international trading relations, leaving the rest of Europe outside. Then we have what is called "The Seven" coming along. Then we have the Danes stealing a march on us while we were talking about whether we should vote one, three, five, and six or put an "X" before a man's name on a voting paper. There again this country lost its opportunity. The Taoiseach tried to give some excuse for that, not in his remarks here but during a Press conference last Saturday. I do not think the excuse he gave is acceptable.
Deputy Dillon, from this side of the House, on our behalf for months past has been urging on the Government the absolute necessity of going over to England and negotiating a trading agreement having regard to the very serious situation developing in Europe. And we did that before the Danes stole a march on Ireland. Is it any wonder that the Deputy Secretary of O.E.E.C. yesterday gave what must be regarded as a public rebuke to the Taoiseach for a policy that has been proved not to be operative in present circumstances? The Deputy Secretary is, I understand, a man of great independence of view and of thought, who freely expresses his opinions in the European Councils. In addition to that, he knows Irish conditions and has studied Irish conditions in Ireland. He is largely responsible for the chapters in these economic reports issued by O.E.E.C. from time to time about countries such as ours. He said, in effect, that our tariff policy is a failure, that for 25 years we had an economic dictator in the Department of Industry and Commerce relying entirely on the tariffs in the home market, and now conditions exist here which render that state of affairs impossible.
I say that the Government's policy has entirely failed. I cannot see in all the plans and policies put forward here in White Papers and Grey Papers and in all the Bills and Acts of the Oireachtas what the proposals for agriculture are. Agriculture is our only hope. The Taoiseach says he has great plans for the development of State capital expenditure. I wish him success in that. State capital expenditure was started by us in the sense that we developed it from practically nothing to something where we had sufficient work here to approach almost the point of full employment at one stage in our career as Government.
We were denounced, of course, by all the economists, by the bankers and by Fianna Fáil because of our programme of capital expenditure and our Capital Budget, initiated by Deputy McGilligan when Minister for Finance. We were told it was bad economics to build hospitals throughout the country to house the people suffering from tuberculosis, who could not get beds after 16 years of Fianna Fáil administration. We were told it was bad economics to use the capital moneys of this country, the savings of our people, and even to eat into our external assets for the purpose of doing what we, in fact, did: to build sufficient hospitals to enable all our people suffering from tuberculosis to be cured and to reach the position in which we are now where there are too many hospitals because, thanks be to God, most of these people have been cured.
The economists said it was bad policy to spend our external assets on housing, that we were wasting our time and the country's substance. Nobody was more eloquent than the Minister for Lands in that period of controversy from 1948 to 1954 on our expenditure on social benefits such as housing, hospitals and other matters which did not produce an income but which certainly produced tremendous social benefits and improvements for the ordinary people and which were humanitarian in their endeavour and results.
This employment was given by us and we rejoice we were able to make it available. I certainly rejoice. It was one of the proudest recollections I have that I was sent to the radio by my colleagues in the first inter-Party Government to ask our emigrants to come back from London and elsewhere to do the work available for them here, building houses, hospitals and schools. They came back to do that work in Ireland. The Taoiseach and his Ministers will have ample opportunity of criticising us and the things the inter-Party Government did when he or any of his colleagues can get up and have the same boast as I have here to-night— that only during the period of the first inter-Party Government was there any stoppage of emigration of any account and that our workers came back to work for Ireland when I went to the radio and asked them to do so. When they can say that, they will then be entitled to talk about what the inter-Party Government did or did not do or to cricitise our economic and financial policies.
I have frequently stressed, in connection with the necessity for increasing our export trade, the absolute necessity for a proper foreign policy and a proper outlook in connection with our people abroad. I have no patience whatever with those people who try to appeal to the lowest instincts of our people by alleging that some of our officials in the Department of External Affairs are doing nothing but attending cocktail parties and wasting time and public money. They are doing a good job, or ought to be doing a good job. By and large, they have done a good job. I should like to pay tribute to the officials, not merely of C.T.T. or other semi-State bodies of that kind including Bord Fáilte, but also to the officials of the Department of External Affairs who, unlike some of these State bodies, never get publicity and are never heard of but who, from day to day and all day, are endeavouring to improve the conditions of the country abroad and particularly to promote our trade.
Foreign policy is not merely confined to the issues of peace and war, however important those issues may be in existing circumstances and in the very dangerous conditions that exist in international affairs at present. We can, as I have expounded here, play a very strong part and a useful part as a small nation, as a Catholic and entirely Christian nation, in promoting world peace and in doing our best to make our due contribution, as an independent if you like, to promote world peace. It is not my intention to deal in any great detail with foreign policy in its application to either peace or war. I want to emphasise that, apart altogether from the question of our relations with other countries so far as either peace or war are concerned, foreign policy has a very important aspect, and one that should always be borne in mind.
