As Deputies are aware, it is customary for the Taoiseach on this Estimate, which affords the final opportunity for debate on Government policy in this session, to give, in general outline, a review of the state of the national economy, to refer to outstanding developments in the previous year, and to attempt to forecast, so far as is wise and practicable, economic trends in the year ahead. I propose now to adhere to that practice notwithstanding certain views I expressed here last year relative to a more suitable time for attempting such a review. The statement I shall make will be mainly factual and will, as usual, be highly accurate. I cannot undertake that it will be entirely non-contentious, although contention will not be the object of the statement.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 3—Department of the Taoiseach (Resumed).
Methinks he doth protest too much.
During the course of the past year the Government programme of economic expansion was applied with all vigour. Most of the legislative measures and administrative arrangements which were foreshadowed in it are in operation. The Government are now occupied with new plans and proposals which were not elaborated in the programme published in 1958. For example, legislation which was indicated in a subsequent White Paper published by the Government in which we set forth our decisions upon recommendations embodied in the report of the Agricultural Marketing Committee has yet to be submitted for the consideration of the Dáil. Proposals bearing upon the development of our sea fisheries are at present before the Government. Other proposals designed to facilitate the country's rate of economic expansion are also being formulated and may involve legislation for the consideration of the Dáil later in the year.
I stated on former occasions that the programme of economic expansion was not intended to be, and would not be allowed to become a strait-jacket of any kind; that it set forth minimum targets only; and that if, as we believed, a greater rate of expansion was found to be possible, there would be no hesitation or delay in trying to achieve it. During 1959, external payments on current account showed a deficit which is now estimated at £8.7 millions. That was much less than I forecast this time last year. The improvement was due to a very noticeable and very satisfactory upward trend in the country's economic progress in the second half of the year.
The 1959 deficit on current account was clearly more than covered by an inflow of external funds on capital account and indeed the external monetary reserves of the Central and commercial banks, and of Government Funds, had increased by the end of the year by £4.3 millions. The external trade position in this year to date is better than last year. For the first six months of the year the import excess was £4,000,000 less than in 1959. There is, therefore, clearly no cause for anxiety at this time in regard to external payments. We do not anticipate that any surplus will emerge in the year but a serious deficit is now highly improbable.
The object of Government policy, as has been frequently stated, is to raise the level of economic activity in all sectors and success in that purpose must involve a higher level of imports, particularly of equipment and raw materials, although some important new industries to produce industrial equipment have been, and are being set up. If, therefore, the balance on external payments which now seems to be established, is to be maintained when a higher all-round level of economic activity has been realised, then clearly the drive for expansion of exports must continue and must succeed. It is only by exports of one kind or another, including invisible exports, as they are called, like tourist receipts, that we can earn the resources required to enable payment to be made for necessary imports without pulling down our financial reserves.
I think all Deputies are aware that this country is not without reserves and capital coming in from abroad may cover the cost of some imports of equipment but, nevertheless, we can be sure that progress will continue on a sound basis if, and only if, we can keep the country's external payments in balance. That, therefore, is an important aim of Government policy. As I said before, and I repeat again, we do not wish to do more than that. We do not see any national purpose to be served at this time by seeking to add to the country's external financial reserves.
It will be remembered, certainly by Deputies opposite, that in the years 1955 and 1956 a heavy deficit developed on external payments, a deficit which has to be financed by drawing down these reserves and, very particularly, drawing down the external assets of the commercial banks. That created a situation which threatened the continued viability of the State. To cope with that situation the then Government imposed restrictions on imports in the form of special import levies which, together with the credit and hire-purchase restrictions applied at that time, operated to reduce the effective internal demand. A balance upon external payment was eventually achieved by these means but only after the level of economic activity within the country had been very drastically lowered. In effect it meant that the country's standard of living was reduced, but the experience of that time showed that the consequences were not felt equally by all individuals and all classes. Indeed, the main burden was borne by workers who lost their employment, and I refer to that fact for the purpose of emphasising that it is very important in the particular interests of wage-earners that a similar situation should never be allowed to recur if it is within our power to stop it.
Between the first quarter of 1956 and the first quarter of 1957 the average weekly number of workers in paid employment fell by over 50,000, from 581,900 in 1956, to 531,500 in 1957, and the total national income and the country's industrial output had also fallen substantially before the situation was rectified. It cannot be said, I think, that all the detrimental consequences of the measures taken during that period had been fully repaired by the end of 1959, but in the main the tasks of recovery had been completed by then and the nation's economic progress had been resumed.
The total industrial output of transportable goods has since increased substantially and, indeed, in 1959 was the highest ever recorded, the output index number rising from 105 to 115. Recovery in the industrial sector was not at a uniform rate in all the main industrial groups, though it may be that non-economic factors were operating in some instances as, for example, in the case of tobacco. Every industrial group, however, increased output in 1959 as compared with 1958.
The most significant increases were recorded in three industrial groups, the metal and engineering group, the chemicals group and the mines and quarries group, and a measure of our industrial progress is found in the fact that in the financial year 1959-60 the units of electricity produced by the E.S.B. were higher by 10.4 per cent. than in the previous year. Deputies who remember old discussions in that connection will be interested in that statistic. In the two previous years the rate of increase was 7 per cent. In 1959 also current national savings at £63,000,000, and domestic capital formation at £100,000,000, were also the highest ever recorded.
Deputies will, of course, be aware from reports which have been given to them from time to time that progress has been mainly in the non-agricultural sectors of the economy. To some extent that was to have been expected because it was in non-agricultural activities of all kinds that national development had been most retarded and where the scope for expansion was greatest. Agricultural output, however, was adversely affected by exceptional weather conditions in both 1958 and 1959, a substantial fall in the output of crops and turf in 1958, due to bad harvest weather, being followed by a drought in 1959 which reduced milk yields. The agricultural net output index number was 95.7 for 1958 and 100.9 for 1959 as compared with 108.1 for 1957.
Agricultural policy and conditions have been discussed in the Dáil in the past few sitting days on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture. I have no desire, and I am sure Deputies will not wish me, to cover the same ground again. I hope that Deputies will not avail of my restraint to allege that that is due to any lack of appreciation of the overriding importance of agriculture in the country.
The main point that I am making is that, notwithstanding these adverse conditions affecting agriculture, the fact that total real national income increased in 1959 by three and a half per cent. must be regarded as very encouraging indeed. That increase took place in conditions of relative price stability. The cost of living index number has remained virtually unchanged since the beginning of 1958. Judging by statements which I have seen attributed to some Deputies opposite, not all of them seem to have grasped either that fact or its significance and importance. It looks now as if the continuous inflation, the fall in the value of money due to rising prices, which bedevilled our economic progress since 1947 has at last been arrested. We must not, however, get over-confident or drop our guard. The British Chancellor of the Exchequer said during the course of the past few days that inflation is likely to remain Britain's main economic enemy for the next decade. Because of the intimate trade and financial relations between this country and Britain, British inflation is our enemy also. We have therefore a very lively interest in the measures adopted by the British Government and applied in Britain to check it. Although inflation seems to be under control here now, we know that our defences are inadequate against inflation imported from Britain if the British measures to check it are not effective. If our progress—and I mean real progress and not merely an inflation of the money value of our output and earnings—is to go ahead, it is essential that we should avoid courses here which might start the inflationary process spiralling again.
The employment position has continued to improve. The total number in paid employment this year seems much higher than last year. In the first quarter—and it is only in respect of the first quarter that the figures relating to the sales of social insurance stamps are yet available—the weekly average number in employment was running about 20,000 higher than in the same period last year. The total number of all ages and both sexes who are described or describe themselves as occupied in agriculture, whether or not they were paid for their work, continued to decline, as in almost every year since the end of the war and in almost every European country. As the Central Bank said in its latest Report:
It is not to be anticipated however that expanding agricultural output will be accompanied by a substantial increase in labour engaged in that branch of activity. A movement away from rural occupations into other activities is common to all developing countries and it would seem improbable that Ireland will prove to be an exception to this trend.
