I move:
That the Dáil at its rising this week for the Summer recess do adjourn until Wednesday, 8th November.
Adjournment Debate: Policy Review.
On that date Deputies on that side will be on this side of the House.
May I suggest that the Deputy might at least allow me to start before beginning his interruptions?
I know Deputies would wish me to give them information about my intentions regarding the general election and I propose to do that as precisely as is possible at present. On the basis of a five-year term the dissolution of this Dáil is due in March, 1962 and if Section 7 of the Electoral Act of 1927 is still valid, which may be doubtful, the dissolution would take place automatically during that month. I consider, however, that given the power of free choice it would be undesirable to postpone the dissolution of the Dáil until the last possible date when an election would have to take place irrespective of the circumstances prevailing at the time, unless, of course, legislation was introduced to prolong the life of the Dáil.
It will be appreciated that between the date of dissolution of the Dáil and the assembly of a new Dáil after a general election, there is no functioning national Parliament and while Ministers retain their offices and their duties there is also a de facto hiatus in the exercise of Government authority. It is clearly desirable, therefore, if it is at all possible, that a general election should take place only when all the prevailing circumstances, international as well as internal, minimise the risk of serious national disadvantage arising from the fact that the Dáil stands dissolved.
It is my intention, therefore, unless something very exceptional happens, not to permit the Dáil to continue until March next but to ask for a dissolution during the coming autumn, probably between mid-September and mid-November, with the likelihood that it will be earlier rather than later in that period. For the reasons which I have indicated I cannot now be more precise and, indeed, I think I should emphasise that if some international situation, arising out of Berlin or any of the other troubled spots of the world, or other circumstance, should make a dissolution of the Dáil a likely source of risk to the nation I would have to change my intentions accordingly, nor would I hesitate to do so.
The motion which I have moved fixes November 8th as the date for resumption but Deputies will appreciate that the dissolution of the Dáil would annul this motion and the order for the general election would fix the date of assembly of the new Dáil.
I should point out, of course, that if amendments are inserted by the Seanad in any of the Bills which we have just passed, I may request the Ceann Comhairle to arrange a special meeting of the Dáil to dispose of them.
It is my hope and, indeed, my expectation, that during the election campaign, if, in fact, it should take place before we reassemble, all of us who will be seeking re-election will combine to give the world a fine example of Irish democracy in action. The public get their information about the current issues of policy from the activities of political Parties and candidates at an election. All of us will, I hope, accept our obligation to inform the electorate of the issues of policy which the new Dáil must face and of our particular views and intentions regarding them so that the electors thus enlightened by us can give a clear indication of the national will regarding them.
Deputies will remember it was agreed that the debate on the Estimate for the Department of the Taoiseach would be postponed until now and taken in conjunction with the motion for the Adjournment. It has been the practice for many years for the Taoiseach, when moving his Estimate —usually the last business of the Summer Session—to give a review of the state of the national economy based upon the latest available statistics.
In the circumstances of this year and the understanding that we all have that the nation stands on the threshold of events in which important changes are inevitable, any review of that kind would be, to some extent, academic and of value only in so far as it gave us guidance for the future. The past is now overshadowed by major issues of national, economic and social policies, and with important implications in the field of political policy also, arising from the prospects of Ireland's membership of the European Economic Community, and perhaps in the background of our minds at least the still more difficult policy issues which would arise if our membership of the European Economic Community did not eventuate.
I think few here can have any doubt that the country is entering into a situation in which major tasks of adjustment to new conditions in respect both of agriculture and industry will have to be faced. Even on the presumption of peace—that is the only presumption upon which rational men can plan for the future—the new Dáil and Government are not going to have an easy time. On our success in organising this community through sound planning, effective leadership and a capacity to inspire adequate national effort will depend the country's prospects of furthering its economic and social progress in the new situation which is now taking shape.
Emphasis is now on change and innovation in every sphere of national activity. Plans and policies which were developed in the past, and which were often defended vigorously and enthusiastically in the past, are now ceasing to be appropriate. The world to which these plans and policies were relevant no longer exists. This is a time for new ideas.
Personally I must confess I find the prospect exciting and stimulating and indeed it is understandable that all of us who have been really interested in national development will want to have a part in it. The work of government must now be directed to preparing for the momentous years ahead, seeking in so far as is humanly possible to forecast the course of events and to plan the road the nation must follow.
The nation just cannot afford any woolly thinking, any failure of leadership, any slipshod estimating of possibilities and problems, either in the Dáil, in the Government or in any of the organisations within the State to which important sections of our people look for their guidance. We must all look with cold objectivity on the national assets and the national deficiencies so that we can plan properly together to exploit the one and remedy the other.
We know that the country, in its present stage of development, is not as well organised as many other countries to cope with the new situation. That means that we will have to move faster than the others and work hard to catch up with them. That is something we can do. We know that the country's limited size, its geographical location and island character impose some economic handicaps on it. Probably they give us some economic advantages also. The handicaps can only be overcome, as I think everybody now agrees, by making maximum efficiency the objective in every sector, in production, in transport and in management. All that is within our capacity.
We know also that we have made some real progress during the past two and a half years under the Programme of Economic Expansion. That is something that should give us confidence and encouragement. We know, however, that we did not move nearly fast enough or far enough on our journey to economic security and that there is a great deal more that needs to be done before we can feel any sense of real security. The country is like an aeroplane at the take-off stage. It has become airborne, but I would emphasise that that is the stage of maximum risk when any failure of power can lead to a crash. It will be a long time yet before we can throttle back in level flight. We know we have not yet achieved the certainty of continuation of economic effort— and certainty in that respect is what we require.
We know also we have in this country the particular handicap of a falling population through the persistence of emigration at a high level. We must accept that as evidence of the inadequacy of the national economic effort so far. Until the emigration rate has been pulled well below the natural population growth rate, until the population begins to rise, we cannot claim to be succeeding in achieving our economic and social aims.
That must be the main objective, as, indeed, it will be the main test of the soundness and sufficiency of the policies applied in the years ahead. While we can welcome the not inconsiderable reduction in the net emigration rate in the past 12 months, it is still running at a very high level. The impact on our population numbers of the very heavy emigration rates recorded in the peak years of 1956, 1957 and 1958, and the still very high, even though lower, emigration rates in 1959-1960 will be made known when the preliminary and provisional census figures are published some time towards the end of this month.
We do not have to wait for these census figures, however, to know the position. It is certain that because of the known level of emigration a fall in population of relatively significant dimensions has taken place since the previous census was held in April of 1956. The extent of that fall will be disclosed by the census, but if the population estimates, which were prepared in the intervening years are a reliable guide, as they probably are, it will not be less than 3%. I have no desire—quite the contrary—to minimise the seriousness of that situation. It will be a powerful additional stimulus to our economic progress when we can arrest that decline and get the population moving upward again.
Because of the results which have been achieved under the Programme of Economic Expansion we can now face that aim with some increase in confidence, some additional belief in our capacity to realise it. The reduction of the nett emigration trend this year is substantial enough to be significant in relation to the prospect that our population is becoming stabilised. During the period of twelve months, which ended on May 31, emigration was 65% of the rate during the corresponding period which ended in May, 1960, and the greater part of that fall took place in the first 5 months of this year. During that 12 months period the rate of emigration was 27% below the average annual figures for the past decade. We know that since the middle of 1959 the numbers occupied in all economic activities, including agriculture, have become stabilised following upon a long period of continuous decline.
It is not my purpose to encourage any complacency. Success in the economic and social effort designed to check emigration is vital and I use that word deliberately because there can be no real life in our economic programme unless we bring it about. I put this factor in the forefront of this commentary on the national situation, because that is where it should be. It is not enough that we should try to organise increased production and employment in agriculture and industry, try to provide better living conditions and better social welfare services, better housing and health services and so on. We believe that the need for national effort extends far beyond official measures to encourage economic expansion—an effort which will be aimed at increasing the attractivness of life in Ireland so that the pull of conditions abroad will be more effectively countered.
The fact that the proposals, which were contained in the economic programme and which, whatever views might be held about their adequacy, were vigorously and consistently carried out by the Government, gave in many directions results greater than we attempted to forecast is an assurance that advanced planning of that kind involving the estimating of national development possibilities and forecasting measures to exploit them in a comprehensive way, is the proper course. Whatever arguments may be taking place in other neighbouring countries about the feasibility or desirability of advanced planning of the kind which we attempted it is essential in our circumstances.
The five years to which the programme of economic expansion relates will end in 1963. We have decided that it is not too soon to start preparing now the national economic development programme for the next ensuing five-year period. Some weeks ago the Government decided to put that work in hand. A start has been made in collecting the data, making the necessary estimates and analyses, and all that material will be available for the Government at the end of this year or early next year. If it should be my responsibility I shall aim to produce that second stage of our economic development programme by the beginning of 1963.
It may relevantly be asked what impact the prospects of Irish membership of the European Community may have on that decision. When we were preparing the first programme for economic expansion published at the end of 1958 we had to take into account the plan for a European Free Trade Area which was then being actively negotiated even though we were not aware of the final form that it might take. It is, of course, certain that the course of events in the European Economic Community will have a very direct bearing upon the character of future development plans applicable to this country as will also the work which is now being done in planning the adaptation of Irish industry and agriculture to the circumstances of our prospective European Economic Community membership. The outcome of all that work will have to be taken into account. That work cannot, of course, be delayed but its results, the particular policies devised as a result of that work for particular industries, must be incorporated in the second stage of the general development programme.
Our concern, as I have emphasised, must be with the future, the future in which both our opportunities and our problems will be very big. If I have to contrast the circumstances of 1961 with those of the period when we came into office, the year 1956, I would contend that by every test the country is better off, that production, exports and employment are rising whereas in 1956 they were falling. I am not making a great deal of that claim.
You cannot.
If the country was not a good deal better off now than it was in 1956 we would be in a very bad way indeed. The main thing is that progress has started. The important objective must be to ensure it will continue. It is not merely that the country as a whole is better off in terms of real national income. The important thing is that the increases in the national income which were brought about in the past two years were the highest yet achieved.
I think the effect is already to be seen in the countryside. Even the modest increase in national income already achieved has had the result that the country, over the main part, looks to be better off. That gives us a foretaste of the future—a foretaste of what conditions may be like when we achieve our purpose of doubling the national income, which we have now shown to be eminently feasible within quite a reasonable time.
We have now no exceptional problem in regard to our international payments. The widening of the visible trade gap which emerged during the first five months of the year was largely rectified during the month of June. No serious deficit in international payments is anticipated in this year. As the Minister for Finance stated earlier today, there is no situation here which would require consideration by us of measures similar to those recently taken by the British Government. Indeed, we can hope that we may be able to continue to move in the opposite direction, as we have been doing.
Both emigration and unemployment are a great deal lower than they were five years ago. While we have to do, and must try to do, a great deal better than we have done, we have the satisfaction of knowing that we are moving in the right direction. Industrial production and employment are reaching new records in every quarter. We can now feel confident that they will continue to expand. The strong feeling of confidence which permeates our industrial circles is illustrated by their confident and constructive reaction to the prospects of our membership of the European Common Market.
In all directions in which national progress is desired—in education, housing, health, afforestation, telephones, transport, social welfare arrangements, water supplies and sanitation—progress has been continuously accelerated. The comprehensive plans for future development now being applied could not have been contemplated four or five years ago because we could not then have afforded to implement them. The possibility of embarking on these plans now is the fruit of the progress already achieved. I emphasise again that nothing is settled permanently and nothing is secure. Nothing ever is. The price of progress is continuous effort. That will be true no matter what the international situation in which we have to seek it.
If we have now to face the problem of adjusting our economy and adapting our economic expansion effort to a new international trade situation, we can, I think, find some consolation in the fact that the nation is better able to face it now than ever it was previously. I think that is true, not only by reference to the increased strength of the national economic organisation but also by reference to the more confident mood of the people and to their growing belief in their own capabilities. Our farming, industrial and trade union leaders have measured themselves with their opposite numbers in neighbouring countries and have not been discouraged by the experience.
The work of planning the reorganisation and perhaps, the re-equipment and re-adaptation of Irish industry so as to ensure its continued growth in the new circumstances is in hands, as I have said. Although, even on the worst assumptions as to the terms of our membership of the European Community, there are several years available before the full impact of European free trade will be experienced in our industrial sector, the work is being pursued vigorously, even enthusiastically. But both vigour and enthusiasm are required because there is no question about the magnitude, the difficulty and the importance of that work.