Foreign policy has an important bearing on our trading situation and on our capacity for improving exports. Anybody who has had any experience of international conferences and knows how they are conducted, appreciates the situation as it actually exists. Relations between countries are conducted very largely on an entirely selfish principle—the principle of: "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." That is largely the operative principle underlying the foreign policies of nations, big and small. One thing I have noticed in particular: where Ireland did a good turn for a particular country in a matter in which it was concerned, when Ireland subsequently wanted a good turn done for her, then her previous attitude was very frequently remembered. That is something that has to be borne in mind in relation to our endeavour to create trading relations with other countries.
Our foreign policy directly impinges upon that aspect of our economy. If one does not make friends with countries, big and small, then one cannot hope to have the support and the friendly relations so vital to our economy. Every country needs friends. Opportunities arise more frequently than people might think wherein this country can be of service even to a big country. As a result of that, where matters of trade are concerned—matters, perhaps, of not very great importance to the other country, but of supreme importance to us—we can draw with confidence upon the draught of goodwill that we have left behind us vis-a-vis our foreign relations. From my experience, that is an aspect of policy of vital concern in connection with the expansion of our economy.
Some of the Taoiseach's utterances to-night were rather cryptic. He said we could improve our exports by diverting them to other countries and ignoring theoretical considerations: "We cannot," he said, "allow theoretical considerations to deprive us of our weapons to produce favourable trade relations." I do not know what these theoretical considerations are. It was our experience that we bought vast quantities of goods from certain countries. Do you think we were able to get anything out of those countries by way of reciprocity? We were not. We got the minimum of reciprocity. I do not understand the Taoiseach's implication that by approaching the Scandinavian countries, we shall get some form of rapprochement or a continuation of the discussions from the point at which they left off relative to the Free Trade Area. As I understand him, we are to ask the Scandinavian countries, and certainly Sweden, to give us the benefit of their trade and their discriminatory approach in relation to other people, and we shall give nothing in return. I do not understand that.
We were able to point out to certain countries that we bought millions of pounds worth of goods from them and they took only hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of goods from us. Do you think we could stir them from that position? More and more it is being borne in upon us that what the Deputy Secretary of OEEC said yesterday is true. Indeed, when he said it, he was only repeating what Deputy Dillon said long before him: there ought to be a plan between this country and Britain to integrate the British and Irish economies. We have criticised this Government in the past, and I criticise them again now, for their failure to take advantage of the situation long before this. I appreciate the Taoiseach and his Ministers going over to London, even belatedly, to try to start negotiations—I hope something will come of them—but this is not the time. The proper time would have been 12 months ago, because that would have been 12 months before the general election. The Taoiseach and his Ministers go over at a time when the British Government, if one can put credence in rumour and belief in Press reports, are within measurable distance of a general election. I interpret what happened to the Taoiseach and his colleagues as a polite "brush off" in the circumstances.
According to the Taoiseach, we will not touch the Seven. We cannot touch the Common Market. Neither can we touch the Free Trade Area in existing circumstances. We have done nothing to integrate our economy with the British. We may find ourselves in the altogether disastrous position in which we will be the only European country not associated with anybody. There exists in this country—it may be a legacy from our providential escape from active participation in two World Wars and even from any very heavy impact from those wars—a sort of notion that if we isolate ourselves, we will be immune from the forces operating in international affairs, and particularly from war and from economic conditions. We are now in danger of being isolated. It almost looks to me as if people like isolation. That is a menacing and a dangerous situation in which to find ourselves. The most powerful and the wealthiest countries in the world have not been able to stand in isolation.
The distinctive characteristic of most of these European countries right down through the 19th Century, and subsequently, was their insistence upon their separate sovereignties. We all learned that in our history and in our constitutional law. Following on the Napoleonic Wars, each country became an entity, a sovereign independent nation. It insisted on its rights; it forgot its duties. After the First World War, there was an attempt to bring about some sort of conception or some appreciation of the fact that a country had obligations and duties as well as rights. If a country insisted upon sovereignty, it had also to remember that that sovereignty brought duties as well as rights. After the First World War, it was not possible to get that concept accepted.
As a result of the Second World War, new forces of economic circumstances impinging upon countries forced people to an acceptance of the principle that sovereignty implied obligations as well as rights and that they could not "go it alone". They could not stand in economic isolation. That is why we have today this movement towards integration of economies, towards the establishment of free markets and common markets, and so forth. We cannot live in isolation in that economic set-up. The sooner people are made to realise that, and to accept it, the better it will be.