I think it is correct to say that that view of the country's economic prospects has been generally accepted on all sides of the House in previous discussions here. While plans which are now being applied or discussed to achieve expansion in horticulture, fruit-growing and fisheries may, and indeed could very well change this pattern, and while those who are associated with these plans and developments have expressed very optimistic estimates of employment possibilities, they are likely for a number of reasons to develop gradually. It seems obvious that for the time being the achievement of conditions of full employment and reduced emigration depends on success in expanding other activities, particularly on the development of our manufacturing industries.
To the extent that the elimination of unemployment and emigration are the immediate goals of national endeavour, it is the measure of industrial expansion at the present time which records our progress towards them. In industry progress has been considerable and promises to become even better. The Minister for Industry and Commerce gave some information on that situation in his statement on his Estimate. In Irish circumstances the growth of industrial expansion is popularly measured by the number of new factories set up, although that is a very incorrect and very inaccurate yardstick. The most important aspect of industrial production now taking place is the expansion of the output of existing concerns, and it is that which last year brought total industrial output to a record level and which boosted the national income level.
However, using that yardstick and taking as a factory a manufacturing concern in which a minimum of £10,000 has been invested, the position is that in the 12 months to June 30th, 88 new undertakings or extensions to existing undertakings, which were equivalent to new undertakings, came into production involving a total investment of £4,000,000. There are at present 34 new factories or similar extensions in course of construction involving a total investment on completion of £13,750,000. There are a further 40 new undertakings for which all arrangements are completed or where factory construction is about to begin involving a total investment of £10,000,000. The producers' estimates of the number of new jobs to be created in all these new concerns amount to 13,000, rising to that figure from an initial recruitment of 9,000.
Of the additional investment in manufacturing industry of £27,000,000, which all these new enterprises represent, approximately £4,250,000 is on public as distinct from private account, notably the Irish Steel extension plans and the Irish Sugar Company's new enterprises in processed vegetables and fruit. That is in accord with the Government's policy of using public enterprise to supplement private enterprise which has been an outstanding feature of Irish industrial development.
The Government will continue to promote undertakings of that kind, that is to say, new developments as State projects wherever they may be practicable and wherever our assumption is that private enterprise is unlikely to succeed. There is an encouragingly large number of proposals for new undertakings in industry under discussion which involve important developments. It is right to assume that not all will materialise and that not all which materialise will be successful but most will. The accelerating rate of industrial expansion gives every justification for optimism. I have no desire to exaggerate what has been accomplished but I think it is important that it should not be minimised either. The capital outlay involved and the improved employment prospects created are certain to have beneficial consequences on other economic activities, including agriculture and should, and we hope will, set in motion a chain reaction of expansion.
It is worthy of note that almost all these new industries are planned for the export trade. Protection for the home market is not being sought or desired by them. The majority of these new undertakings are being promoted by Irish interests. That has been, and probably always will be the case, and it is desirable for many good reasons that it should be so. There is, however, an increasing number of new projects being proposed by external firms or by external firms in association with Irish interests. We welcome that development. It would be difficult to establish the rate of expansion which we need here without greater success in our efforts to encourage firms from abroad contemplating new developments to select Ireland as the location for them.
In the highly competitive external markets of the world success cannot be won by amateurs. External firms which can bring with them technical experience and, particularly, established market connections give us prospects of industrial expansion which we could never realise ourselves. The advantages of Irish locations for manufacturing enterprises and the value of the inducements being offered by the Government are becoming more widely known throughout the world as is evidenced by the greatly increased interest in them now being displayed.
Last year an attempt was made in a section of the British Press to start something of a scarce over the association of Japanese interests with a couple of Irish undertakings and more recently some articles were published, and it is only fair to say that they were not all unfavourable, commenting on German association of some of these new activities. I suppose we must expect that and I do not think we need pay too much attention to it. I should make it quite clear that we welcome firms from abroad who bring with them some industrial opportunity which we could not have won for ourselves. We are concerned more with their competence and prospects of success than with their nationality.
I have said that the great majority of the new undertakings are being promoted by Irish firms. That fact requires to be emphasised in view of the natural tendency, even in our own Irish newspapers, to give more publicity to the advent of a new concern sponsored by external interests than to a concern sponsored solely by Irish interests. I have endeavoured as far as possible to ascertain the external associations of new undertakings, when such seem to exist, and the order of importance appears to be first, American, and then British, German, Dutch and French in that order with a smaller number of enterprises with associations in Italy, Sweden, and Japan. In all instances, and I have had the opportunity of personal discussion with the promoters in many cases, there is confidence that Irish productivity, aided by Government policy and linked with competent technical direction, can beat the world. It can be hoped that they will.
As a result of these developments living standards have improved, which is the aim of all economic endeavour. Earlier in this year, in a previous discussion, I expressed some anxiety about the effect of recent wage rates upon the cost of living. That anxiety has since been in very large measure relieved. Although some price increases were inevitable—and some more may occur —the overall picture is not at all unsatisfactory. Partly because of favourable import prices but mainly because of higher productivity, no rise has taken place in the general cost of living. The cost of living index figure in mid-May was, in fact, one point less than it was in mid-May, 1959.
Deputies who have studied the statistics supplied to them will have noticed that industrial output is rising much faster than industrial employment. That adds up to increased productivity but we need not be too complacent or self-congratulatory about it. It has been the universal experience so widespread as to be regarded as an economic law, that in times of expansion, output rises more rapidly than employment. In times of depression the opposite happens and output falls more rapidly than employment. An expanding economy is always the more competitive. That is not merely true of national economies as a whole but it is true of individual commercial concerns as well.
It is a lesson which some Irish industrialists have yet to learn. The firm which is continuously striving for expansion is always more competitive than the firm which is content to mark time. The tendency of a few, and there are still some, Irish industrial concerns assisted by tariffs to establish a satisfactory and profitable level of operations, and to go no further is always detrimental to their continued efficiency. Efficiency is the reward of continuous striving for expansion. It has been said that no country can sit on its posterior and slide downhill into prosperity. I think that is true of individual commercial concerns also.
However, having said that, I think it is only fair to all the enterprising and progressive Irish manufacturers to state the extent to which they are rising to their opportunities and meeting the national need. There has been in recent months a striking—I do not think it is inaccurate to use the word "spectacular"—increase in industrial exports. Over the five-year period from 1955 to 1959, increases in the value of exports of over 100 per cent. were recorded in respect of electrical machinery, wool yarns, knitwear, footwear, leather, glass, metal manufactures, jute yarn, cement and agricultural machinery. Even more striking increases were made in the case of rubber manufactures, which increased during that period by more than 500 per cent.; by cordage and ropes which also increased by over 500 per cent. and by furniture exports which increased by over 600 per cent. The most spectacular of all was the increase in the export of outer-wear garments over that period which was nearly 1000 per cent.
Exports of manufactured goods, excluding foodstuffs, drink and tobacco, scrap and industrial waste were valued at £13,523,000 in 1955. They fell to £13,176,000 in 1956; they rose to £17,700,000 in 1957. They rose again to £18,008,000 in 1958 and then they jumped to £24,522,000 in 1959 and they are still rising. Exports of manufactured goods to date this year are runing approximately 80 per cent. higher than in the corresponding period of last year.
Reference to these rapidly growing exports of ours brings into consideration international circumstances affecting our trade expansion prospects. The position is still overshadowed by uncertainty as to what may happen in Western Europe. The rift in the economic relations of west-European countries will, if it persists, involve consequences which are at present incalculable. I must say that there are at present no signs that the rift will be speedily healed and there are indeed some indications to the contrary. It is true that there are signs that some reassessment of former conclusions is proceeding in some European capitals and the tendency to hold less rigidly to positions previously taken up so as to make a general European arrangement less difficult of realisation has been given impetus by the collapse of the Summit conference and the subsequent deterioration in international relations, but it would not be sensible or realistic to expect any early, major developments.