In agriculture, for which the prospect is a managed market rather than freedom of trade, problems of a somewhat different character will present themselves. But there also changes are to be anticipated with which we will be very greatly concerned as a community and in which our National Farmers' Association and other farming organisations will have an important role to fill. Given general understanding of the inevitability of the changes with which we are faced and of the necessity for adapting ourselves to deal with them—there is, as Deputies realise, no hole into which we can run to shelter ourselves from them —I personally have little doubt about the capacity of the country to organise itself in time to reap the long-term benefits of participating in an expanding and prosperous integrated European community and to cope with the transitional difficulties with which we will certainly have to contend.
Deputy Dillon indicated yesterday that he was interested in the political implications of the Rome Treaty, although I must say I thought he was rather coy about expressing his own views in that connection. The obligations which we would accept by our accession to the Rome Treaty are those which are set out in the Treaty. Nobody —I repeat, nobody—has been given authority, so far as I know, to define these obligations other than as they are set out in the Treaty. Certainly, I do not claim any special competence or knowledge in regard to them.
The Taoiseach is getting a bit coy himself now.
I shall leave the Deputy clear as to my views regarding them before I am finished. We have noted the trend of the opinions expressed in the many speeches which have been delivered by European leaders in recent months. But the personal character of these speeches and the views expressed in them should not be misunderstood. We know, of course, that the founders of the Treaty, with every evidence of growing enthusiasm, regard the economic integration of Western Europe, for which the Treaty provides, as just a milestone on a road which leads to wider objectives.
Indeed, we are under notice since the communiqué issued as a result of the recent meeting of the Heads of Government of the countries of the Community that they visualise that the next milestone on the road will be the negotiation of a convention for political unity. When the drafting of that convention may be concluded, what may be its form, or what obligations it may impose upon those who subscribe to it, we do not yet know.
As a country which has applied for membership of the European Economic Community we will have the opportunity of participating in the discussions preliminary to the drafting of the new convention. We can, as we understand it, do so without commitment. I do not think that we, as a nation, should be deterred from entering the road to economic unity through the Rome Treaty by reason of our knowledge that the road does not necessarily end at that point. If, and when, a convention aiming at political union of the countries of Western Europe, a convention which is acceptable to all the other countries of Western Europe, is presented to us for our consideration and our decision we will then have a very similar question to ask ourselves as that which the Rome Treaty, the Treaty that provides for economic integration, presents to us now.
We have decided that, if all the other countries of western Europe with which we trade are going to join together in an economic union, it would be suicidal for us to remain isolated outside it. That decision, I think, was taken with the agreement of the vast majority of our people, certainly with the agreement of all the articulate elements amongst them. If all these countries join at some future time in an agreement for a political confederation, or some other form of political union, will it be possible for us to decide to stand apart from it? We do not have to answer that question now but some day, be it sooner or later, we will be faced with it.
The immediate political implications of our accession to the Rome Treaty are those which are inextricably involved in the very concept of an economic union, and without which an economic union would not, in fact, be workable. They mean that to the limits required by the Treaty, and the decisions taken in accord with it by its institutions, members give up the right to independent action in regard to their external trade. It means that they accept the jurisdiction of the European institutions set up by the Treaty and accept also the principle of acting in concert with the other countries in the community in determining their economic relations with the rest of the world. That conformity of economic policy will be expressed in a common external tariff and a common commercial policy. It does not mean that we give up our right to fight vigorously for our interests. It does not mean that we cannot pursue the economic aims we have set ourselves in the internal management of our State. It is true that we will have lost the weapon of protection as an instrument of industrial development.
Deputies will, I am sure, have noted the concern expressed in Britain by some people there who may not yet fully appreciate the changes which are taking place in the world about this aspect of the Treaty, this inevitable sharing of sovereignty which accession to the Treaty involves. Whatever difficulties that idea of sharing sovereignty with other nations in the economic sphere may cause for the great Powers, for the countries which were in the past the centres of great empires, countries which were accustomed to having their own way in the world, to having to accept no law but their own interest, no similar difficulties arise for the smaller countries like ourselves. Indeed, if this participation in an economic union will promote our economic and social progress we have everything to gain and little to lose by it.
We could rightfully regard it as an extension of our freedom rather than the reverse. In the past we have had the experience, often the bitter experience, of the difficulties which our lack of economic bargaining power caused for us in seeking satisfactory trade agreements with our European neighbours. The prospect that henceforth our trading relations with them will be regulated in accord with non-discriminatory rules drawn up under an international agreement is not a development which, in my view, need cause us concern because of its political implications. Every international agreement of any kind in which we participate, whether it be multilateral or bilateral, involves us in giving up some freedom of action in respect of the matters to which the agreement relates.
It is, therefore, in essence merely a question of degree. Our only anxiety —it is an anxiety we are entitled to feel and to express—arising out of this decision of ours to seek membership of the European Economic Community is the extent to which it will, in fact, help us to stimulate economic growth and social progress in this country. It is the economic and not the political aspects of the Rome Treaty which should be our primary concern.
If we can feel confident, when the conditions of our accession are known to us, that it will have that result, the result of assisting and stimulating our economic development, then the Government will not be prevented from proposing acceptance of the Rome Treaty by reason of the political implications arising from it. On the contrary, these wider implications are our assurance that there will be a common desire and a common will within the European Community to promote the economic development and progress of all the participating countries so that the political aims which the founders of the Treaty have set themselves will be supported and justified by widely shared economic benefits and so that the new unity of Europe at which they are aiming will be strengthened by that fact. No sound concept of European unity can be based on a plan which would merely make the rich nations richer. The statesmen who lead Europe will realise the truth of that contention and I am convinced that we may be assured of that support and goodwill by reason of their wider aims and purposes, in meeting the special problems of the peripheral countries like ours.
I have stressed that, in my view, the main task which will face the Dáil and the Government during the next five years or so will be that of adapting the Irish economy to this new situation arising from the emergence of the European Economic Community. There are other important directions in which, as a part of our over-all national effort, it seems to me, a fairly fundamental reassessment of aims and policies is also needed and in regard to which there are important decisions required which the next Dáil must be prepared to face. I shall not refer to all the matters which I have in mind but merely to those which have been recently getting particular attention from the Government.
The first matter is that of increasing the productivity and the earning power of the family farm. The family farm is described in the documentation of the European Economic Community as a holding which requires the wholetime services of, say, two people and which can give them a reasonable livelihood. This problem of the family farm is worldwide. It is not something that is peculiar to this country. It is one to which a great deal of thought has been given throughout the world and indeed occupied a very large part of the recent Papal Encyclical Mater et Magistra.
As the House knows, we have set up a committee to examine in a preliminary way ideas regarding that problem which have been ventilated by various bodies. We cannot expect that committee, and we must not expect it, to give us a once-for-all solution of the problem. Probably there is no such thing as a once-for-all solution because any policy for family farms must be capable of continuous adaptation to continuously changing circumstances, particularly in the context of our membership of the European Economic Community.
The second matter to which I should like to make brief reference is that of recasting our system of local authority financing. Again the House is aware that an inquiry is in progress. That inquiry is directed to securing certain basic information which is necessary for policy making but the decisions which have to be taken upon the basis of that information will be essentially political in their character; I mean political in the widest and best sense of that term.
Most of us will agree that we should aim at having uniform standards for the public services in all parts of the country and that we should try to get that on some basis which would give us also an equality of the burden of paying for the services. We have not at present got either uniformity of standards or equality of burdens and that is a main part of the problem. We need also, because of recent experience, to make sure that the rising costs of these public services will not act as an impediment to economic development in any part of the country. We know, of course—and I am sure that this is now generally realised—that we cannot have these services at any standard much less the standard that we desire, without paying for them. How best to pay for them so as to impose the least impediment upon the country's development is the main question.
We must push ahead as rapidly as our national resources permit with the revision and the extension of our facilities for higher education and for higher technological and technical training. Apart from the wider aspects of that problem there are already signs that national progress in some directions is being delayed by a scarcity of certain skills. It is, therefore, also desirable, indeed urgently necessary, that we should achieve an extension and an improvement of our apprenticeship system. That is something to which the very competent and, I might say, dedicated members of the newly constituted Ceard Comhairle are giving attention. I should hope also that in the lifetime of the next Dáil it will be possible to complete the task of law reform which we have now begun and that before the end of the life of that Dáil the whole of the statute law of this country will be based upon enactments of the Oireachtas with no carry-over from British statutes of any kind.
Más maith is mithid.
I hope it will be possible for us to publish a White Paper in that regard in the course of the next few weeks. I should like also to re-assert my personal belief that the only important objective of economic policy and economic endeavour is social progress. Economic policy must always be directed towards serving social needs. We have applied the policy of extending our social welfare services as our national resources were expanded through the operation of economic policy.
There is no problem so far as we are concerned in accepting the injunction in the recent Papal Encyclical to which I have already referred, that social progress must proceed at the same pace as economic development.
It would perhaps be wrong and inappropriate for me to omit dealing in this summary of the national situation with the outstanding problem of partition, the problem of reuniting the Irish people. I do not propose to review in any way the trend of events in that respect although it is, I believe, desirable to restate and by restating to promote understanding of the basic problem as we see it.
The excuse for partition was the existence of deep-rooted divisions within the nation. The origin of these divisions may have been artificial and they may have been fostered and aggravated over long periods of our history, but to deny their existence is to ignore realities. The aim of any constructive national policy must be to end these divisions and to restore among our people the desire for unity. When the suspicions and prejudices which have been bred of these divisions have been eliminated the advantages of unity will become clearer.
It is not likely to be speedily or easily done and it would be wrong for us to hold out the prospect of a speedy or easy solution of that situation. I hope that I as Taoiseach have done nothing or said nothing which could have the effect of deepening or prolonging these divisions. Indeed I trust that I have contributed something to the better understanding everywhere of our national attitude towards that situation. In the context of membership of the European Economic Community, any economic argument for partition will disappear; north and south will have exactly the same problems and exactly the same opportunities within the wide European market. A united approach to these problems and opportunities would be far more effective and it is in my view the only course that makes sense.
I am convinced personally that these and other realities will soon be more widely appreciated and that the force of circumstances and common sense will compel a re-examination of personal attitudes to all the circumstances which have been keeping the nation divided and that is the only type of coercion—the coercion of common sense—which is relevant to the situation. Meanwhile, the path we have been following seems still to be the most likely to lead to the result we all desire.
In that connection I think that I should inform the Dáil that following on the announcement of the Government's willingness to consider a free trade agreement for six county products, the Minister for Industry and Commerce has had approaches from representatives of groups of six county firms engaged in the manufacturing of a number of products, approaches with a view to discussing the possibility of operating an arrangement of that character in respect of their particular products, the products in which these groups are interested. These approaches have been discussed with the appropriate manufacturers' associations operating in this part of the country. These organisations of manufacturers indicated their interest subject to it being found possible to work out arrangements to ensure that certain conditions of competition related to materials used in manufacturing would be equalised and that the right of duty free access would be confined to bone fide six county products produced by established firms.
The Government would be favourably disposed to these possibilities if on further examination they proved to be practicable. We would regard it as a very useful exercise in anticipation of membership of the European Economic Community. Arrangements have been made for a meeting between the manufacturers concerned from both sides of the border to discuss the matter and these will be held in or before September.
I have said already that I am not making the routine type of review of the economic out-turn of the past year such as might normally be undertaken on the occasion of the Taoiseach's estimate. Neither am I attempting to outline a comprehensive programme for the next year. Constitutional procedures may limit the Dáil to five year terms but events do not compose themselves into compact five year lots, and neither does the work of the Government. The world is not standing still and Ireland has not been standing still either. The future is always to some extent—to a large extent—unpredictable and events rarely turn out as anticipated, even the results of elections. When trying to look ahead, on the presumption of the continuation of world peace as I have said, we can note the vast strides in technology which are opening up great new possibilities for mankind, giving new powers of controlling the forces of nature for human betterment. We can note also the prospect of important political changes such as those making for Western European integration which are in a sense born of these technological developments, as well as the desire to escape from the old rivalries in Europe which twice in our lifetime have plunged the world into war. Our national policy must conform to this changing situation. We could not isolate ourselves from world events even if we would wish to do so.