When I was in America, the topic on which I was asked to speak was Ireland's foreign policy. I spoke at Georgetown University in Washington, to two bodies in New York and at Yale University and I spoke on that subject on all these occasions. These documents are in existence. Then, when Deputy Cosgrave was sent, as Minister for External Affairs, to take Ireland's place for the first time at the United Nations, he made a remarkable speech in which he explained our entire foreign policy. That foreign policy was well conceived, designed and thought out and I say that there was a fund of goodwill created in America towards this country.
Practically every other country in Europe and in South America was looking to see what this country was going to do as an independent and a young State but a State with a tremendous tradition and respect throughout the world. We had something to bring to market there, something that we could bring to market, not for material considerations, but something that could have brought tremendous moral value to this country and considerable material value as well. We had access to a tremendous fund of goodwill which could have been used in the development of our resources here. As I have said, that announcement of our foreign policy had set up for us a great fund of goodwill. That has now been thrown away but I shall say no more about it at the moment.
What I do want to draw attention to is what was said by the Tánaiste at Dunshaughlin last Sunday. The Tánaiste, who is the Minister for Health and the Minister for Welfare all combined, made a speech in Dunshaughlin in the course of which he referred to me and what he called my folly in relation to the External Relations Act. I quote from the Irish Times of Monday last. He said:
"By his folly in repealing the External Relations Act Mr. Costello had prejudiced the right, which had been established under the 1938 Agreement, for our producers to be given preferential terms against all suppliers, Danes or otherwise, who were not members of the Commonwealth and equal terms with those who were."
I take it that was meant to be a reply to the criticism we made from this side of the House that the Government had failed in their duties to be up and doing in the past 12 months at least and endeavouring to effect a new trade agreement with Great Britain. That is the reply—that, by his folly, Mr. Costello had prejudiced the preferential terms got under the 1938 Agreement. We criticised the Government for the time spent cavorting around the country dealing with proportional representation and this is the Government's reply.
I take it that the Tánaiste implied that under the 1938 Agreement we got preferential treatment over countries that were not members of the Commonwealth. From that it is implicit that in 1938 this country was not a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. I am accused of losing all the preferences given to members of the Commonwealth because of that membership and the Minister for Health says that those preferences were got by agreement in 1938. Those preferential terms were not got as a result of the 1938 Agreement. They were here in operation from Mr. Cosgrave's time, from 1922 to 1932. and then they were brought into operation again by the Ottawa Agreement of 1932. They were being kicked about from 1932 to 1938, but, according to the Minister for Health I, through my folly, prejudiced the right of this country to get these preferential terms.
The late Mr. Paddy Hogan, as Minister for Agriculture, got a preferential rate of 10 per cent. for all the agricultural products of this country, long before the general election of 1932. The Minister for Health is not satisfied with that little piece of misrepresentation, but he goes on further. I pass over certain comments he makes as to why I repealed the External Relations Act and declared the Republic. He makes wild and entirely false statements as to my reasons for doing that. Some day I shall give the details of that matter and categorically deny the allegations made by the Minister for Health that it was because it was of something that was said to me in Canada that I made the change. Can anybody outside a lunatic asylum believe that there is the slightest bit of truth in these allegations brought in here in answer to the charges we have made that the Government have wasted their time and lost opportunities to prevent the Danes getting inside our farmers in the export of pigs and bacon?
That is the sort of fraudulent misrepresentation at which the Minister for Health is such an adept. He goes on and says that I repealed the External Relations Act because I apparently became very impulsive in Canada. I suggest to the Taoiseach that he should look up the Government records and he will find there that the decision of the Government to repeal the External Relations Act was taken in August, before I left for Canada at all. He goes and he says: "Because in this grave matter Mr. Costello spoke first and thought afterwards." I take amusement at that description of myself as being impulsive and taking a running jump at these important matters.
He goes on and says: "In these matters Mr. Costello spoke first and thought afterwards. Because of his childish and wretched diplomacy, Ireland under his leadership suffered the most grievous harm and when the political, economic and social consequences of that action became apparent, they fell into a panic and the bravos of a few days before ran to London and Paris so as to get the British to mitigate for them the consequences of what they had done." Parliamentary procedure does not permit me to describe that statement in the way I would describe it outside but I say that Christian charity has no room in the mind of the Minister for Health. The law of defamation, from the civil point of view, does not exist so far as he is concerned. There is neither charity nor truth in one single word or one single line of that statement of the Minister for Health. Not a single word is true. It is entirely a misrepresentation and a false statement of fact. It is both a suggestio falsi and a suppressio veri.