In the light of this situation what is the wisest course for us? While we are keeping in very close touch with events both through our membership of the Special Committee on Trade which was set up at the beginning of the year, and through our diplomatic representatives in the various European capitals, it is our present view that because of our special circumstances it is not in our interests to seek unduly to intrude our particular problem into the discussions which are going on or to press now for a precise definition of our future relations with the Six or the Seven or, indeed, to take any course which might possibly be regarded by either group or by any member of either group as discouraging to their hopes or contrary to their interests.
Spokesmen of both the Six and the Seven groups have expressed their understanding of the problems arising from this situation for this country and for other European countries which are not members of either group and assurances have been given that they will be taken into consideration in any changes which may be discussed. I am certain—and in this matter it is necessary to rely upon personal conclusions—that we are not losing any advantage by not seeking, fussily, to get our prospects clarified at this stage. We are sustained in that decision by the realisation that no difficulties affecting our trade have yet arisen or are likely to arise soon and that as of now—as of to-day— we are better circumstanced in regard to our western European trade than any of the other countries concerned by reason of the reaffirmation, in the circumstances of this year, of the special trade relationship expressed in our agreement with Great Britain and that in respect of more than 90 per cent. of our exports to the west European region, we have tariff-free access to the markets which matter to us.
The British Trade Agreement is, as I have previously described it, the keystone of our external trade structure and in anything which may emerge from discussions about European trade or in the development of these European trade groups, the preservation of the chief characteristics of that Agreement must be a main objective of our policy.
Another main objective must be to secure access, if possible, to agricultural markets in Western Europe.
Hear, hear.
Our exports to Western Europe, other than to Britain, are predominantly to the countries of the Six and not to the other countries of the Seven in the proportion of seven to two. That is an important factor in our thinking.
While the rift between the Six and Seven continues, these aims which I have stated—on the one hand, the preservation of our special trade relations with Britain and on the other hand securing access to European agricultural markets—are, to some extent, in conflict with each other. Unless the present impasse can be broken and trade arrangements between all the members of the O.E.E.C. can be organised on a western European regional basis which includes agriculture the danger is that the agricultural arrangements of the Six, which it is proposed should become fully effective within a period of six years, may become increasingly protective in their character. Having regard to the nature of the agricultural proposals which are under consideration by the Six and which, so far as one can judge from the indications given, are likely to be accepted in the main by them, that danger is very real notwithstanding their protestations that their aim is otherwise, and events developing in that way could have for us the double effect of penalising our exports to the markets of the Six and of intensifying competition in other markets including the British market. These considerations support us in the conclusion which we have reached that it is in our interests and particularly in the interests of our agriculture that the rift between the Six and the Seven should be healed upon some mutually acceptable basis, including agricultural trade, in which non-members of either group could participate, even if, as I have said elsewhere, there is some reason to think that the present circumstances may give us the benefit of some short term impetus to our industrial expansion drive. So far as we are concerned, therefore, we are supporting every movement which may help to promote the prospect of agreement between the Six and the Seven and are doing so primarily in the interests of our agricultural exports.
We have made it known that we are prepared to agree to start the process of reducing our industrial tariffs in the context of a Western European regional arrangement in consideration of our getting access to European agricultural markets. To be quite realistic, however, we must discount the prospect of an agreement for free trade in the full usual sense of the term in respect of agricultural products. There are very few European countries prepared to agree to it. Perhaps we are not even prepared to agree to it ourselves. A managed market for agricultural products is what the Rome Treaty envisages and is the more likely prospect in a wider European arrangement should that prove to be possible and, from our viewpoint, it could prove to be the more beneficial provided circumstances develop so that we can fully participate in it.
The provisions of the British Trade Agreement, to which I have made brief reference, arise also in connection with our consideration of the wisdom of joining the Gatt. Essentially, the Gatt—the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs—is a world-wide agreement for the avoidance of discriminatory practice in trade as well as a device for bringing about freer world trade. I do not want to suggest that the character of the Gatt is static. That is not so and, indeed, important changes in it in the early future are not improbable. The text of the Gatt recognises and provides for the maintenance of the preferences now extended by us to Britain but there is need to clarify our future obligations in that regard if we apply for membership. Discussions to that end have been in progress and they will be resumed in the very early future.
This is a matter to which it is desirable to direct public opinion. It should be understood that acceptance of the principles of the Gatt could in effect involve also a decision to forgo, except to the extent permissible under the agreement, the idea of operating discriminatory import arrangements here directed against particular countries with which we have adverse trade balances. That idea of unilateral action against imports from some countries has from time to time been discussed here and its possible advantages must weigh in our decision.
It should be remembered also that the Gatt is open to all countries—communist countries as well as democracies, countries that have highly developed State trading systems as well as free enterprise countries like our own, countries in the East as well as in the West. It is world-wide in its scope.
It is true that tariff reductions previously negotiated in the Gatt have been generally extended by most countries to our products. One reason why we must look again at the question of joining it is that in the new circumstances that may not continue to be so.
As a matter of interest, in connection with the British Trade Agreement I should mention that we have not yet received proposals from the British Government as to the order in which they wish the review of our tariffs for which the Agreement provides to be undertaken and it does not now seem likely that these reviews will commence or that the order of priority will be determined before October next.
The aim of Government policy is to bring about an increase in population on the basis of full employment and reasonable living standards. It is clear that that great aim cannot be realised easily or speedily but that is what we are trying to do and we are convinced that it is a realisable aim. The measure of success of the economic expansion programme up to date has reinforced us in that conviction. We do not want to push ahead with economic development without regard to its social or other consequences. I have dealt in this statement which I am making solely with economic affairs and the more material aspects of the national situation but we have other aims also. His Lordship the Bishop of Limerick said recently that we in this country have inherited a worthy way of life even if it needs to be modernised and brought up to date. Like the Most Reverend Dr. Murphy, we would wish to see the main characteristics of that valuable inheritance of ours preserved as we strive ahead in economic progress. It is perhaps natural that the Government would place economic progress in the position of first importance and it is true also that the realisation of that wish to preserve the distinctive features of our way of life is less a matter for Government than for people outside the immediate circle of official administration, people whose influence and example can promote what is desired and who appreciate its importance to the happiness of our people. In short, it is an aim for everyone to keep in mind.
We have a long way to go yet before we can feel that we have broken the back of our economic difficulties. It never has been our purpose over here to minimise the tasks to which we are committed. We do not claim to have done as yet much more than to make an encouraging beginning but that claim I do make. It seems clear now that we are working on right lines and with the encouragement of that understanding we can press ahead with greater confidence in our ultimate success.
I move that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. I suppose there never has been a Minister of State in this country more adept that the present Taoiseach at climbing the tops of mountains, turning corners and promising paradise around every new obstacle with which he finds himself confronted. I was familiar with that technique so long as the present Taoiseach was Minister for Industry and Commerce. I have listened to it for a great many years but to-day he speaks as the head of the Government and to my way of hearing he speaks as a man who is completely out of touch with what is going on in the country for all sections of which he ought to feel himself responsible.
He has spoken to-day at very considerable length on the expansion of industrial exports. He spoke in terms of 500 per cent.; he said he did not think the adjective "fantastic" was inappropriate for what he had to tell. I think it is right that instead of dealing in fantastics we should try to deal in realities. The national income figures provided in the Government's own statistics published in Economic Statistics issued prior to the Budget 1960 are set out in page 25: “Table 12 (b).—Gross national expenditure at constant (1953) market prices.” When we come to study that we find that gross national product at constant market prices amounted to £537.9 million in 1957, £521 million in 1958, and £539 million in 1959. That represents an increase in the national income of £1.1 million, as between £537.9 million in 1957 and £539 million in 1959.
That is not the national income.
The Deputy is reading the wrong figures.
"Gross national expenditure at constant (1953) market prices" and there are the following headings: Personal expenditure; Net expenditure by public authorities; Gross domestic fixed capital formation; Value of physical changes in stocks; Exports of goods and services; less Imports of goods and services.