We see Ireland acquiring and using the new techniques, striving to keep abreast of the world in all respects, participating wholeheartedly in the historic developments which are now taking place, setting ourselves new targets of achievement as we expand our resources and our knowledge of how to use them, a dynamic modern state dedicated to progress but preserving also the unchangeable values which must guide all worthwhile activities, hoping indeed, to demonstrate in a practical way in this country the applicability of these values to any modern society and their complete consistency with the urge for economic and social progress. During my period of office as Taoiseach I have tried to keep the public informed of events and Government thinking about them, tried to publicise as widely as possible the plans and the policies that we were applying, and the circumstances that gave birth to those plans and policies, and sought to accomplish our national aim by a general public participation based upon understanding and acceptance of these plans and policies in all the business of the nation. I can testify as to the effectiveness of that course. I believe that the public know what we are trying to do, and how and why. That is the first requirement of a genuine national policy in the fullest sense of that term. I recommend the same policy to my successor, whoever he may be and whenever he may emerge.
Your successor is now going to speak.
The word is "whenever".
I gladly seize on an occasion of agreement between myself and the Taoiseach on which to introduce the remarks that it may be my duty to make this evening, as some of them may be stringent and many of them may cause him distress. But, his reference to partition I thought a prudent one and I think there would be little difference in this House on the sentiments he expressed.
Certain it is that we cannot serve Ireland by shedding one another's blood in the name of national unity. It was never true and it is not true now that bloodshed could seal the unity of Ireland. Certain it is that it is well that we should all recognise in one another members of the same family. Certain it is that we should not recoil from deep differences within that family. Certain I like to think it is and certain indeed I believe it to be that partition will go in due time. Certain it is that we shall never forget it so long as it is there. Certain it is that the majority of the Irish people will never accept it so long as it is there. Certain it is that it can be best resolved by a mutual desire on both sides of the Border to end it and that it is on that basis and only on that basis that an enduring and satisfactory end of this detestable problem can be found.
I know of no man in the public life of any country who is the equal, not to say the superior, of the Taoiseach in this House at turning corners, breasting waves and conquering peaks. He is always just going to find Utopia around the corner, given time. Today, he hopes that the electors, enlightened by us, may give an indication of the national will. He urges us to remember that the past is now overshadowed by the capacious umbrella of the Common Market. Leadership, innovation and plans flow from him in abundant flood. Plans, he says, which he vigorously advocated in the past, are now outdated. Here is one of them yellowing in my folder. I shall refer to it later. This is a time, he says, for new ideas. He is excited and stimulated. The nation cannot afford woolly thinking or incorrect estimations of the probable future. This, from the man who was telling us two years ago that no enquiry into the Common Market was necessary for he had attended a meeting of the European Free Trade Association and that for Ireland the battle was won.
Where is the battle now? We are all floating about wondering what is going to happen to us in the Common Market and the battle we won in the European Free Trade Association is part of the past now overshadowed and to be forgotten. Blah, blah, blah.
Brave words should be matched with brave deeds. We get enough brave words from the Taoiseach. He dearly likes to denigrate the achievements of the past and to dazzle us with the hopes of things to come. Has he forgotten that in the ten years prior to 1957 this country achieved the prodigy of doubling the volume of its exports and trebling their value? Has he forgotten that in 1955 the greatest number of people ever employed in this country were at work? Has he forgotten that, for the first time in a century, in the census of 1951 the population of this country turned upward? Are these things he would have us forget or does he ask us to forget them because they were brave deeds unheralded by brave words? They were the deeds of administrations that had a fault that they did too much and talked too little but, from the nation's point of view, it was a good fault and it is a fault that I am proud to plead guilty to on behalf of all my colleagues in the inter-Party Government.
I find it hard to be patient when the present Taoiseach tells me that he has suddenly discovered the family farm. Mater et Magistra has brought it to his mind. What is his reaction to this revelation that has flashed across his mind? He set up a committee. Can you imagine in this country where half our people live and depend for their existence on the family farm being told by the Prime Minister of Ireland that he has suddenly awoken to the urgency of their problem and his reaction is to set up a committee? He has discovered that the rates are getting too heavy. Somebody has stirred his slumbers and whispered in his ear this revelation and he has sprung into action; he set up a committee.
Somebody has told him—I almost begin to wonder can he have been present in disguise at the Fine Gael Árd Fheis—that educational facilities in this country are falling behind. He thanks God he has already had the foresight to set up a Commission to solve this problem which he never discovered before. He pledges himself in eloquent terms that if re-elected Taoiseach he will commit himself to a programme of law reform on which he boasts Fianna Fáil are now launched.
I do not want to dwell upon the instrument of law reform with which we have been engaged in this House during the past three days. I can reduce it to two draft Bills left to him and a page of another man's book. Does he think we are all fools to be defrauded? The electorate he trusts, in his pious introductory observations, enlightened by Fianna Fáil, will give an indication of the national will. I remember the last time the Taoiseach went on his mission of enlightenment.
It took the form of planning. We heard many plans adumbrated today. That is not the first plan we heard from the Taoiseach. I do not blame him for telling us that in the new situation the past is to be forgotten and our eyes riveted upon the future so that we may brood upon the plans, the aspirations, the hopes of Fianna Fáil. He was planning, aspiring and hoping on October 12th, 1955, and his plan then envisaged the provision of 100,000 new jobs, all beautifully set out in a supplement to the Irish Press which might be extracted from the current number, framed and hung upon the wall with a pleasing picture of the Taoiseach in the midst of his adherents, one of whom I shortly afterwards promoted in the public service though he is seated in the front row of that picture—evidence of the fact that in the inter-Party Government political affiliations did not affect promotions.
That plan extended to four sides of the supplement, omitting the photographs but including those classic words: "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." I do not particularly reprehend the Fianna Fáil politicians for breaking these election promises, but I must register a formal protest against the further step of, having broken the promises, denying they ever made them.
That is a technique which I confess somewhat confounds me, but it is my duty when I am told to forget the past and put my mind on the plans, dreams and aspirations of the Taoiseach, to call to mind, while dwelling on the hopes, dreams and aspirations, that inspired speech by the Minister for Defence, still wet behind the ears and new in his Ministerial responsibility, reported at column 1284 of Volume 168 of the Official Report:
We were put in here as a Government to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation of mass unemployment and mass emigration brought about by the previous Government.
Four years after those noble words were spoken 200,000 of our people, almost all between the ages of 18 and 25, have left this country to earn their daily bread and Fianna Fáil has the barefaced audacity today to point to the tale of unemployment and say that figure has declined since they came into office.
I readily concede that, but when, in the world crisis with which we were grappling in 1956, the figures of the unemployed rose here in Ireland, we, at least, had the satisfaction that they were still all at home and that we could deploy our resources to get them back into employment. We did not send them abroad—boys and girls—to get their living however they could on the streets of London, Birmingham and Manchester and I marvel that some Ministers of this Government do not lie awake at night asking themselves how they can boast at the number of unemployed in the knowledge of where they sent them.
Now that they are gone, we do not think they have been taken off the conscience of the Government of Ireland—now employed by strangers in whatever posts strangers were prepared to give them rather than being a charge upon our solicitude until such times as our resources were capable of employing them at home here in Ireland. We do not deny there were economic difficulties in 1956. Neither do we deny that the economic difficulties were firmly grasped. A situation of mass unemployment would have arisen which would have forced these boys and girls to go away, and rather than contemplate these possibilities we grasped the situation to such good effect that, despite all the problems confronting us, we turned an adverse balance of payments into a credit balance of payments in 1957—for the first time, I think, since the State was founded, with the exception of the years during the war when imports were low, of necessity.
And 100,000 people unemployed.
We did not go out to buy their votes with falsehood and, having bought their votes with falsehood, we did not throw them on boats like cattle to be shipped to the four corners of the earth.
Was there no emigration in 1956? It was the record year.
Two hundred thousand are gone and I do not blame the Taoiseach if he interrupts me. I told him he might find some small crumb of agreement to record between us so that subsequently we might discuss the grisly facts of four years of Fianna Fáil Government. It is not part of my duty to get up to please Fianna Fáil.
I note that Fianna Fáil have awoken to the existence of the family farm. I have never forgotten it and we on these benches have never forgotten it. We have known that the agricultural industry in this country employs more than half of the people at work in this country and that on the farms of Ireland more than half of our population live. We have always believed and still believe that the economic foundations of this country are the 12 million acres of arable land with which God endowed our people and that unless that land is made to prosper and the people who live on it, this country cannot survive.
In the last four years, since Fianna Fáil took office, the agricultural industry has been going steadily downwards and the evidence of that is to be found not only in statistics but also in the grim spectacle all over rural Ireland of the family farms, of the existence of which the Taoiseach has just spoken, being closed down and the families that lived upon them driven out of this country for the first time, certainly in my experience, and I believe for the first time since the Famine. I say that deliberately. I do not deny that in the '60's, the '80's, and in parts of this century, there was emigration from rural Ireland but never before, so far as I know, in our recorded history have we seen locks put upon the doors of the people by the people and the families banished from the land.
There are people on this side of the House who recall personally or vicariously the closing of houses but by an alien hand. There are few of us here on either side of the House who have not heard from our fathers of the battering ram. The battering ram had at least this to commend it: when the family was swept away there was no memorial left behind. They were blotted out and their home went with them because the landlords of that day had neither the heart nor the courage to leave standing as a perennial reminder of what they had done the homes of the people they had banished. But there is not a barony in Western Ireland today where you will not find more than one vacant house with padlocks on the doors. Come to Monaghan, Cavan or Donegal, almost to any county in Ireland and is there a Deputy who does not know, in his personal experience, of at least one home closed up with the family gone from the land? Did we ever think we would live to see that day and to be told on the morrow that the Taoiseach was greatly concerned for the small farmers of Ireland and had set up a committee?
Why are they going? If the Taoiseach does not know I shall tell him because they are my neighbours and the neighbours of every Deputy. They are going because they cannot live here any longer. They cannot buy their food and clothes to cover their children. If you do not know how that came about look at your own statistics. The proportion of the national income which the farmers now enjoy has fallen from 25% to 20%. That is so remote a figure that I shall attach no importance to it——
The Deputy is wise in that.
I reject it. Many statistics with which we are furnished have little relation to the lives of our people but here is a statistic which even so sophisticated a student of statistics as the Taoiseach is cannot back away from. The cash income of the farmers was £192,000,000 in 1957. It was £180,000,000 in 1958, £176,000,000 in 1959. In 1960, with the collapse of cattle prices and the accumulation of large stocks on the land, our people had to sell them for what they could get for them. Who amongst us does not know of the beast worth £40 sold for £20 and of the calf worth £20 sold for £5? They had to be sold to pay bills and rates. Even with that bargain sale off the land of Ireland, where in every individual transaction the man who sold was losing money, the income of the farmers was reckoned at £190,000,000. Over that same period this Government by their own positive action had increased the cost of living to the farmers by close on 15%. Every £1 they got in 1960 was worth 17s. 6d. in terms of 1957. They had to pay more for bread, butter, flour; they had to pay more for rates, for electricity, more for almost everything they had to buy. They had to pay more or try to pay it out of a smaller income.
The man in medium circumstances could lower his standard of living; the man in relatively affluent circumstances could lower his standard of living but the man living on the bare margin of comfort was faced with the alternative of accepting poverty in his own country or relative prosperity in England or abroad. It is those small farmers, whose existence the Taoiseach has just now discovered, who are forced to make that choice, some of them for their children only, some of them for themselves and their children. Children constitute the bulk of those who are gone but in that emigrant army there are countless Irish families as well and that is the reason they have been driven out—because their own Government made it economically impossible for them to stay at home. One hundred thousand new jobs! There are 51,000 fewer people working here today than on the day the Taoiseach's predecessor took office as a Fianna Fáil administration four years ago. But we are to forget the past and to think only of the new crop of promises that have been unveiled today for our edification.