But why is it done? We accused the present Government, when they told the people that they wished to have a change in the Constitution and to change the electoral system, that they were doing so for the purpose of putting a veil between themselves and the people in order to hide the failure of the Government to do anything during the two years they were in office. That is why the Minister for Health is doing that now. There are three elections on now and he wants to get the votes of certain classes of people by defaming me and by making wrong statements about me and my colleagues. There is not a single word of truth in what the Minister for Health said for the purpose of distracting the attention of the people from the fact that the Government have failed, and failed miserably, to take the steps necessary to safeguard the agricultural industry from—I was going to use the word "depredations" but that would be an insulting word—from the perfectly lawful activity of the Danes which they took while we were asleep and the Government were diverting the attention of the people to something irrelevant. There are three by-elections on and the Minister for Health made an utterly fraudulent statement about me and my colleagues. There is not a single word of truth in it.
Are we to assume that the Minister for Health is following his colleague Deputy Boland in saying "When the repeal of the External Relations Act was going through this House I was against it and could not speak against it." Why was there a civil war brought about in connection with these matters? Is it not proper to ask that if the Minister for Health objects to what I did and says, that we jeopardised the rights of this country to get the preferential treatment given to every member of the Commonwealth of Nations, if that was something prejudicially affecting this country, its economy and the people and particularly the agricultural industry, why do this strong Government not repeal that Act? They have a strong Government. They have been in office twice since that Act was passed. If the Minister for Health is right that the repeal of the External Relations Act prejudiced our rights to get preferential treatment, why was it not in turn repealed?
I should just like to pass this last remark before commenting on another matter. I should like the Taoiseach, his colleagues, and the House, and through the House the country, to know that if the External Relations Act had not been repealed, Mr. Seán T. O'Kelly, then President of Ireland and now ex-President, could not have gone to the United States of America as the Head of this State. We are told by the Government and by their spokesmen of the wonderful economic results gained by the visit of Mr. Seán T. O'Kelly to America. I hope they will come about. I have nothing but respect for Mr. O'Kelly but he could not have got most of these benefits if the External Relations Act had not been repealed because he would not have been the head of this State and could not have been received by Mr. Eisenhower.
The Minister for Health now says that we prejudiced the right of this country to get these benefits, privileges or preferences, that we suffered the most abject humiliation. What did we do? We went to discuss in London and Paris what would be the consequences of the repeal of the External Relations Act and how they could be best met. It was agreed that so far as this country was concerned if the External Relations Act was repealed and this country recognised, as it was, subsequently, as a Republic, we would be in exactly the same position economically, and from the point of view of mutual intercourse, as citizens of Ireland, as British subjects; we would have mutual rights and get the same preferential rights as Canada and New Zealand. That was what we got and the Minister for Health in order to get votes and to divert the attention of the people, sinks so low as to make use of words of that kind, no single one of which was true. Nothing in the speech he made so far as it concerns me or my colleagues in relation to the repeal of the External Relations Act, or the consequences which followed from it, has the slightest basis of truth.
It secured the benefits of what used to be known as Commonwealth preferences for this country, mutual recognition of British subjects in this country and Irish citizens in Great Britain. Everything was exactly the same as before from the point of view of our relations with Great Britain, except that we laid a better basis for abiding friendship with Great Britain than had been there before and in addition, and above all, we put a stop to the kind of gunmanship which had been going on for years under Fianna Fáil.
The Taoiseach referred to the problem of Partition and I mention it only for the purpose of expressing my agreement with what he said in practically every respect. I do not think that much will come of this offer at present. As in the case of everything else, time will have to elapse before the relations between this part of the country and the Six Counties can be on any proper basis. What the people of this part of the country want is to forget the past and that is where the Minister for Health so far failed in his duty as to drag up these matters. The people want to forget the past and look beyond to the problems of the future. Until existing personalities who were involved in the Civil War, and in the activities of the years subsequent to it, have passed from the political scene, and until those people in the North who similarly have their roots deep in the controversies of 1912 and controversies previous and subsequent to that, have gone and until a more Christian outlook obtains in the North than exists at present among the majority of the people there, we cannot hope to have much progress.
I do agree most sincerely with the Taoiseach that every effort should be made to improve trading conditions between the two areas. There is no use repeating what has been said so often that an Ireland united in friendship with England would be a tremendous force for peace in the world and would bring great advantages to every part of Ireland and Great Britain.
England by itself is not a self-contained economic entity. Neither is this part of Ireland which is at present under our jurisdiction and certainly neither is the Six Counties. The Six Counties is suffering from serious economic problems which can be solved only by the subventions and the help it gets from Great Britain and from politicians in Great Britain. We can solve some of our problems by unification in Ireland or by joint effort, pending unification, to solve our economic problems.
If we could secure, pending, or without prejudice to, ultimate unification, some sort of agreement for mutual trade then we could bring advantages to both countries but even if we were united in one Parliament and as one country we would still have economic problems. England is not a self-contained economic unit by itself but Ireland and England together would be nearer to a self-contained economic unit and if our economic and financial policies were integrated, we would have very considerable hopes of a greater increase in prosperity.