That is not the national income.
It comes out at £539 million which represents an increase over the two years of £1.1 million at constant market prices. That represents an increase of one-tenth of one per cent. in the volume as distinct from the value of the gross national product between the years 1957 and 1959. That is one figure to which the House ought to have regard.
We shall give them the right figure later.
I shall be glad if the Taoiseach will correct me if I am wrong. I am quoting from Table 12 (b) of the Economic Statistics issued prior to the Budget 1960.
The figures for the national income?
I am trying to give the Taoiseach the figures as they appear here: the gross national product at constant market prices. I presume that statistic was furnished to us in this volume of Economic Statistics for some purpose and it has some significance, otherwise the Government would not have taken the trouble to ascertain it——
The gross national product?
At constant market prices. Is that not right? The figures are £537.9 million in 1957 and £539 million in 1959. That represents an increase of £1.1 million on £537.9 million which over two years represents an increase of approximately one-tenth of one per cent.
You have to make adjustments on that to get the national income.
It is one of the interesting features of statistics that if a statistic does not suit the case made by the Taoiseach, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Justice intervenes to say that you have to make adjustments on that if you want to get the picture correct. I am proceeding on the basis that the statistics furnished to us prior to the Budget are correct and true; I merely offer them as a corrective to the picture portrayed by the Taoiseach in his opening observations and I want to relate them to certain other facts which preoccupy my mind.
The national income figures are in that publication.
May I direct the Taoiseach's attention to another aspect of the review he has given us? He spoke in terms of ecstasy about industrial exports. Our industrial exports are unquestionably significant and important. They amounted in 1959 to approximately £25 million, that is, exports of manufactures other than foodstuffs and drink. Our total exports amount to £131 million approximately. The exports of manufactures other than foodstuffs and drink represent about 24 per cent. of our total exports. When we come to examine that figure of £25 million which causes the Taoiseach such rejoicing, it is only commonsense to face the fact that in that figure appears an item of £1.2 million for used motor cars.
I made it quite clear in regard to the figures I gave that items of that kind, and also food, drink and tobacco, are excluded.
That is what I am saying. I am referring only to exports of manufactures other than food and drink. It is important to realise their relation to the total export trade of this country. It is important to realise the spheres in which certain increases have taken place The exports of used cars amount to £1.2 million; the exports of sewing machines assembled here represent approximately £1.4 million; the export of used aeroplanes £.3 million. We have every reason to rejoice in that we now have petroleum oil product exports as a result of having established a refinery at Whitegate. How far, on balance, that yields any return to us other than the employment it provides I do not know, but I have said here repeatedly that it is the employment we want and in so far as it provides our people with employment in refining products it is welcome and the increase in that industrial export is something in which we have good reason to rejoice. I think Parties on all sides of the House collaborated in inducing the oil companies to establish that refinery at Whitegate and I have no doubt that its establishment was an eminently desirable thing.
It is refreshing to hear from the Taoiseach who was himself the author of the Control of Manufactures Act that he now welcomes the introduction of foreign capital. I am glad to hear him glory in the activity of the Industrial Development Authority and its operation in promoting industry here, both native and that based on foreign capital.
But I cannot help recalling that when the Taoiseach stood where I stand now he told the House with vehemence, on the day we established the Industrial Development Authority, that if he ever had the opportunity to return to office the first thing that he would do would be to wind it up. We are all glad to notice that the first class inducements offered to manufacturers to stimulate them to enter the export market are beginning to yield results. They were initiated by our Government, expanded by our Government and demonstrated again and again that if you want to maintain a free economy the best possible stimulant is to provide a profit advantage for those who engage in it. I think the Taoiseach is wise in saying that one should not measure all industrial expansion exclusively by the number of factories that are set up. That is a dangerous test to apply. Deputy Briscoe might be able to tell us about the factory set up at Shannon Airport to make ninepins and which has so sadly closed down.
I had nothing to do with it whatsoever. The Deputy must control his stretch of imagination.
Unfortunately I understand they had closed down that factory because some development in international trade had rendered that enterprise unprofitable. I do not know what our liability is in respect of it but whatever it was has gone down the drain. However, that would not discourage me. We are bound to have a certain percentage of industrial reverses, and the fact that we should have them should not discourage us from trying to draw into our economy useful foreign enterprise which will provide decent employment at fair rates of wages for our own people and, at the same time, expand the export potential of this country.
I am glad to notice that the Taoiseach has adopted the point of view pressed by these benches more than once that in many sectors of the export market the difficulty that we habitually experienced of breaking into existing markets could not be surmounted without the assistance of people who had access to those markets, because unless we had access to the marketing machinery in being we were perennially encountering the difficulty that we could not sell the goods produced and that if we went out to seek the market preparatory to producing the goods we were later likely to lose the market by failure to deliver when the time came.
It is a good thing to get as many firms as we can to come in and endeavour to pass through their marketing organisations the output of our industrial potential. I agree with the Taoiseach that, given the know-how and access to markets, ours should be as good if not better than any other country in the world. But I have always the fear—and it is abundantly justified today—that when we start in this House considering legislation to send troops to the Congo, and when we start speculating on the possibilities of contacting European markets we have never before entered, and feasting our eyes on the far horizon under the incurable optimism of the Taoiseach—of which he is very proud— we are very liable to forget what is happening in our own back yard, what is happening to the neighbours among whom we live.
I like optimism as much as any man alive, but there is a certain kind of optimism which is generated sometimes in public life for a dual purpose —one, to make people forget the seamy side of life and two, to erect a structure which it becomes heresy to assail. There is a poetic expression for that. It used to be expressed in my childhood in the unaristocratic area of Britain Street in the form: "Hit me now with the baby in my arms." There is no man better in this country for throwing the shawl around his shoulders, producing a baby and stamping up and down Dáil Éireann with the baby of Irish industry in his arms and saying : "Hit me now with the baby in my arms" than the Taoiseach. And anyone who says a word of criticism against the baby he is engaged in nursing——
The baby is weaned long ago.
I did not suggest the Taoiseach was so intimately associated with the baby as all that. He has the baby still in his arms and, as far as I can see, he will go on carrying that baby so long as he is physically able to bear the burden. He regards it as a great guarantee and insurance against effective attack from any angle. I am very glad the Taoiseach should have this agreeable company to carry around with him. But it amounts to national insanity when the Prime Minister of this country can come in here dwelling on what represents about a quarter of the economic activity of this country and a tithe of the national assets of this country and write off the rest of them by saying: "You have heard enough about that from the Minister for Agriculture who spoke last night."
Did the Taoiseach read what the Minister for Agriculture said last night? Did the Taoiseach listen to what the Minister for Agriculture said? It was just like Barnum and Bailey's circus in its most depressed year of operation and anybody here in this House who understands the country in which we live is faced with the fact that over a very wide area a degree of depression and something approximating to disaster is spreading rapidly. Now, mind you, that is not peculiar to rural Ireland. I am told that in the city of Dublin there were never more empty houses in the Corporation housing schemes than at the present time, largely due to emigration of entire families from this city. That is a very remarkable phenomenon. It is not so long ago when there was no prospect of getting a Corporation house unless a family of five children were living in seriously inadequate accommodation or unless there was serious illness.
It is more difficult now to get a Corporation house than it was six months ago and the difficulty is increasing.
My information is— and I have heard it statistically confirmed by the Minister for Local Government—that there are large numbers of vacant houses in the Dublin Corporation housing schemes and that those have been vacated as a result of entire families moving out. I find part of that explanation in the dramatic decline in the building programme which had been going on in the city of Dublin over the last ten years. There is less employment. I suppose people are more mobile than they used to be and, instead of registering now for unemployment here, they are much more prone to go down, get on the Liverpool boat, and clear out the moment they find they are no longer able to get work here.