I want to say a word on the Common Market. I am obliged to say this: when I recall the fraud, deceit and falsehood which the present Taoiseach employed to secure the majority by virtue of which he is now head of the Government, and hear him today, I cannot dispel from my mind the picture of a welshing bookie stealing away from those who took his word, sheltering under his umbrella in the hope that he will not be seen, an umbrella gaily embroidered with the words "The Common Market". Everything is to be forgotten because he is now under the abundant umbrella of the Common Market. We are all to think, to dream and to worry about that and to forget about any domestic problems because, if we even mention them, he twirls the umbrella of the Common Market. We are not to see the old performer until he has erected his stand and quoted his odds on a new race in a new racecourse.
We do not forget there were thousands of people who staked their money with the Taoiseach when he spoke in Clery's informing them that the dividend was to be jobs for all. They staked their money on Mr. Singer and he shipped their money God-knows-where. But the day they staked their hopes on Fianna Fáil, it was not their money was shipped but themselves. I do not think the people will readily forget that. I do not deny that it causes me concern lest that kind of conduct rubs off on to the rest of us. I sometimes rejoice if I am told that my approach to promises is not sufficiently dramatic. I confess to an incurable inclination to leaning backwards lest I should ever find myself in the same company as that the Taoiseach keeps.
I hate to hear it said by our own people of us, who are this generation of politicians, that which was never said in our father's day—that Irish politicians are rogues. There has been a dramatic change now. Whatever they might have said of them 50 years ago—and there were deep political cleavages amongst our people then— they never called them rogues.
The Deputy has a responsibility for that fact.
Give me the plan. What do you call the man who issued that as a supplement to the Irish Press? Was that honest? Do you blame people who have suffered as a result of that?
Who suffered? Every step outlined there is now being applied.
(Interruptions.)
I advise the Deputies opposite to read that.
Including the 100,000 new jobs?
That is Deputy Dillon's falsehood. I did not say that nor is it in that.
I want to read the words. I commit myself most expressly to reading them.
Read the whole sentence.
I shall, if the Taoiseach would like me to, although I blush to read it. The paragraph is headed in heavy print "100,000 new jobs after five years." That is the introduction. It says:
It will be noted that in the first year of the proposed——
No, start with the paragraph.
I am beginning half way up the column, it says:
It will be noted that in the first year of the proposed programme, it is contemplated that public investment outlay will be expanded by £13 million, raising national expenditure by £20 million and creating 20,000 new jobs. No contribution from the private sector is reckoned this year. In the second year, it is assumed——
"It is assumed."
——that the gross national expenditure is again increased by £20 million, bringing the total increase to £40 million with a corresponding effect on employment, and that this will result in £18 million increase in private capital outlay, plus £15 million of further public expenditure adding £22 million.
In the third year a further rise of gross expenditure by £20 million is assumed (making the cumulative increase £60 million) to which the additional private capital outlay of the previous year is reckoned to contribute £18 million and new private capital outlay a further £20 million, increased public expenditure being kept at £17 million.
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 being created.
Where is this promise the Deputy is talking about?
I do not mind a politician failing to perform what he hoped to do, but it is an entirely new departure in this or any other country, for a politician, having failed in his promise, to put his hand on his heart and say: "I never made it." Now listen, there was at one time a Taoiseach here who had the exquisite gift of being able to make what appeared to be a most positive statement on the 1st January, 1955, and when you quoted it against him on 1st January, 1956, he would look at you more in sorrow than in anger and say: "But where did you put the comma?" And, by jove, when you read it a second time and shifted the comma two words over, it meant exactly the opposite to what it meant the first time. That is a gift the present Taoiseach has not got. I do not attribute that Machiavellian skill to him. There was one great exponent of this Machiavellian technique here and the Taoiseach could never try to emulate him because he has not the subtlety. Here he protests his words did not mean what the simple sub-editor of the Irish Press understood them to mean— 100,000 new jobs after five years. He was deceived six years ago.
Leaving aside the unsophisticated sub-editor of the Irish Press, a lot of simple people who read that were also misled. The only man who understood the inner meaning of that proclamation was the man who spoke it, and see how circumspect he was that nobody would know the inner workings of his mind.
Would the Deputy not add the man who has just misread it?
I have read every syllable of it exactly as it is printed and I challenge contradiction on that. The reference is there and anyone can see it. It is the Irish Press Fianna Fáil Supplement of Wednesday, October 15th, 1955. But, as the Taoiseach passionately rejects all suggestions of dissimulation in his political activities, let me call to mind another complaint I formally make at the end of his period of office.
Deputy Lemass, as he then was, was campaigning in the general election of 1957. There was, apparently, a caucus meeting held on 27th February, which was attended by the then Taoiseach, by the then Deputy Lemass and by the then Deputy Traynor, now Minister for Justice. They all regarded it as desirable to go on record simultaneously, and as emphatically as discretion would allow, on the subject of food subsidies. Deputy Lemass betook himself to Waterford and he said:
Some Coalition leaders are threatening the country with all sorts of unpleasant things if Fianna Fáil becomes the Government—compulsory tillage, wage control, cuts in Civil Service salaries, higher food prices and a lot more besides. A Fianna Fáil Government does not intend to do any of these things because we do not believe in them. How definite can we make our denial of these stupid allegations? They are all falsehoods.
I wonder did he mean what that sounds like meaning?
What is the reference?
The Irish Press—God forgive me—of 1st March, 1957. But wait a minute. That is not all that was in the Irish Press on 1st March. Constitutional considerations forbid me to mention the source for this observation, but, when I quote it, the incomparable style will instantly reveal the author:
The Coalition Parties were urging the people not to vote for Fianna Fáil because there was hell around the Fianna Fáil corner. You know the record of Fianna Fáil in the past. You know we have never done the things they said we would do.
Listen to this—this is glorious:—
You know we have never done the things they said we would do. They told you that you may be paying more for your bread. They do not say that it was the result of a legacy in the shape of £62,000,000 deficit in our international payments and a Budget deficit of £15,000,000 that the price of bread was increased before. On that occasion we would have had to find the necessary £16,000,000. We did not cut them out because we did not want the price of bread, so important an article of diet for the poor, to be increased. We left on several millions as a subsidy for bread.
What do you think the people at Belmullet understood him to say on that occasion? They understood him to say that Fine Gael said that he was going to do things that he never did and that he hated the idea of increasing the price of bread but, by heaven, when you read it in 1961 he never said: "I will not increase the price of bread." But was there a living creature in Belmullet who did not understand him to say it? Could we convict him of that intention if we did not find his colleague, the less subtle Deputy Lemass, at the corner of the street in Waterford saying: "How definite can we make our denial of these stupid allegations? They are all falsehoods." Nothing Machiavellian about that.
Then poor Deputy Traynor was sent out to another venue, Doyle's Corner. That was where he landed, and he described as a blood-curdling story a warning given by Deputy Norton in his election broadcast that a Fianna Fáil Government would withdraw the food subsidies and Deputy Traynor said that Deputy Norton had switched to making sinister promises on behalf of Fianna Fáil. That is almost worthy of the classic performer himself.
Did not Deputy Norton make that reference to the food subsidies because he knew the Coalition Government had decided to cut them? Is that not why it was in the forefront of his mind?
Let me recall that after Deputy Lemass had asked: "How definite can we make our denial of these stupid allegations? They are all falsehoods", he increased the price of bread from 9d. to 1/3d.; he increased the price of butter from 3/9d. to 4/7d.; and he increased the price of flour from 4/3d. a stone to 8/3d. a stone; and he left the small farmers of Ireland with less to buy with than they had when he asserted his intention to keep the cost of living down.
Is the Deputy proposing to restore the subsidies? That is a straight and simple question.
I hope to God we can undo much of the damage Fianna Fáil have done. I cannot, and I will not undertake to, undo all the damage Fianna Fáil have done in the last four years. But this I undertake to do—to put the farmers of this country back in a position in which they can live on their own holdings and earn their own living in their own country.
I asked the Deputy a simple question.
I applaud Fianna Fáil's conversion to the fact that the rural community are entitled to a standard of living comparable to that of their urban brethren. That is a discovery the Taoiseach only made when he was addressing Macra na Feirme last Saturday night week. It is something we on this side of the House have held for many a long day. I am sure the Taoiseach is shocked, in view of his inspiring address and all the hopes and dreams he has in the new world of the Common Market, that I should have been so thoughtless as to claim the right on this last night when he appears here as Taoiseach to read his record and ask him to render an account of his stewardship.
I hope I will be here tomorrow night, too.
I hope he will be here tomorrow night, and in good health, and in another capacity six months hence. But this is the last opportunity I have of addressing him from my seat here while he occupies that seat over there.
Surely the Deputy is not despairing of Monaghan, is he?
Leave that to Deputy Childers.
He had to run out of Longford-Westmeath.
I make no speculation. This is the last occasion on which I believe I will occupy this seat. When we return hereafter our dispositions will be such as the electorate may determine. Let us leave it to them to decide.
I want to dwell a moment on the Common Market because it is time some reality was brought into this discussion. I am satisfied that, if Great Britain enters the Common Market, Ireland must enter too because we believe, as we have always believed, that the economies of these two countries are so closely integrated, the agricultural industry on which Ireland depends for its survival must have access to the British market. The first thing we did when we formed an inter-Party Government in this country was to send Ministers to London—not civil servants to Brussels—to negotiate a trade agreement to protect our place for the agricultural and industrial produce of this country in the British market. We believe exactly to-day what we believed 13 years ago. We make no apology for it and it does not represent any conversion on our part.
I confess that when I hear the Taoiseach talking now I sometimes wonder can it be he whose voice I hear. It is time we had a bit of reality in this business. There are three aspects of the Common Market Rome Treaty—agricultural, industrial and political. I am sorry to say I did not detect in the Taoiseach's surveys of this all-important matter the frankness that I think people ought to expect from him. He is fortified by the accumulated wisdom of a skilled Civil Service trained in the study of documents of this kind and in the current comment of the participants in the Rome Treaty and of those acting from the headquarters at Brussels. I am fortified with no such sources of information, but there are in my judgment certain outstanding aspects of this whole prospect which deserve to be put in correct perspective.
I remember very well the Dutch Minister for Agriculture coming to this country in 1949 and agitating that we should participate in the Green Pool. The Green Pool was in fact the agricultural provisions of the Rome Treaty of today. My advice to the then Government was that we had no interest whatever in the Green Pool because it represented a perfectly legitimate and comprehensible effort on the part of Holland, Belgium and Denmark to get into the British market on the same terms that we then enjoyed. My advice to the Government, as the Minister for Agriculture then, was that we had no interest whatever in promoting such an enterprise, that we had attained our position in the British market as a result of hard bargaining; if others could get it, good luck to them, but it was none of our business to shepherd them into the advantageous position we had secured for Ireland.
The plain fact about the Rome Treaty and the Common Market, stripped of the verbiage, speculation and hullabaloo, is that when this act is consummated by this country and Denmark, the net result will be that Denmark and Holland will be in the British market on the basis of equality with Ireland which they never were before. The consideration we get for that is twofold: (1) continued access to the British market, and (2) access on a very much more liberal basis than we heretofore enjoyed to the markets available in the Six—Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg.
Has anybody stopped to ask himself what the capacity of that market is? Has anyone stopped to ask himself what consideration we shall get under the Rome Treaty for finding Denmark, Holland and Belgium in our market on a footing of equality with us? We shall get access to the market of the Six which is today producing 100 per cent. of all the butter it consumes and which, I have seen it forecast in authoritative circles, could produce five times what they are capable of consuming. We shall get access to the market of the Six which is today producing 99 per cent. of all the pork and cheese it can consume. We shall have access to the market which is producing 94 per cent. of all the sugar it can consume. We shall have access to a market which is producing 92 per cent. of all the wheat it consumes and 91 per cent. of all the beef it consumes.
In exchange for that, we must face the fact that in that market there are the closest trading ties existing between the Six and Denmark, built up by ten centuries of trading, built up by an elaborate network of canals, railways and roads which link these countries up, into which we must force our way, bearing in mind that when they want to send certain industrial or agricultural produce to any part of it, all they need is to stop a train and hitch a wagon to it while we must charter a ship. Anyone who has had the experience I have had of chartering ships to send Irish agricultural produce to the Continent of Europe will know what that means.
Or to bring foreign grain bought with borrowed money into Ireland. The Deputy boasted about chartering ships to do that in 1949.
The Tánaiste is a silly little man.
No. He has a good memory.