I was immensely struck to-day by the strange remoteness of the Fianna Fáil Party from the conditions that ordinary people live with and with which ordinary people come in contact in rural Ireland. Certain Deputies here drew the attention of the responsible Minister to the repercussions on ordinary people living in the country, and trying to make their living, of the new Licensing Act in seaside resorts and country places. The representations were received with derision and laughter.
By Fianna Fáil.
The whole thing was nonsense—all cod. The fact is that, so far as I am informed, the people who make their living in seaside resorts and tourist resorts are suffering acutely, partially, I suppose, as a result of the industrial disputes that have been holding up transport between here and Great Britain; but, in addition to that, their sufferings have been gravely aggravated by the impact of the provisions of the Licensing Act on their trade. I have heard people describe conditions in Bundoran, in my own part of the country, in Monaghan, and in the other counties bordering the Six Counties. They will tell you that their losses are menacing as a result of the operation of the new Licensing Act.
It seems to me perfectly clear that some measures will have to be taken to relieve that circumstance at an early date. I do not think we are entitled to sit philosophically by and let people drift into something approximating to bankruptcy before we take any remedial measures at all. Certainly, sooner or later, some measures will have to be taken because, I think, the outcry will grow in volume with the passage of every week. But it seems to me that measures ought to be taken promptly rather than at some distant date when certain individuals will have suffered losses from which they will never be able to recover. What strikes me as so arresting is that Fianna Fáil seem quite blind to the position, quite untouched by it, do not know, and refuse to listen.
That factor seems to operate also in regard to the general condition of the people in rural Ireland. I listened to the Minister for Agriculture last night, and one would be ashamed to listen to him. His general line of country, and he is the Minister for Agriculture, was: "I know the people are leaving agriculture. Sure, we cannot stop them and, if the truth were told, it is not so easy to earn a living on a small farm any more." That was his reaction to the present situation in rural Ireland. To my way of thinking, what is going on is catastrophic and will eventually disrupt the whole social pattern of our life. I think it is being suffered to happen because this Government just does not give a damn. I think this Government have made up their minds to leave agriculture to Deputy Paddy Smith, that it is pretty safe in his hands, and leave it at that. I do not think the Taoiseach knows much about it, and I think he cares less. I think he has devoted his whole life to this business of tariffs, and bricks, and mortar, and he believes that is the be-all and end-all of the economic life of this country. I should not mind if he were assisted by an energetic and enthusiastic Minister for Agriculture because I believe a reasonable balance would then be maintained. But I believe that the Minister for Agriculture also does not give a damn about agriculture, or about the future of agriculture, because he has no belief in it.
What people in the Fianna Fáil Party seem to forget is that the only natural asset we have is the 12,000,000 acres of arable land and, if that is not the foundation of our economic life, we are at the mercy of anybody. I am all for bringing in industry into this country, but I am not in favour of placing our people in thraldom to those whom we invite in to establish industrial enterprises here. There is a great inherent danger in peripheral industry. What I mean by peripheral industry is the establishment in our economy of branch factories deriving from big foreign centres of manufacturing.
If you get a big manufacturer concentrated on Philadelphia and he establishes subsidiary factories in Holland, Belgium, Ireland, Sweden and Norway, so long as he is in an expanding market, everything will go on like a wedding bell; and Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Holland and Ireland will all benefit from the expanding business that he is engaged in. But if there comes a day when he experiences the shock of a trade recession he will not start cutting down operations in Philadelphia. He will start cutting down in Norway, then in Sweden, then in Belgium, and then in Ireland. Remember, we are giving high hostages to fortune because we are practically building his factory for him and giving him all the inducements possible to come here. I think we are right to do that but we cannot afford to become entirely dependent on that. There is a very grave danger that that is what this Government has made up its mind to do.
It is right to bring in that kind of peripheral industrial development. It is valuable and useful provided it does not become the exclusive foundation of the economic life of this country. But what I see in the approach of the present Taoiseach to our whole industrial problem is an excessive readiness to accept such economic development as an adequate substitute for the nondevelopment of our agricultural potential which is founded on the inalienable land that no one can take from us and on the thousands and thousands of families firmly rooted in the soil, whose production can provide us with a volume of universally necessary essentials, which nobody can either check or stop so long as we continue to develop. Listening to the Taoiseach here to-day speaking of the glorious developments that are in process of evolving in this country, I recalled the fact that recently I went down to Carlow and Kilkenny. The Taoiseach went there too, and I recalled in the presence of the people there that he had promised to produce 100,000 new jobs in this country. Now remember, it was in 1956 he was making that promise.
The Deputy did not quote me.
I produced the supplement to the Irish Press.
The Deputy did nothing of the sort. He can go and read it again.
I have it upstairs still and we shall produce it before the end of the debate. I think the Taoiseach should be happy to be obliged in helping him to remember it. It was to be 100,000 jobs spread over a period of five years, and remember that promise and prognostication was made with the same panache, made with the same confidence, made with the same resolution and determination as was employed today in making his review of the economic state of the nation, and there is not the slightest doubt that a great body of our people swallowed that and believed it. There are 40,000 fewer people working in this country now than there were when he was making that promise, and he has been head of a Government with a clear majority in this House for three and a half years.
He himself is the man who went to Athlone and described our allegation in 1957 that if he got into office he would abolish the food subsidies as being a fantastic misrepresentation and he wound up by saying : "How often is it necessary for me to repeat it isn't true?"
The Deputy did not quote that.
I shall get it now.
I think you will find my reference and the verbatim reference are very substantially the same.
Mind how you leave the Chamber.
I am delighted to get this for you.
That same Minister returned to office after those emphatic denials, upon which I think he staked his personal honour by the terms he chose to employ, and he bluntly proceeded to put 20/- on the 10 stone of flour, 5d. on the 2-lb. loaf and ultimately 10d. a lb. on butter. He said at the time it was vitally necessary to get the money because, without the money provided by that procedure of wiping out food subsidies, they could not carry on. That operation of removing the food subsidies reduced the expenditure of the incoming Government by £9,000,000 per annum. They took £9,000,000 off the burden of expenditure which the Government had to carry in 1957, and yet I think it is true to say this Government are spending £20,000,000 more than was their declared intention of spending in 1957 so that, since taking off the food subsidies, they found themselves able to raise £20,000,000 more in place of the £9,000,000 they had actually saved.
This Government came into office pledged, and with the assurance that the present Taoiseach had the means substantially to reduce emigration, and yet in the three years he has been here, according to his own colleague, the Minister for Finance, 100,000 people have emigrated from the country in the years 1957, 1958 and 1959 taken together. Those figures, taken together, present a pretty grim picture not only in themselves but because they have done the public life of this country I think a well-nigh irreparable damage in that they have shaken the confidence of our people in the undertakings of any public man.
Much as we may differ with the Taoiseach, and much as we may engage in appropriate political recriminations in this House, the Taoiseach is Head of an Irish Government, and I think the fact that our people discovered a man in his position giving such undertakings so casually and so brutally and flagrantly repudiating them after securing a clear majority in this House, is repugnant to all our standards of public life and shakes our confidence in all of them. But, over and above that, what Fianna Fáil appears to have forgotten is that that increased cost they put on the people has had this dramatic result of sweeping 100,000 people out of the country, and that mass emigration may have masked the unemployment which their activities have created.
This increased cost has had to be borne by the small farmers of the country and they constitute a very large part of the 100,000 who have gone and are going, and they are going in a way they have never gone before. I sometimes feel almost like a voice crying in the wilderness in addressing the solid phalanx of Fianna Fáil on this topic because they do not seem to care.
There were certainly fewer going in the last two years than there were in the three years the Deputy was Minister for Agriculture.
Does the Taoiseach sincerely believe that?
I can give you these figures if you want them.
Will the Taoiseach not visit Dún Laoghaire and see the people from the West passing through there?
Did the Deputy see what happened in 1954?
The tragedy of the present situation is that the Taoiseach does not believe what is happening.
That is his trouble; he believes everything is as right as could be.
I think the Taoiseach does not know this, and I think the poor man he has as Minister for Agriculture is either afraid or incompetent to tell him, but I would ask the Taoiseach to read his own Minister's speech made last night. He did not dare to go home to Cavan and deny it.
Is the Deputy suggesting that this trend started within the last year or two?
Let the Taoiseach send for any of his own colleagues from rural Ireland, bring any one of them into his own office and see if this is not true. Let him ask this question: "Is there a townland in your constituency from which a number of young people have not gone in the last two years, and is there a district in your constituency from which you cannot say a family has left, father, mother and children, during the last two years?"
Hear, hear !
I am not denying that, but I am saying fewer went in the last two years than in any of the previous five years.
I am sure the Taoiseach is in cuckoo land if he believes that. Let him ask any of his own Deputies from west of the Shannon about this extraordinary phenomenon that has begun to sweep across the country, that whole families of small farmers have just given up the fight and are leaving their homes and holdings abandoned. I have never before seen that in my lifetime. I am not making the case that emigration has not gone on for the last 40 years. I was reared in the country and my memory almost goes back to the time when it was emigration of the old and evil kind, when people were leaving the country from sheer poverty, though there was very little of that evil in my youth; but I have seen emigration continuing where it related mainly to young people because they preferred to live in Philadelphia, as used to be the case, than to live in North Mayo.
Then there came the vast emigration of our people to Great Britain due to its ready accessibility, but that has assumed an altogether new form in the last two or three years which derives from the fact that you have all overlooked, and that is that in piling up this burden, the only section of the community for whom you could provide no remedial compensation was the small farmers who, in the words of the Minister for Agriculture last night, have to sell their stuff for what they can get, and if they are not prepared to sell it for that, then they can keep it. But the result of that is that they will not produce the stuff.
What I cannot get the Fianna Fáil Party to recognise is this. I do not think the Taoiseach knows about it. I think he is quite at sea about the situation in the west of Ireland. I do not blame him. Quite apart from the social catastrophe of it, this country cannot afford to lose the production that results from thousands of acres of land being abandoned by the people who lived on them. If a family leaves a holding of anything from ten to 40 acres in rural Ireland, what happens is that that land itself ceases to produce.
In the ordinary pattern a family moving out like that will not sell the land readily to the incoming farmer. They set it; and you see rushes moving into the place that family used to till and on which they used produce fat cattle, pigs and sheep. The lean store cattle are put on these holdings which are depasturaged under conacre settings. If that is allowed to continue we shall suffer the whole economic foundation of this country to be eaten away, and when it is too late we shall discover that the elaborate superstructure we have erected upon it will collapse. If only I could get the Fianna Fáil Party to wake up to this fact! No country ever goes really bankrupt. What happens to a country when it goes bankrupt? It does not mean we all go round hungry. What happens is that somebody from outside comes in to dig us out.
We have got an example in our own personal recollection of that economic dialectic. The oldest independent nation on the North American continent abandoned its fundamental industry which was fishing. I am referring to the democracy of Newfoundland. They sought to erect a superstructure on the uneconomic basis they had which the substructure would not maintain. They got too grand to fish—that is the plain truth of it—and they awoke one morning to discover that they could not pay their way. What happened was that they could not pay the civil servants, they could not pay for social security and the weekly charges that the Government had to meet. The remedy they sought —and they could seek it consistent with their history and dignity—was that they asked the British Treasury to send out a Commissioner to take over the Government of Newfoundland. Three British Treasury commissioners were sent out and they took over.
Ultimately a day came when the three Treasury Commissioners said: "Now you are back on an even keel. You must make up your minds what you want to do. Do you want to resume independence or federate with Canada because we are not going to carry you on our backs any longer?" After great spiritual agony, Newfoundland made up its mind that it had no prospect of survival as an independent nation. They determined that the time had come to abandon their claim to independence and they have become a province of Federal Canada. With their history behind them, that was consonant with their dignity and national outlook. It was no humiliation for them in that they were merely entering a Federation which by reason of history, geographical propinquity and a variety of other considerations was very natural for them.
We cannot do so. It is not open to us to do that. I put it to this House: what is going to happen if the land of this country and the people who live in it cease to be viable? There will arise a crisis in this country of a character for which I know no solution. I believe that is the factor on which Fianna Fáil are quite cheerfully turning their back. I want to see industrial development and expansion here, but I want to see it on a firm foundation which preserves for our people the political and economic independence we must have if we are to be a sovereign nation.
As I said when speaking on the Estimate for Agriculture in this House, it is not part of my job to propound policy to the present Government. But I am getting a bit tired of seeking to propound policy in public and finding Fianna Fáil walking away with my clothes as quickly as I display them. I am perfectly convinced that it is possible to restore profitability to our agricultural industry. I recall that in the ten years between 1947 and 1957 we increased the value of our exports from £39,000,000 to £131,000,000. A substantial part of that was due to increase in prices, but we actually increased the volume of our exports by 100 per cent.; and of those exports more than 80 per cent. were agricultural output.
I believe we have got to face the fact that the quality of our agricultural output may require adaptation to the new world situation in which we find ourselves. I want to say this, and it is a thing I have thought about a great deal in recent weeks. I do not know what happened in London when the Taoiseach and his Ministers went to negotiate a trade agreement with the British Government. I believe in the principle of economic integration between these two countries. I believe that once we have settled on a mutually satisfactory basis, at least in respect of this part of Ireland, our political relations with Great Britain by the separation of our two political Governments, as Norway and Sweden did in the past, it is the obvious policy for both countries to proceed to economic integration closely equal to that which Norway and Sweden succeeded in achieving after they had taken precisely the same political step. It is noteworthy that according to these Scandinavian countries themselves, that degree of intimate economic integration and co-operation was impossible so long as the political link existed. It was only when the two Crowns were separated it was possible for them to approach one another ex aequo and arrive at the kind of economic integration they now enjoy.
I still believe in that principle between here and Britain. I do not know what transpired in London or if our Government were prepared to offer to the British Government the kind of arrangement that would have redounded greatly to the ultimate advantage of this country. I believe if that had been done it ought to have been possible to persuade the British Government of the desirability of such an arrangement. If it has not been done so far, it should not cease to be our policy to work towards that ultimate end in the future. But over and above what such an arrangement would provide between ourselves and Great Britain, I believe that a completely new orientation of our agricultural industry may be necessary. I believe that to achieve that we must have effective and adequate national agricultural advisory services to assist farmers in such change-over as may be requisite for that end.
I said at an earlier stage that I had referred to the Taoiseach's promise of full employment as published in the supplement to the Irish Press on the 15th October, 1956.
The Deputy promised to quote me.
I can separate the Taoiseach in my mind from Pravda but does he wish me to separate him from Fianna Fáil?
Go ahead and quote me.
100,000 new jobs after five years.
Quote me.
Oh, no. That is a very astute procedure. I am looking at what the people read—100,000 new jobs after five years.
That is a headline put in by a skilled editor.
The last reference I had to that was from the Minister for Transport and Power who told me when I said that this was the Fianna Fáil plan that it was not a plan but a blueprint.
Read it.
100,000 new jobs after five years.
I asked you to quote me. Read what I said.
100,000 new jobs—
The Deputy is only a phoney. Forget it.
I shall not forget it.
The Deputy will not quote what I said.
I shall quote what you published. I shall quote what the people read.
Forget it.
I shall not forget it— 100,000 new jobs after five years— that is what the people read.
Quote what I said.
The Minister for Transport and Power says that it is a blueprint, not a promise.
The Deputy is grossly insulting the electors. He imagines that no one in this country reads anything but headlines. Quote what he said.
I think that the supporters of Fianna Fáil are influenced only by the headlines published in this paper. That is what I remember. That is what the people remember. That is what the people read and believed. I should like to add that the paper goes on to say that in the first year of the proposed programme there will be a contemplated capital investment outlay of £13 million providing 20,000 new jobs. In the second year the capital investment outlay was to be increased by £20 million with a further increased employment of 20,000 people. In the third year there was to be a further increase in gross expenditure of £20 million with a further 20,000 new jobs. Need I read it all?