The Tánaiste knows that every dollar spent by the inter-Party Government was spent providently in the procurement of the raw materials which were used to double and treble the value of exports from this country.
To drown the British with eggs they would not buy.
The figures are inescapable. I did not interrupt the Taoiseach when he was speaking. We must remember that in this new situation we are faced with a harsh degree of competition in markets where we were accustomed to trade on most advantageous terms. I do not want to appear unduly pessimistic but it is wrong to conceal from the people the facts of the situation. I am certain that with the advantages we have built up for ourselves by centuries of trading with Great Britain we can still hold our own and more than hold our own in the British market if we are prepared to do what needs to be done, to build up the efficiency of our agricultural production and the methods of marketing this produce.
We provided in our day the Agricultural Institute to make available the know-how and the scientific knowledge requisite to get from the land of Ireland the return it is capable of producing. Unless that is brought to the farmers of this country by effective advisory services, and brought with the utmost urgency as to the technical methods of production, farm lay-out and marketing systems we shall be left behind, with catastrophic results not only for the agricultural community but for the whole economy of Ireland.
It is because I know that so certainly that I hope and pray that in the impending general election Fianna Fáil may be defeated and swept out of office so that we can have an administration which does not claim to have woken up to the idea of the family farm until last week and reacted to that discovery by setting up a committee. I am not afraid of the future in regard to agriculture because, despite all Fianna Fáil could do to agriculture, its foundations are firmly laid and in the 10 years between 1947 and 1957 great progress was made. Land was rehabilitated. There was an increase in the output of lime and fertilisers. There was an expansion of agricultural education and agricultural research. We have the land; we have the men and we have the techniques if we but use them, and we have the certainty that in the future with the expanding population of the world in countries far away the dominant need is to produce protein foodstuffs. If there is a country on God's earth better fitted than any other to produce protein footstuffs, milk, meat and fish, then it is Ireland. Our people can do that if given the chance.
However, there is another aspect of our economy, that is, the industrial aspect, and that causes any rational man concern. It is foolish to exaggerate the difficulties and perils that lie ahead because a country of our circumstances within the context of the Rome Treaty must have a protracted period in which to adjust its industrial practice to the obligations of the new arrangements. The fact remains that there are in existence in this country today industries built up under the Fianna Fáil system of tariffs and quotas which are not viable in a free trading world. And the worst of it is that it is in these particular industries that we find most of the men who have spent the best years of their working lives acquiring the special skills those industries require. The man who has invested his capital may suffer loss but the man who has invested his lifetime in a factory of that kind may find himself in middle age without his livelihood. It is our concern that he will not be told that we cannot have omelettes without breaking eggs and that he happens to be the egg.
Some people may say I have not referred to the political consequences of this Treaty. The Taoiseach was dismayed at my reluctance to deal with that aspect of the problem in detail and specifically. I waited for enlightenment from him, well fortified with all the resources of the Civil Service. I got very little light from him. One thing is certain. Certain legislative matters, which normally we would tend to look upon as the exclusive prerogative of Oireachtas Éireann, will no longer belong exclusively to the Dáil and Seanad in future. In signing this Treaty we authorise the authorities in Brussels to tell us in respect of certain matters what Oireachtas Éireann may and may not do. We limit our discretion in a variety of matters relating to social services, employment, practices relating to certain measures which we have heretofore employed to stimulate employment. That is part of the price we pay in accepting the Treaty and some people will fairly ask: "If you have all these apprehensions, why do you still say that if England joins the Common Market, Ireland must join it too"?
I believe agriculture constitutes the economic foundation of Ireland and if you read the Rome Treaty and look at List F, you are there faced with the fact that if England joins the Common Market and Ireland does not, one of the obligations England undertakes under that Treaty is to raise against Ireland a tariff of 16 per cent. on cattle, 16 per cent. on pigs, 20 per cent. on beef, 20 per cent. on pork and bacon, 18 per cent. on fowl, 10 per cent. on all varieties of fish, 16 per cent. on trout and salmon, 24 per cent. on butter, and 80 per cent. on beet sugar, if we have any to send abroad. That is a tariff barrier between this country and the British market that this country could not survive and vice versa. I do not see how it is possible to contemplate, if Britain does not enter the Common Market, how we can enter it without them. But if we do we accept the responsibility to raise those tariff barriers against her and, if we do, we can hardly complain if she should raise them against us in retaliation.
I foresee that we must enter and we will enter if England does the same. I foresee that in negotiating the protocol which will govern our membership of that Treaty Group there will be long, arduous and difficult negotiations to carry on. I would like to recall that whenever the members of the Party to which I belong were charged with the responsibility for negotiating for international trade on behalf of this country, they brought back good benefits to the Irish people. I am bound to recall that all Fianna Fáil brought back was the Economic War. Subsequently, in 1958, they went and came back with one hand as long as the other.
And £16 a ton levy on the sugar. Do not forget that part of it.
You never wanted to sell anything to England—rats you wanted to send them.
I want this country to be prosperous. I believe it can be. I want this country to be free and confident in its democratic institutions. I I believe it can be if we, the politicians of Ireland, keep faith with the people. I want to see in Ireland the name of politician have the same noble connotation that it had when I was young. I am proud to be a politician; I am proud because I claim that the people who elected me could never charge me with having lied. I do not believe the people will continue to suffer the politicians to lead this nation much longer if we promise them 82/6d. for wheat and give them 72/-, less a levy of 3/6d. I do not believe politicians will long be suffered to lead the people of this country if we promise them 48/- for barley and give them 37/-.
And a 1/- a gallon.
I do not believe that politicians will be long suffered in this country if our people are persuaded——
Do not forget the——
Perhaps Deputy Corry will allow Deputy Dillon to make his speech.
Perhaps I am provoking him by recalling the speeches he made four years ago. To his credit he came into this House and clamoured that his promises should be redeemed. The only fault I find with him was that when he was spurned and told not to be a fool, he trotted into the Lobby after them like a docile lamb. I think Deputy Corry thought he could promise, but being an innocent simple creature he was led up the garden path like the simplest creature in East Cork. I think he kicked energetically when he found himself in the bag and all the consolation he got was to hear the string tied on to it and he was thrown down into the corner like a sack of potatoes.
Deputy Corry may stand for that but the people will not stand for that. The people have a remedy in their hands and the remedy is to determine that they will get rid of the Batistas of this nation. Let us learn a lesson from the example we had before our eyes. It was because the people of Cuba did not insist, as our people will insist, on honesty in politicians that they got Bastista and it was as a result of getting Batista that Castro came upon them. And out of Castro they have got Krushchev and it is only now they discover that having suffered Batista they have degenerated into the condition when they cannot get freedom back. Our people, thank God, will not suffer that, but it would be a tragedy indeed if our generation of politicians, a profession of which I am proud to belong, should so sicken of democratic and free institutions as to make them turn away to some other system suitable for less mature peoples. We have a great tradition in Ireland, one we have every right to be proud of.
I want to see a programme in this country designed to restore the profitability of the agricultural industry. I want to see a system of education established which will progress steadily to the point where all those capable of benefiting from higher education will get it whether they are born in families of the rich or the poor. I want to see a social system obtaining in this country with special reference to health which would provide those who are sick with the means to get well.
I am very conscious of the fact that it is not within the power of Government to assuage all human ills but there are certain spheres of activity in which the Government can do much. First and foremost amongst them is to keep faith, preserve liberty and to build up the nation for all the people. That is the aim and objective of this Party.
It was my duty as Leader of the Opposition in this House tonight to call in review the record of the Fianna Fáil administration. I think it is a shameful record of dishonesty, fraud and unscrupulous betrayal of the people who trusted them. I have no faith in the capacity of this Government to protect the vital interests of this country in what I admit to be a new and difficult situation from which we cannot escape in the emergence of the Common Market and its manifest prospect of absorbing all Europe in its organisation. I believe that Ireland, perhaps, has a destiny in that new Europe, both political and economic, and that is, to save the new Europe from itself. The greatest danger of the Common Market concept is that instead of being outward looking it will become an inward looking organisation. There is no safety in the Common Market alone. There is no safety for a revitalised Europe unless it is in intimate and close association with the United States of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the free world.
If West Berlin is today an offence to the Cominform which it is restless to destroy, what will a united Europe in prosperity be to the same potential foe tomorrow if the highest hopes of the Rome Treaty are realised in our time? How long would West Berlin survive in freedom but for the presence of the United States of America there today? Withdraw the United States of America from West Berlin and leave the French, the British, the Italians, the West Germans there and how long would West Berlin be free? It is the physical presence of the United States of America that stands as the guarantee of West Berlin's freedom today and of Western Europe's tomorrow.
We are geographically located and spiritually oriented to bring the new world and the old together in a sure citadel for freedom strong enough and safe enough to face whatever peril the Cominform can bring against us. The very establishment of such strength and resources in good time is the surest guarantee that the world will be spared annihilation by war. If there is to be a war, we will perish. Better perish free men than live on as Soviet slaves but, best of all, to live on free men and redeem the world from servitude by our example, by the employment of our resources and by our common loyalty to a great ideal. All this can be served if Ireland is the inspiration of a greater and a wider combination than the Treaty of Rome ever envisaged, a combination of free men everywhere to help one another not only with their arms but with their goods and with their hearts as well.
It has well been said by the Taoiseach and by Deputy Dillon that the Dáil is being adjourned and probably will be dissolved very shortly in a very critical period of Irish history. Indeed, it certainly is the most critical period of our time. It seems we are on the threshold of an event which the Taoiseach says overshadows the past. I believe that if it did overshadow some of the events in the last 40 years it would have done a great service to the country.
There is tremendous significance in our application, as announced by the Taoiseach yesterday, for membership of the Common Market. I do not pretend to be an expert on the Common Market and its implications nor do I pretend to be a prophet as to what may happen, nor, indeed, do I pretend to foretell the effect of Ireland's or Britain's entry into the Common Market or what that may mean towards the advancement of greater peace in the world. I must confess that, while we all have an interest in the peace of the world, my main concern is how Ireland will fare.
It is quite a long time since we had in this country a direct challenge. It is fortunate that we did not have to participate in the last war, very fortunate we thought, and very fortunate it was, but it often occurred to me that the countries that did participate in the last war found themselves faced with a challenge, the rebuilding of their countries. We had that opportunity about 40 years ago and it does not seem to me that we met that challenge adequately. There were various reasons for that. I suppose it was because of the fact that the country had been divided by the Civil War that took place in 1922 that for many years afterwards and even up to the present day we seem to have been much more concerned with political events rather than economic events. We seem to have been more concerned with political events and past political events than we were with the actual rebuilding of the country, so much so that we find ourselves, 40 years afterwards, having had Cumann na nGaedheal Governments, Fianna Fáil Governments, inter-Party Governments and Coalition Governments, in not as prosperous a position as undoubtedly we should be. The situation in the Six Counties seems to be more or less the same. Whether under Irish control or British control, we do not seem to have made much progress. I do not think the blame for that can be laid on any particular person or Party.
While the Common Market and our entry into it may represent a challenge to this country, our main function at the present time is to make the people aware of as many facts as are available. I do not believe it is right that sections of our community, either industrial or agricultural, should assume that our entry into the Common Market as full members or in association with it will mean a virtual paradise or Utopia for either industry or agriculture. Whoever will conduct the negotiations, whether it is the present Taoiseach and his Government or some other Government, nobody will envy them their job because no matter what one might think as to the attitude of other countries towards this country their representatives are politicians and hard businessmen. I do not believe there are going to be any concessions for Ireland merely because we are Irish, merely because they regard us as good fellows, good fighters. They are politicians, businessmen, economists, and while they may be anxious about an anti-Russian bloc, they are also vitally interested in the prosperity of their own people.
I hope, if we join the Common Market, agriculture will prosper. It is our main industry. Deputy Dillon quoted some very interesting figures, already pretty well known to most of us, to show that our entry into the Common Market does not mean immediate prosperity for agriculture. Our agricultural industry has had free and easy access to the British market for years but it has not prospered. If we are now to go into competition with the agricultural countries in Europe and try to beat them in the British market, it will be a difficult task and I do not think anyone can say that agricultural policy in this country in the past few years has been eminently successful, no matter who has been Minister for Agriculture. The signs have been clear—farmers leaving the land in great numbers and, more particularly, agricultural workers leaving because there has not been a decent living on the land.