It goes on to say: "By the fifth year on this calculation full employment should be achieved with the level of gross expenditure raised by £100 million and 100,000 new jobs created". Could anything be more specific than that? This is not the headline. This is the small print and is a true report of what the Taoiseach said—"By the fifth year on this calculation full employment should be achieved with the level of gross expenditure raised by £100 million and 100,000 new jobs created". Does that answer the Taoiseach?
No. If the Deputy wants to, I shall deal with him.
Then there is a later publication which was published after mature reflection. It was part of the Fianna Fáil propaganda for the general election. It said that over 90,000 people were out of work and that the Coalition Government could do nothing for these men. It said that Fianna Fáil pledged itself that work must be provided at once. They go on to say they were going to end the depression and add: "All our energies are to be devoted to one aim —full employment". I must say, in justice to them, that in this document for the general election I cannot find anything so specific as was set out in the Taoiseach's speech of 15th October, 1956 where he is on record in saying that, by the 5th year on this calculation, full employment should be achieved with the level of gross expenditure raised by £100 million and 100,000 new jobs created.
I have alluded to that speech for the sake of satisfying the Taoiseach that he had said what he did say. I do not want to be deflected from the main purpose of what I am concerned to put before the House and that is that the Taoiseach's view of the trend of this country is a most magnificent piece of self-deception. I know that I am contending against considerable odds in trying to restore an atmosphere of reality in the present situation. The Taoiseach disposes of three newspapers whose job it is to boost him. He disposes of a very complacent majority in this House.
There are only two of them here at the moment.
He disposes of the loyalty of people like our old friend Deputy Corry who, when told that the farmers of the country were repudiating him and that if he did not like it he could lump it, said that he had come in here as a member of Fianna Fáil and that whatever that Party did he would remain a member of it to the end. That is an admirable display of loyalty and it is a loyalty which many other members of Fianna Fáil display towards the Taoiseach and the Party. We are faced with that mentality which is peculiarly characteristic of many of the Taoiseach's supporters.
We are faced with the fundamental fact that people prefer to hear good news rather than bad news. We are all familiar with the carnival at which the gypsy in her tent, who tells young girls that they will meet a young gentleman, does much more business than the old hag who sits in the other tent and who sees the ace of spades in the cards and foretells that her customers will meet with misfortune.
From that point of view the Taoiseach is always on a winner. He is always in a gaily decorated tent, reading hands and telling people that round the next corner there is a handsome young gentleman waiting with a great fortune or that if they keep on travelling over the next hill they will find a pot of gold under the first bush they come across. That is a popular tale. I have been listening to him telling it for close on 30 years and I have watched the vast variety of picturesque ruins left behind always in the confident belief that the public memory is short and that, if only they can be led on to some other proposal, all will be well and they will forget the ruins. And they do forget. They forget the economic war and the many injuries that have been done in the past and the great bulk of humanity is greatly encouraged by the hopes the present Taoiseach holds out.
I myself feel a sense of elation when the Taoiseach gets up and demontrates with eloquence that all is well; all we have to do is to struggle up to the next crest, turn the next corner and the sunlight will come streaming down on the glorious prospect before us and, for all the world to know, nobody can make his fortune by sitting on his "behind" and sliding down into prosperity. All must square their shoulders, brace their sinews and advance to the glorious horizon, see the sun rise over the side of the hill and everything is rosy to the lands' end. That is grand talk but there is no reality behind it. If you bring your pigs to the bacon factory, and are told that the guaranteed price is 245/- per cwt. but that your pigs are Grade C and you will get only 170/- for them, you are going to lose money on them; if the calf your cow has had and which was worth £20 last year is worth £10 now; if your rates are going steadily up, if all your costs are rising and all your revenue declining, there is no good telling you to square your shoulders, stiffen your back and struggle on.
Our people did a lot of struggling in their day and achieved great results thereby but the plain fact is that the people on the land are not prepared to be hewers of wood and drawers of water any more and the sooner the Taoiseach wakes up to the fact that we cannot survive without them the sooner he will realise the urgency of the task of helping them in their present situation.
Fundamentally, I think the situation here is extremely dangerous. There are many people much more pessimistic. I still believe that we can secure for our people a good living in dignity, security and peace. We must realise that for those for whom material wealth is the only consideration, the great industrial civilisations will inevitably have a greater attraction for them than anything Ireland will be able to offer. I believe there will always be a sufficient proportion of our people profitably to operate the country on the basis the country can afford. I believe that is a decent standard of living, a good standard of living and a better life than is to be obtained in most other countries in the world. But I am seriously apprehensive, and I believe that many other people who really know the country share my belief, that if the present trend continues the viability of this nation will cease to exist.
I am convinced that without the land we cannot make this economy tick. I warn the Taoiseach that if things continue as they are now, within a decade so large an area of our land will cease profitably to produce that the whole economy of the nation will be in immediate and grave jeopardy. If action is not taken now to restore the balance between town and country this dialectic will begin, if it has not already begun: the land will slowly fall into disuse. The first repercussions from that will fall on the country towns and villages—I wish Deputies would remember how many people are getting good livings in those country towns and villages—and they will be forced out. If they are, we may acquire export markets for much industrial output—I hope we shall— but if we lose their entire demand or the bulk of it through the incapacity of the people who live on the land to pay for it, Irish industry will feel the draught in good time.
To me that means that there will spread over this country the sort of paralysis that was in the process of spreading over it in 1946-47. I do not think we can afford to go through that experience again. Our people have acquired a mobility that they never had in the past and a tendency simply to move out rather than endure that kind of hardship. It will be a great tragedy if that is suffered to happen in our time.
I should like to think that any Government here, in the presence of such developments, would face them and undertake the measures necessary to put them right but I am bound to say that I do not believe Fianna Fáil under its present leader ever will. Therefore, I adopt the words of an ex-President of the United States when he was asked: "What is the remedy for our present ills?" Without any personal reflection on the members of the Fianna Fáil Party I repeat in the words he used: "There is only one remedy— put the rascals out." I see no prospect of reversing the present trend with the present Government. When I am asked ultimately: "If you complain of what this Government is doing, what would you do?", my advice to the people is: "There is only one thing you can do; put the rascals out and leave it to others to do what they are unable, unwilling or incompetent to do themselves."
This Estimate is for a relatively small amount of money but, as is the practice, it is taken as an opportunity by the Taoiseach to review the economic state of the country in the past twelve months. Without intending to contribute at length I am bound to say I was rather surprised at some parts of the Taoiseach's speech. I was amazed at his optimism and I think the Minister for Social Welfare would also be amazed. The Minister for Health, who is also the Minister for Social Welfare, had certain measures before the House recently and he protested the relative poverty of the country. His attitude was that whilst the State would love to give a shilling more to old age pensioners and a little more to recipients of social assistance it could not be afforded. Listening to the Taoiseach's description of the state of the economy tonight it seemed to me that we could well afford much more than was proposed in recent legislation in respect of these people. I do not want to pursue that point but I was genuinely amazed at the bright picture the Taoiseach attempted to paint.
The comment of Deputy Dillon was reasonable—it is a comment I made in the Budget debate or in the debate on the Vote on Account—that the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Government and the Taoiseach seems to be "Do not hit me now with the child in my arms". That is fair criticism. One wonders what is to be the rôle of the Opposition if they are not to be critical.
I never said that. Deputy Dillon said I said it. You can hit all my children as hard as you like.
I beg the Taoiseach's pardon. It was the Minister for Finance, in his Budget Speech. In the concluding part of the speech he said words to the effect that he was critical of the fact that the Opposition were critical of the Government and its efforts. What is the rôle of the Opposition if we are to sit here and say "Aye" to everything proposed by the Government and applaud everything that is done or that is attempted to be done?