Whether our entry into the Common Market can bring about a change in all this, I do not know, but whoever has to negotiate the terms on which we will join will have a difficult task. I find it a bit bewildering to decide how we shall conduct these negotiations. Will they be side by side with Britain or do we negotiate by ourselves? On one thing we all agree —we must go in if Britain does. I do not think we are in a good position to talk about conditions. We have got to follow Britain. That is inevitable. What, then, will happen as regards our industries? There is a very pessimistic view about them.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce said that some of our weaker industries will fall and some people twit the Minister and say that that is the result of the policy of Fianna Fáil in establishing those industries by a system of protection. My Party never were against that protection but I think successive Governments can be criticised, and industrialists themselves must be criticised for the fact that this protection was continued when industrialists should have been aiming at independence and trying to set themselves into a position to compete with British manufacturers and industrialists in other countries throughout the world.
I do not think the Taoiseach has been quite clear about the political implications of our joining the Common Market. In his speech to the British House of Commons, Mr. Macmillan referred to the political implications and made no bones about saying that this economic integration was being brought about not alone for an economic purpose but for political purposes as well. We want to know where we are going. We boasted about our neutrality since the last war and many people think we should continue to maintain a neutral policy in the event of any future war. Accordingly, the Taoiseach should give us his view as to what our political future will be if we are accepted as members of the Common Market.
The Taoiseach has appealed, and rightly so in view of the tremendous importance it is to us, that we should not make our proposed entry into the Common Market a plaything in the election campaign within the next two months. I think the Taoiseach will abide by that. However, he should also control his back benchers and ensure that they do the same thing. I know he has not absolute control over many of them—and I do not mean any discredit to the back benchers— but if any of them makes a political plaything out of it, he should be controlled immediately because it could be disastrous if the terms on which we joined the Common Market are made the subject of discussions or falsehoods on political platforms. Speaking for the Labour Party, I can say we will not make this a political football to be kicked around in these circumstances. So much for the Common Market. I do not pretend to be an expert on it but I have tried as best I can to make a critical analysis of the situation arising from it.
I want now to review the activities of the Government during the past four and a half years and I want to be as factual as I can in doing so. I think it should be said of the Government during those years that as far as conditions are concerned they never had it so good. There was a lot of criticism from Fianna Fáil when the Labour Party participated in an inter-Party Government. It sounds funny now to hear from Fianna Fáil benches that we should not engage in dirty tactics. It was my view then as a Minister in Government that we were vitally influenced by conditions in Great Britain. Conditions in Britain during the past four years were good so the Government here never had it so good. If we accept the economic relationship that exists between this country and Britain, we must also accept that any boom in Britain is reflected here and conversely that any depression in Britain has its affects on us here.
It must be conceded, therefore, that as far as the period—1955-1956—is concerned, the economic position in Britain was so bad that it was severely reflected here and no Party in the House, with the possible exception of Clann na Poblachta, put forward any proposals as to how we should break that economic integration. That is not to say that I think it is desirable we should do so. I am only emphasising that economic conditions in Britain always will be reflected here and while I say the Government never had it so good as in the past four years, I would point out that a different situation may exist in the next five or six months, in view of the present depression in Britain.
What advantage did the Government take of the situation in Britain in the past four years. They claim they came in at a time of crisis. If they did and if they had good conditions for the last two or three years, the results after four and a half years should be very good. The Taoiseach sounded optimistic. He described broadly what the Government had done for the past four-and-a-half years and the effect of their actions. These results, I think, have not been as good as the Taoiseach says or pretends they are. I shall not dwell on the promises or political catch-phrases we heard in the last general election such as: "Wives, get your husbands back to work" and "Let us get cracking" and the need that the Taoiseach said existed for 100,000 new jobs. The results after four-and-a-half years are the important thing. In that time the Government had a majority that no other Government here ever had; it was not dependent on any group for support. What they wanted to do they could do.
There was talk tonight—and from the Taoiseach also—about employment. Government members have tried to give the impression that in certain parts of the country industries are springing up like mushrooms in August or September. I do not see them in my constituency. Government speakers try to give the impression that there is a great increase in employment generally and especially in industry. The figures show a different picture, a picture the Taoiseach should see and appreciate. In April, 1957, there were 1,136,000 persons employed; in April, 1960, there were 1,112,000 at work. That means that in that period we had 24,000 fewer persons employed.
What does the Deputy mean by "in employment"?
The same meaning as in the book Economic Statistics produced by the Taoiseach's Department. The Taoiseach may say employment has improved and that April, 1960 is 15 months away. There has been an improvement. From March, 1960 to April, 1961, there was an increase of 5,800 in the number of persons engaged in transportable goods industries, that is, mining, manufacturing, electricity, gas etc. Probably there was an increase in construction employment but I doubt if it was significant because it seems we reached the peak some time last year in that sphere. Let us say there was a slight increase of 500 or 1,000 in construction. I think we have arrived at saturation point in that industry and in a relatively short time, we should be confronted by some thousands of unemployed who for the past two or three years were engaged in building and reconstruction work financed to some extent by the Department of Local Government.
Apart from that, the Taoiseach must concede that in the period for which we have no figures there has probably been a fall in agricultural employment of about 7,000. I do not think that is any exaggeration because in the three or four years before that, the decreases in agricultural employment were 8,000, 7,000 and 13,000. Therefore, the best that can be said when comparing this year with last year, is that there has been no worsening of the employment situation. In relation to 1957, there are approximately 20,000 fewer people employed. I should like to know if these figures are disputed because they are taken from publications by the Taoiseach's Department. Where can they be disputed? There is no point in fooling ourselves that, in the first place many new industries are being established and secondly, that they are providing employment for thousands of our people, when in fact they are not. That is a far cry from what the Taoiseach said in 1955/56 about 100,000 new jobs being needed. The Government have not provided even one of those jobs. On the other hand, we have 25,000 fewer jobs in the country. That should be noted against recent Ministerial statements to the effect that employment is increasing all round.
As the Taoiseach said, the census figures will reveal the true position. Many figures have been given over the past five or six years for emigration. The ordinary person who has not figures available recognises that many people are going from the country. I believe—the Taoiseach may also have said it—that the census figures to be published in the next few months will show that we have the lowest population that we ever had in this country. That is something none of us can be proud of, something we should frequently remind ourselves of so that we may have an idea of the immensity of the task facing whatever Government may be in office after the next general election.
I do not want to exaggerate emigration but the figures which the Taoiseach often quotes and which I think are well accepted show that, in 1957, according to the net outward passenger movements by sea and air, 60,500 people left the country. In 1958, the figure was 40,000. In 1959, it fell to 39,000, but in 1960, which was supposed to be a boom year, the year when we were supposed to have recovered that figure increased to 43,000. I do not know the figure for 1961. The Taoiseach said it has declined very much but I suggest that a good estimate would be about 16,000 for the first six months. That would mean over the year about 32,000 have emigrated.
The Deputy must realise that emigration can be estimated only over the full 12 months. The most recent 12 months' period was that which ended last May.
I am estimating the figure for the first six months of 1961 so that for the four-and-a-half years we have had a massive total exodus of almost 200,000 Irish men and women. Some people have a funny attitude to emigration. They believe the majority who emigrate need not do so, that it has become fashionable to emigrate, and that it costs so little to go to Britain that people just go off. The figures cannot tell you that. But I think the majority of those who will come back on holidays this summer would prefer to remain in Ireland if they were given the ordinary wages applicable to their work. It is pure nonsense for people to say that the majority emigrate without any reason. They emigrate for various reasons. They emigrate because there is insecurity of employment in many of our industries. If they go to a motor factory in Britain or any of the steel works there, they are fairly certain they will be employed for 12 months. I could give the Taoiseach a list of industries here which will not give employment for 12 months and which believe they are saving money by laying men off and by cutting their week.
The agricultural worker will always continue to emigrate. Who would blame him when the farmer lays him off every wet day? Is he to stand down at the cross-roads until the farmer calls him up again to weed a drill of turnips? Employers here have a responsibility they do not seem to accept—the moral obligation to give more employment for continuous periods. I hear some farmers complain they cannot get men. If they will not pay men and give them continuous employment, they cannot expect them to stay when they can go across to Britain and get £15 or £20 a week and be able to send home a sizeable sum to their wives and families.
We have also the problem of opportunity in Ireland. In my part of the country there have not been established within the past 10 or 15 years any new industries, except for one or two giving employment to 20 or 30 people. Parents are faced with the problem of what to do with a boy or girl of 16 who passes the Leaving Certificate or Intermediate Certificate. Jobs are very scarce around Wexford, Waterford and Wicklow. The people have to go to Britain.
It is nonsense to say we have got into the fashion of emigrating. Economic circumstances force our people to go, and unless we can do something about it, they will continue to go.
The Taoiseach said we are now airborne. I do not believe we are. We have not yet got off the ground. But if we are airborne, it is because we have, by neglect, jettisoned our human cargo. I do not say there is not prosperity here. There is prosperity for some people, but there is far from prosperity for the masses. This Government, like many other Governments, say they have no direct responsibility to provide employment. I believe they have. I do not think it is sufficient for a Government to say they provide grants and loans for anybody who wants to come in and start a factory. That is not good enough.
Does the Taoiseach remember when 1,000 men were rendered unemployed in the town of Dundalk because the G.N.R. Works closed up? The Taoiseach was concerned; certainly, the Minister for External Affairs was concerned. The people of Dundalk did not have to wait for somebody to invite a German or a Japanese to start a factory. They did not have to wait for somebody in Switzerland to read of the facilities available in Ireland for the establishment of factories. They did not have to wait for Deputy Briscoe or anybody else to go to America to negotiate the establishment of a factory in Dundalk. The Government acted. Whether you call it State industry, semi-state industry or private industry, the fact is that through Government intervention and initiative four or five factories were established giving employment to the bulk of these 1,000 people.
We have a situation in this country where we have 40,000 people unemployed. It is the lowest figure for the year because of the time of the year and because of the operation of an employment period order. Could the Government not take a little more initiative in the establishment of factories? If these Germans, Japanese, Belgians or British decide now, because we are all to be in the same Common Market, it is more advantageous for them to establish their factories elsewhere, what will happen to Irish industry? It must be generally assumed that for many of these people the attraction, apart from the financial aid given, was the fact they had free access to the British market. As I said to the Taoiseach, I am not against the establishment of these industries, and certainly I am not against the facilities given. But I believe the Government should have taken a much more direct interest in the establishment of these factories and sought some control over them in an effort to ensure they would be factories that would last.
New industries have been established, particularly in the West. Special facilities were given to them because they were established in the West. I often wonder if the Taoiseach was wise in dividing the country in the Undeveloped Areas Act. However, it seems that a majority of the Dáil believe that was the best course to adopt. I do not believe it is. I believe the tradition of industry is in the other part of the country and that it is there the effort should have been made. No mention has been made of the industries that have closed in the past four or five years. I know of some myself. When we talk about industries being established in the past two or three years, we should also remember that many factories have closed and have shed workers.
I do not think there has been a spectacular increase in the numbers employed in manufacturing industry in the past five and a half years. The peak figure in October, 1945, was 147,900; in March, 1961, it had increased to 152,270. That is according to the Census of Industrial Production issued by the Central Statistics Office. Therefore, it means that in five and a half years there has been a net increase of employment in industry of 4,370. I do not think anybody could say that was spectacular. I heard the Taoiseach talk this time last year in terms of an increase of something like 9,000 in industry.
Nine thousand per year in insurable employment.
The net increase in five and a half years has been 4,370. According to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, industries which have been notified grants or financial aid from the Government for 1961 are expected to give employment to 4,300. I think it would be fair comment to say that that was an optimistic figure, in view of the fact that in five and a half years we could succeed in increasing the number by a mere 4,370. I do not think the Taoiseach could boast that the five Budgets introduced by this Government were spectacular ones except, of course, the one in 1957 which abolished the food subsidies.
I thought the Deputy would forget that one.
I think it was the same Budget which made the special levies introduced in 1956 part of permanent taxation. Apart from that there was no major change in financial policy or in the financial machinery of the State in any of these five Budgets. A little bit was given here and a little bit was taken off there, but the same old pattern persisted right through. One thing did emerge. The Government succeeded in one thing. Indeed, they were very successful in it. In all five Budgets they increased tax revenue, and today the increase totals £19,500,000. The Government succeeded in getting more from the tax-payers, more to the extent of £19.5 millions.
In rates, for which the Government have no direct responsibility, there was an increase in that period, 1956/57 to 1961/62, of £3.5 millions. As far as the Government are concerned, in the last five Budgets tax revenue went up by £19,000,000. We are entitled to ask what have we got in return? How much has gone to social welfare? It has been protested by various Ministers that we cannot afford to do much, or do anything spectacular, in the field of social welfare until the country can afford it, meaning until the public are able to earn more and contribute more to the State. In these five years tax revenue went up by £19,000,000, a pretty substantial sum. How much of that has gone on social welfare? Nothing.
On the contrary. About one-third.
The amount spent on social welfare and social assistance in 1957/58 was £25.5 millions. In 1961/62 it is estimated by both the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Social Welfare that £26.4 millions will be spent on social welfare.
I think the totals are wrong.
The totals are not wrong. I quoted the same totals to the Minister for Social Welfare on his recent Bill. He would be the first to deny them if they were wrong. He did not deny them. Whether by not denying them he accepted them, I do not know, but he is not the man to swallow these figures if he believes they are wrong. In any case the figures demonstrate to me that a mere £300,000 extra has been devoted to social welfare. Tax revenue has increased by £19,000,000.
The truth is that, whilst there have been improvements in old age pensions, whilst we have the contributory old age pension scheme, whilst sickness benefits have been increased to some extent, the burden of these increases has been placed on the workers and the employers. During the year 1961/62 the insured workers will contribute £4.9 millions. That is a pretty substantial sum but the really significant feature is that it represents an increase of £1.7 millions compared with last year. As far as I and my Party are concerned, the important thing is that, whilst tax revenue increased so spectacularly by £19,000,000, that increase was not reflected in expenditure on either social welfare or health. Over the last five years the Minister for Social Welfare could find less than £1,000,000 extra for social welfare and that £1,000,000 is, of course, being paid for not merely by the bulk of the workers but also by those who have to meet the increase of one penny on cigarettes and tobacco —an increase which represents £1,000,000 this year.
They went up £1,000,000 this year alone.
That is not so. I do not think there is any necessity for me, in view of my remarks at the beginning of my speech, to say anything about agriculture, but it certainly seems to me that it has not prospered, not alone in the last four and a half years but for a very, very long time before that. The lack of prosperity in agriculture is clearly demonstrated by the abnormal flight from the land, especially in the last ten years.
As I have said before, the Government has been unhindered in the last four and a half years. They have had, to all intents and purposes, the benefit of a majority of 15 or 20 members in this House. Can the Government point to any piece of major legislation introduced in the last four and a half years? Has there been any departure from the usual pattern, any departure from the usual routine? As far as I can remember the legislation produced has merely been a continuation of certain Acts introduced a great many years ago, an extension of industrial grants, an extension of tourist grants, an extension of the remission of taxation on profits from exports, an amendment of the Road Traffic Act, an amendment of Social Welfare Acts. There has been no major legislation of any kind introduced in the lifetime of this Government.
Some people believe that the less legislation the better. There has not been much imagination shown by the Government in the last four and a half years. There seems to have been a desire to get away from common policies that have been known to fail, not alone over that period but in periods preceding the lifetime of this particular Government. The best one can say about the present Government is that they have marked time.
There was, of course, one major piece of legislation introduced, the piece of legislation that was designed to change our Constitution. The Dáil did not decide finally on that. It was the people who turned it down. The last four and a half years have been wasted, in my opinion, having regard to the fact that we have to-day 25,000 fewer people in employment than when this Government took office. Remembering that, it can be well said that the last four and a half years have been wasted years. One remembers the promise made by the Taoiseach and his statement that there would be 100,000 new jobs and one compares that with the fact that 200,000 people have emigrated since Fianna Fáil returned to office. Remembering that, one can only regard the last four and a half years as disastrous years, disastrous years in which Fianna Fáil, unhindered, never had conditions so good from the point of view of Government. The only hope is that—no matter who they may be—the next Government will show some imagination and will tackle seriously the twin problems of emigration and unemployment, these two grave problems to which every speaker here refers when the opportunity offers. Let us hope something will be done to stop the mass exodus of our people to Britain and other countries.
During the Taoiseach's speech to-night I could not help reflecting on the fact that it is just 30 years since Fianna Fáil took office. In that 30 years they were in charge of the country for roughly 24 years. One of the first things that hit one is the alarming drop in population during that period. From constant repetition there is now almost a danger that it will become just a hackneyed phrase without any meaning. Nevertheless, the drop in population is such a serious matter that it must be mentioned. From 1934 to 1954 we lost 158,100 male workers who were engaged in agriculture. In 1934 when Fianna Fáil had been two years in power the total number of male workers engaged in agriculture was 579,400. By 1954 it had dropped to 421,309, a reduction of 158,100. I do not think I would be exaggerating in adding another 25,000 to that over the past four or five years since Fianna Fáil returned to office.
Many Deputies who are not familiar with the conditions of agriculture seem to wonder why agriculture is not progressing and showing signs of improvement. In Connaught alone during that 20 year period, 1934 to 1954, we lost 44,232 male workers from the land. Leitrim lost 7,000, a reduction from 17,000 to 10,000; Mayo lost 12,000, a reduction from 45,000 to 33,000; and Sligo lost 6,000, a reduction from 18,000 to 12,000. The reason agriculture is in such a backward condition is that men are flying from it because life on the land does not pay any more in this country. The only people I see remaining on the land in the West of Ireland are those who cannot go because of family responsibility or because they are too advanced in years to change. The majority of those I see engaged in agriculture in the fields are old people and children. Any industry depending on these surely cannot make progress. All the able-bodied men are leaving the land because farming for them has become a gamble.
The Government seem to be paying only lip service to those engaged on the land. If the Government are genuine in their anxiety about agriculture I can give them a few pointers as to how they can help to remedy the situation before it is too late. There is urgent need for lightening the burden the farming community have to carry. They should be given security in the form of guaranteed prices. Certain agricultural products, such as wheat, barley, milk and sugar, have guaranteed prices. There is no question of a decline in regard to those products because even though the profit on them may be slight the farmer knows before he puts down his crop exactly what he will get for it. As regards the farmer engaged in mixed farming, in the breeding of cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry and so on, prices are not fixed and there is no incentive to continue in production. The farmer producing cattle has no idea what he will get for them. He is at the mercy of the buyer. He is the only type of producer in the country for whom the buyer of his produce fixes the price.
In 1957 the gross value of agricultural output was £196.6 million. Fianna Fáil came into office that year and by 1958 the gross value of agricultural output had dropped to £179,000,000. By 1959 it had dropped still further to £176,000,000, simply because the three preceding years were disastrous years. During those years the land was black with stock, with cattle and sheep. They could not be sold until the farmers were obliged to dispose of them at any price. That led to an increased flight from the land.
If we take the farming community as representing roughly half the total population of the country we must remember that an additional burden was placed on their backs apart from the effects of their income being reduced from £196,000,000 to £176,000,000. The value of the food subsidies was approximately £9,000,000. The inter-Party Government was spending this amount to keep the prices of bread, butter and other essential commodities down. Therefore when Fianna Fáil removed the food subsidies inside three weeks of taking office in 1957, the farming community had to bear an increased burden of £4,500,000.
I was amazed at the very deflated attitude of the Taoiseach in making his opening speech. However, when I sum up the Fianna Fáil record it should not surprise me a bit. They removed the food subsidies. They killed the Local Authorities (Works) Act which gave useful employment and enabled necessary work to be carried out in rural areas. They drastically reduced rural employment. There is a little bit of a stir at the present time because an election is coming. There are a few more workers employed on the roads than hitherto but the promise in regard to the 100,000 jobs has not been fulfilled. The Taoiseach also promised in October or November of 1957 an expenditure of £220,000,000 over a five-year period but we have not heard a word about that promise since. Will he repudiate that promise as he did the promise in relation to the 100,000 jobs?
During the past four-and-a-half years in which Fianna Fáil have been in office a new pattern has emerged in regard to emigration and that is the banishment of whole families. Heretofore we were banishing only boys and girls as they came of age, leaving others to carry on the farm work. Now we have given emigration a new lease. We are banishing the whole family, father, mother, children and all, and locking the door. That is a feature that has come into farming only inside the last three or four years. The cost of living has increased; local rates have reached a point where I forecast that they will not and cannot be paid. There are 25,000 fewer employed today than when we handed over the Government to Fianna Fáil and 2,000 people have emigrated.
The Taoiseach, looking back on that record, is justifiably gloomy. It is no wonder that he felt very awkward in coming before the House, particularly when it is one of his last speeches in the Dáil before the general election. It is a pretty grim record. He tells us today that this is a time for new ideas, meaning another shower of new promises, to be repudiated the minute the election is over. He tells us that we have made progress in the past 2½ years. We have made great progress in shipping our own kith and kin out of the country. He tells us that unless the population level rises it will not be easy to make any improvement. He also tried to put across the House that emigration was down in the first eight months of this year. I should not be surprised if it is down because I do not see who is left to go now, unless it is the old people and young children still going from the rural areas. It must have reached the point where all that can go have gone.
The Taoiseach warned us that there would be a significant drop in the population when the figures of the census come to hand. I do not blame the Taoiseach a bit for being gloomy about the report that he has put before the House. It is a record of disaster for the rural parts of Ireland. Incidentally, it is amusing to find that he has discovered the family farm, that he is setting up two committees, with a vague kind of promise that if Fianna Fáil are returned, they are ready to start some programme or other in 1963. God bless the mark! I want to tell the Taoiseach that one of the most dreaded things among the people in this country is the prospect of another five years of Fianna Fáil. The people are very determined to see that that will not happen; it will be regarded as a disaster if Fianna Fáil get back again.
What does Fianna Fáil mean to do if they do get back? What do they mean to do for agriculture? A lot of foolish talk about the Common Market is not going to help anyone. The Common Market is going to produce a good deal of upheaval both for agriculture and industry but there is one point the Taoiseach might have explained to us. He mentioned that political integration will almost certainly follow, or is likely to follow from certain statements that have been made within the last few months, if we join the Common Market.
I would like to know, and so would many other people, what exactly will be the implications and what will be our responsibilities in the case of political integration in the Common Market countries? What would happen if these countries found themselves as belligerents in a war all together? Would we have to take part in the war? I think that these are considerations that might be looked into before we travel further along the road.
The Taoiseach said that these dangers might lie out of sight along the road, which should deter us from entering on it. They may not deter us but they are worthy of consideration because a step taken now might be very hard to undo in the years to come, and while the Common Market has very definite advantages to offer to us, it has definite disadvantages for us if we do not go in and Britain does. Nevertheless, I should like to know would nationalism become completely submerged, should a United States of Europe become the final result of political integration?
I am just taking the two other sets of States in the world that are known to us. One is the combination of Russian republics. I do not know what kind of system obtains there but I believe it is not too happy. The other is one we all look up to and admire—the United States of America. While I do not know of any one of the 51 States which was formerly a separate country before they joined the United States of America such as this country is, I think there should be a clear statement made on the implications of political integration because we have only recently got our freedom and all these things would have to be examined.
I should like to know to what extent political integration would interfere with our national ideals; whether Ireland as a separate nation would not have the right to withhold certain action in case the majority of these countries took some line that might not be in agreement with Irish national aspirations. Let me say that as regards agriculture, there are two things that are vitally important at the present time if we are to save the remnants of the family farms. If we are to do so we have to give guaranteed minimum prices for most items of agricultural produce on which family farms are depending. Secondly, there must be de-rating of agricultural land and buildings. If total de-rating is not feasible, there should be de-rating of the first £50, £40 or even £30. These are the first two steps that should be taken.
In view of the flight from the land, it should not be amiss to point out to the Taoiseach that he should take a new look at the work of the Land Commission. If we are to save the rural population at all, farms of a moderate size should be purchased with money provided by the Exchequer to place farmers' sons on them. The Government would be better employed using money for that purpose than allowing foreigners to come in to buy up the land. It does seem an injustice on the people who fought for the ownership of the land that they are being squeezed out by the carelessness of a native Government while foreigners can come and buy up the land wholesale, that our own flesh and blood are abandoned because our Government does not think they are worth saving.