The Taoiseach has been Taoiseach for a little over a year. I do not think there has been any spectacular advance in that year. I will certainly give the Taoiseach and the Government credit for things that they have done. I was one of those people who believed that Mr. de Valera's occupancy of the office of Taoiseach in the latter years was bad for the country and I thought that in Deputy Lemass we would have an energetic man with a lot of push in the matter of conducting the affairs of the country but there has been no radical change. I often wonder if the political ghost of Éamon de Valera is still hanging around Government Buildings.
I am not alleging that Mr. de Valera influences Deputy Lemass as Taoiseach in any way but I think the present Taoiseach has adhered to old policies as a tribute to the former Taoiseach or else he is bereft of policy or, should I say, bereft of any idea of changing policy because we seem to be going along in the same way over the years. Even in the last few years methods have not changed. We always seem to be the victim of circumstances over which we have no control.
Fianna Fáil's criticism about the last Government usually has been in respect of what they term the bad year of 1956. I do not think you will get any Deputy on this side of the House to protest that it was a good year but it was not as bad as some of the critics in the Fianna Fáil Party pretend. It was bad due to circumstances outside the control of the inter-Party Government and which would have been outside the control of the Fianna Fáil Party.
We are told also that many of our speeches are akin to sabotage. Yesterday, Deputy Davern said to a speaker on this side of the House that when the inter-Party Government relinquished office and Fianna Fáil took over there was a bad pound and a few threepenny bits in the kitty. I do not know what sort of criticism that is intended to be. Since Fianna Fáil assumed office on 20th March, 1957, they have talked in millions. They bought jet planes and committed themselves to jet planes for millions and millions of pounds. The Taoiseach to-day talked about the tens of thousands of pounds available for industry. Where did it come from? Was that accumulated in the last three years by the efforts of Fianna Fáil? I think that sort of criticism is stupid at this stage.
I did not hear Deputy Lemass at the time the statement was made but I honestly believe that he promised that the food subsidies would not be touched. I honestly believe that Deputy de Valera, as he was then, promised in Belmullet that the food subsidies would not be touched. They were removed and the excuse given by the present Taoiseach and the former Taoiseach was to the effect that they did not know what the situation was. That is rather infantile from such hardened campaigners and from such an intelligent man as Deputy Lemass—"We did not know what the situation was. We did not know we would have to touch the food subsidies."
Is it fair to ask the Deputy how he would have balanced the 1957 Budget?
I do not think I should be called upon to answer that question at this stage.
I asked the Deputy would it be fair to ask him the question.
Food subsidies would have been retained.
The Taoiseach knows that Budget proposals are made within a week or, at the outside, within two weeks. The actual decisions are made in a relatively short space of time. At that stage it was not up to me, even though I was a full member of the Cabinet, to decide how the Budget would be balanced, but I can say to the Taoiseach—whether he believes it or not I do not know and I do not care— as far as the Labour Party were concerned in that inter-Party Government the food subsidies were not going, not one penny of them.
Hear, hear!
The Committee you had set up recommended it.
Subsequently.
No. That is what made you decide on the election.
There was a committee set up by the Government, not to decide whether or not food subsidies would go. Incidentally, they recommended that consideration might be given to their abolition. They were not asked to do that. They were not asked to make any recommendation in respect of food subsidies and no member of the Cabinet agreed. No member of the Cabinet even contemplated the abolition of food subsidies at that stage.
Some of them contemplated it. The Deputy can take that from me.
I did not agree.
You never got a chance to agree. You were down in Mayo when you heard there was to be an election.
In this debate the Taoiseach has a certain advantage over many others in that he has up-to-date statistics. In my comments I am not going to depend entirely, if at all, on statistics. In the debate on the Vote on Account and the Budget, Deputies quoted from the booklet published by the Government, Economic Statistics, and the Taoiseach, while he used certain of the information contained in the Tables, told us that generally speaking these statistics could not be relied upon. Whether that should be accepted or not I do not know. I suppose we can only take the Taoiseach's word that they are to a large extent unreliable.
The Taoiseach spoke here to-night about emigration. One can take any figure and say that that is the figure for emigration in any year. The true test is the census of population taken approximately every five years. I do not know whether the Taoiseach has made any announcement in connection with that matter but I assume that there will be a census of population taken this year.
It is all arranged for next year.
1961?
Yes.
That will give us an indication as to what change there has been in the population. The fact remains that emigration is going on apace. I think the Minister for Finance said in 1959 that emigration figures would amount to something like 40,000. That is a pretty big figure. I know in other years other statistics of inward and outward traffic movement can be shown to be something in the region of 50,000 but it does not get away from the fact that emigration is proceeding, that the population is being bled and there does not seem to be any remedy so far to check substantially that emigration.
In regard to unemployment, this booklet Economic Statistics tells us that there were 51,000 people fewer in employment in 1959 than there were in 1956. Compared with 1955, agricultural output is down and industrial output is also down. The Taoiseach gave what could be regarded as encouraging figures for the first half of this year but I cannot accept his claims with regard to factories established. I cannot say that there is X number of factories established, that Y number of factories is in the course of construction or that we shall have Z number in the next six months or so. I see no evidence of it, which leads me to believe that these factories are not of a very substantial nature.
I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce in a Parliamentary Question some time ago how many new factories had been established in the last three years with State aid and he said there were 54; there were 30 in what the Government and other people regard as the undeveloped areas and 24 in the rest of the country, outside what are deemed to be the undeveloped areas. The Taoiseach tonight gave a figure of 88 in respect of the expansion of factories, the establishment of new factories and factories that would be in the course of construction within the present year. I do not see much evidence of that.
I do not want to make my periodical criticism about the attitude of the Government and other people in the House with regard to the particular attention being paid to what are deemed to be the undeveloped areas. Within the last 12 months legislation was passed here which promised a similar aid to factories that would be established outside these areas, under certain conditions of course. Again I must say I do not see much evidence of many factories being established, at least in my part of the country. The Government should give equal aid to factories whether they are established in the undeveloped areas or in any other part of the country.
It is especially difficult for me coming from an urban area to talk at all about agriculture. However, one is forced to ask oneself: what is wrong with the agricultural industry? I suppose traditionally the farmers of this and every other country are regarded as groaners but it is a little more serious than that in Ireland. As far as I can judge the State gives, and has given down through the years, substantial financial aid to the farmers. My query to the Taoiseach is—I posed this before but he did not answer it; in speeches in which he replies to debates of this kind I know he cannot reply to everything—is he satisfied that the £12,250,000 that we are to give to agriculture is being spent in the right direction? The reason I ask is—and I suppose the same could be said for industry in some cases—that as far as I can judge in agriculture there is a better opportunity for the big farmer, the big landowner, to avail of Government grants than for the small holder. The same can be said of industry and, a better example, the same can be said in respect of housing grants, more especially house reconstruction grants. Is accordance with regulations, in order to qualify for a housing grant at present one must engage in a certain amount of work to qualify for any money. That means one must have a certain amount of money to carry out the work before State aid is given at all.
I honestly believe that there are many small and middle-sized farmers who cannot avail of the generous grants which have been given by Governments down through the years. I do not advocate an absolute means test but there are big landowners—I shall not put a figure on the size of their holdings because it would not be right to do so—who can avail of every single penny provided by the State although they do not really want it. However, the small farmer—his holding may vary according to the part of the country in which he lives but a farmer in Wexford who has a farm of 30, 40 or 50 acres is not regarded as a big farmer—cannot avail, as far as I know, of many of the grants because he has not the initial money to spend on the project. The size of the holding may vary in the west and in other parts of the country, where a small or middle-sized farmer might be regarded as one with 20 acres. The Taoiseach should carry out a review of the generous assistance we give to the agricultural industry and see whether or not it is distributed to the best advantage.
It has often been said—the Taoiseach is one who says it repeatedly and I do not think we can argue with him on it—that if we are to survive we must produce. There are many contradictions to that sort of advice. In many instances, both in agriculture and in industry, greater production does not give the desired effect.