With the number of rural Deputies that Fianna Fáil has, they cannot be completely unaware of what is happening in rural Ireland. It has struck me that Fianna Fáil is convinced that the small farmer is a nuisance and a drag on this country. He is being squeezed out by the high cost of living and the low income that Fianna Fáil has doled out to him. Might I suggest that the decent thing to do would be to tell these people, if they are not wanted? It would be better to tell them so and let them know where they stand. They do not know from where the next blow will descend on them.
It will be nothing short of disaster for the people if Fianna Fáil are returned for another period of office. I do not believe they will be. The thing the people most dread is another five years of Fianna Fáil misrule. People are waiting in the hope that there will be a change of Government and that the prosperity the inter-Party Government brought on two occasions can be restored. Many people are just hanging on in the hope that there will be a change of Government that will bring prosperity but if Fianna Fáil are returned there will be an exodus from the country such as was never witnessed before.
I have some rather hard things to say about the Government, but I should like to express my appreciation to the Taoiseach for having given the House some indication of the time of the general election. We were in a rather awkward position in that we did not know whether we could go away for a holiday or not. If there is any meaning in the Taoiseach's statement, we should be safe for another month.
It struck me this evening that from the moment the Taoiseach rose to make his statement until he sat down, he was on the defensive. I do not see how he could expect anything but the most severe criticism of himself and his Government over the last four and a half years. This Dáil is coming to its conclusion now. It will be looked back on as a Dáil in which the Government had an enormous majority, were free from external worries such as their predecessors had to face; were in office at a time when there were no major disturbances in the world; who were left a corrected balance of payments, which was correcting all the time. In other words, they had unrivalled opportunities to produce a sound economic policy, if they were fit to do so. I submit to the House that they have totally failed to do so.
In the first instance, instead of accepting things as they found them, they wasted a lot of time in trying to change the electoral laws in the only major legislation that they introduced. They failed in that attempt. When their epitaph comes to be written, it will be that they wasted the best part of twelve months in that attempt.
This Government have gradually, almost imperceptibly, removed authority from the ordinary Deputy in Dáil Éireann and handed it over to boards. They created An Bord Gráin, and the Minister for Agriculture has now no responsibility for the price that the farmer gets for beet or barley. It is a matter for An Bord Gráin. They established An Foras Tionscal and if you want to get an industry started in your constituency, as I did recently, you have to refer to a board in Dublin which is excluded from Parliamentary control. They decide where the industry is located and the individual Deputy or any other individual in Ireland, although the capital is available, has no say in the matter. I have given two classical examples of the many boards that have been created.
That has been the trend throughout this Administration. An unpleasant feature of these boards is that any Government that is in power naturally tend to appoint their political henchman on these boards. One does not like to say that in Parliament, but it is true.
The Deputy is not in order in discussing legislation passed by this House. The question of legislation does not arise.
I am discussing policy.
The Deputy is discussing public boards set up by legislation here and the matter does not arise at this moment.
I am discussing it as broad policy. The point I am making is that they are divesting Dáil Éireann of its authority. That is a policy statement pure and simple. I am not referring to any particular board whatsoever. I only referred to them en passant as a basis for my argument and to make clear to the House what I was talking about. I will continue, with your permission, on those lines. Any boards that are created——
I am afraid I cannot allow the Deputy to continue on those lines. I have already pointed out that the question of legislation is not open for discussion.
With respect, I am not talking about legislation.
The Deputy is discussing boards set up by legislation of this House.
I am discussing policy. I am discussing the overall policy of the Government and I submit, with respect, the overall policy of the Government is to create boards. I am not referring to legislation. Anything a Government do in Dáil Éireann is legislation.
The boards referred to by the Deputy have been set up by legislation.
Will you kindly tell me to what boards I have referred?
I have already pointed out to the Deputy that this matter is not in order. If the Deputy pursues that course, I will have no option but to ask him to resume his seat.
I appreciate that the arguments may not be very pleasing to the House and I will go on to something else but before I do so I want to lodge a protest. I am speaking on policy. I am entitled to speak on policy. My arguments were based on the fact that this Government have removed from Dáil Éireann control over matters and I base that on the fact that if I want to have an industry established in my constituency, as a result of the policy of the Government I am not able to get that industry. Am I talking about legislation in that case?
I feel the Deputy should leave the question. He has discussed it amply. It is not in order.
I will continue on policy. I had an opportunity of getting an industry in my constituency about six to eight months ago. That industry was transferred, as a result of Government policy, to another part of Ireland. I will leave that question and I will leave the question of boards. I can refer to lack of policy. The unfortunate situation in which the country finds itself after four and a half years of Government by a Party with an overwhelming majority is that there is mass unemployment, mass emigration, uncertainty and unstable conditions, all due to the fact that the Government have no policy. I shall not deal any further with policy or lack of policy but will come directly to the greatest failure of this Government, namely, on the question of the Common Market.
The Fine Gael Party do not accuse the Government of having done anything wrong directly with regard to any decision they have taken on the Common Market. What we do accuse the Government of is that they showed no foresight and made no approach in a situation that was blatantly obvious to them if they have any sources of information at all. As Deputy Dillon has said, they must have had all the information at their disposal from their Ambassadors in Europe.
They claim they have a representative, per their Ambassador in Belgium, to the Common Market. Therefore, they must have known everything that was happening in Europe. They must have known that this country, together with others in Europe, was faced with the decision whether or not to join the Common Market. The charge we make is that they did nothing. That is almost an under-statement. It is only a fortnight or three weeks since they introduced a White Paper in this House on the question of the Common Market. During the past 12 months, Parliamentary Questions have been put from front and back benches here relative to the Common Market and all the time there was no response from the Government. They had nothing to say. There was no concern whatsoever from the Government on the question.
Suddenly, three weeks ago, they discovered that Britain was considering entering the Common Market. Anyone who had read the newspapers, even without inside information, must have known months ago that negotiations were going on for Britain's move. The Government must have known, had they read these reports or listened to what their Ambassadors told them, that active negotiations and discussions behind the scenes were going on. Yet the Taoiseach has given us no information whatever. In effect, what he has told us is nothing—just a categorical assertion that if Britain goes in, we go in, too.
Now he tells us something we all knew already—that Britain has made application to join the Common Market and that we have made an application to join as well. Is that the way for the Government to behave with regard to one of the most vital decisions which has faced this country since we became a State? Is there any question of the Government having set up a body of technical advisers? The Taoiseach, the founder of the modern protective system, which is being made nonsense of now, just tells our industrialists that we are likely to join the Common Market. Why did he not take some action? Why did he not, as I have already stated set up a body of technical men to tell those industrialists what they had to face?
Has any preparation whatsoever been made? Has not every country in Europe, in the world—even the newly formed nations which have emerged in the past year—sent people to the six nations for technical advice and to study the conditions in them? There was no mention that this was done by our Government. The Taoiseach has come into the House and told us we are going to apply for membership because Britain is doing so. He tells us nothing about the implications involved. Does he know? Have the Government any interest in the Common Market?
Do not they know that a decision like this is going to affect our whole economy, agricultural and industrial? It should have been obvious to the Government in the past three or four months, even if they had no information, which they had, that the British economy was failing, that something was going seriously wrong with this nation beside us and with which we have such close economic ties. Was it not quite obvious that they were not able to sell in the markets in which they had sold heretofore? Was it not obvious then that Britain must take some step to reform its whole economy, industrial and agricultural?
Still the Government did nothing. There was the imminent advent of the Common Market. There was the fact that Germany, a defeated nation less than 20 years ago, was bursting at the seams with foreign capital. Should not the Government then have realised that a dynamic change was taking place in Europe and the world? After four and a half years of government, the Taoiseach comes in here and mildly tells us: "Britain is going in and we have applied as well".
Even with the difficulties inherent in her Commonwealth ties, Britain long ago appointed a Minister for the special purpose of inquiring into and studying European economic affairs. He was specially appointed for the purpose of finding out what was the best policy for them to adopt in the economic circumstances facing them. Still our Government sat calmly by, unaware that Britain was likely to join the Common Market, though all the portents were there, even though they could have got the information. That British Minister was appointed immediately the British Government took office two years ago. Still we did nothing.
The question of what we will do in the future is another matter. Will we gain by our entry into the Common Market and are we right in going in? My personal view, for what it is worth, is that we are right. My view is that the Government should have been watching developments and gathering information, that they should long ago have begun preparations. I understand there are some 100,000 people employed in industry in this country. Has any survey been made by the Taoiseach or by the Minister for Industry and Commerce of the number of industries that will be so severely hit that they will be unable to carry on? Has a survey been made to discover what industries are competitive, what industries are exporting and are likely to survive? If that has been done, we have not heard of it.
There are some industries, some in my own constituency—which is not particularly overburdened with industries because we never could get them —that have stood the test of time, producing and exporting on a free market all over the world. Far from being put out of business as so many people seem to think—we are surrounded with pessimists—these industries will expand and increase their exports because they are competitive. They will be exporting into this great economic unit free of tariffs. That type of industry will survive.
There are others based on Irish raw materials which are economic and fundamentally sound and which were not necessarily built up on the Fianna Fáil high protection policy which has been made nonsense of overnight by the decision of the Government to go into the Common Market, a decision into which, of course, they are forced. An immediate survey of such industries is necessary if we are to benfit from the fund which will be at the disposal of individual countries which are members of the Common Market to cushion them against hardships that may arise.
Many people may think that the British Government have not yet finally decided to go into the Common Market and that may be right. Some Deputies may feel that because Britain has sent representatives to the Commonwealth countries, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, she has done so in order to reach agreement with them and that she may decide she will not go into the Common Market. I do not think that is the case. I had the privilege of seeing the communiques issued by the Minister who went to these countries and my source of information was Council of Europe documentation. If, as a member of the Council, I can get those documents the Government could have got them if they tried for them in any of our embassies. Perhaps they have done so. The gist of all those documents was that discussions had taken place between the Minister concerned—I think it was Mr. Duncan Sandys—and the Commonwealth Governments and all that was decided was that entry would create certain difficulties for these countries but they did not offer any direct opposition to the United Kingdom going into the Common Market. It was agreed that before a final decision was taken, the United Kingdom would have further discussion with the Commonwealth countries.
It looks as if Britain will enter the Common Market as full member in the reasonably near future and we must get ready to face the competition of the future. To do so, we must become competitive and I do not see why we should not. We should be able to keep our production costs down as well as any other country. We have great opportunities. Practically every big industry in every country finds itself faced with a need to increase production to provide a higher standard of living and they find themselves faced with enormous extra charges from which we are singularly free. Our labour costs are not as high and the cost of production provided we have the raw material at our disposal, is not too high. Even when we have to import the raw material, if it is not too heavy, it is not unduly costly. But one of the most important things we have here, which many factories in more highly industrialised countries lack, is space to expand. In other countries, either the space is not available or if it is, the industries must face fabulous expenditure to acquire it. That is not so here and we can look forward with reasonable certainty and reasonable satisfaction in that we started industries with comparatively modern machinery and if our industries want to expand, they can buy ground at reasonable prices.
Many new industries started here, it was feared, might have been set up only for the purpose of meeting the extra demand they would get in this prosperous community. This applied to the German industries, Italian, French or other Continental industries set up here. Some people feel they might have been set up to take all the benefits this country had to offer but now, with the prospect of this new large economic community opening up, these factories will be able to produce economically with modern machinery and export it to any part of the world. I say this because everywhere one goes one is asked about the Common Market. One finds the most appalling pessimism—the idea that if we go into the Common Market, all our industries will collapse. I think that was fostered by certain elements here who did not want to be disturbed from their comfortable position behind the protective tariff wall and wanted to go on selling the easy way. All industries must be competitive to survive and I believe our industries can hold their own with any others, provided we accept the fact that they will no longer produce under tariff protection but in a free world market.
Everywhere one hears speculation about what will become of our agricultural industry if we enter the Common market and lose the British market. The Common Market consists of about 170 million people, in three first class nations, two moderately strong nations and a small nation, Luxembourg. It will have the greatest purchasing power in the world outside the United States. The pessimism seems to me unreasonable. If we go into the Common Market, it seems unreasonable to say that, first, we shall lose the British market and secondly, that we shall not gain from the Common Market.
Debate adjourned.