I am levelling criticism at the people in this House who try to misuse the Vatican. The document produced by the Pope is one of the finest social documents of the century and has made it quite clear that the type of private enterprise such as has been in operation in Ireland for 40 years is one that should be changed. If we examine that document closely we shall find running through it a condemnation of the system in operation in this country in regard to industry and agriculture and in regard to the vested interests that exploit the public, the worker and the farmer.
There was a statement here from the Taoiseach of all the grants that are being given to the farming community. I know that for years the Taoiseach, Deputy Lemass, has had no time whatever for the farming community or for rural Ireland. I know he regards with impatience the idea of even paying a visit down the country. He is obsessed with business, the interests of company directors, little factories processing raw material from abroad, little assembly industries, and so on. His mind has been on that for the last 30 years. He has no time for farming, from which the real wealth of the country comes, and his Party was not strong enough to force him to recognise that fact. The tragedy of it is that the very foundation of our economy, agriculture, is our weakest link due to neglect over the years by the Government, whereas industry, which has been pampered, petted and protected and on which the Taoiseach, admittedly, has worked so hard has now to face the cold blast of competition from Europe.
Who will suffer on this account? Is it the company directors? Is it the group who got money to start factories? If anybody will suffer it is the worker because the Irish directors of a number of the protected industries that have been here over the years are now preparing to sell out to join larger groups so that they themselves will be saved, and will not lose their Jaguars or their yachts. The people who have been depending for years for their livelihood on these industries will go to the wall. They will have to travel to France, Germany and Denmark if and when there is a free flow of men as well as goods.
Let me deal with the Taoiseach's criticism of the farming community. He lashed out at the N.F.A. last week for daring to bite the hand that fed it and pointed to all the grants that were given. He dealt with fertiliser grants and the subsidies given to help the farmers. Who gets the benefit of the fertiliser subsidy? Is it the farmer who gets it direct or the fertiliser companies? What guarantee have the farmers that they would not be able to get fertilisers at a much more economic cost if these companies' accounts were open to inspection and if, instead of having the subsidy handed to them as it is, fertilisers were allowed in from abroad on a competitive basis?
The Taoiseach told us there was no end to the money being poured into rural Ireland for the elimination of bovine tuberculosis. Admittedly, large sums are being spent. It is no thanks to the Government. They must do it because it has been done in Britain. They must do it to get admittance for our store cattle and livestock to the British market. In the process fantastic sums are wasted on the machinery being utilised to eradicate bovine T.B. because it was not done properly over a period of years. It was not started in time and it is a rushed job.
I have no criticism to offer of the profession which is reaping huge profits on the programme taking place; it is their luck; but the farmers are not lucky. They are not making on this. I do not see why the Taoiseach should say the money is being paid into the farmers' pockets under the T.B. scheme. This is a matter for the nation, which is almost totally dependent on the livestock trade. If that goes by the board then the Taoiseach's industrial concerns and all the other types of economic activity will suffer as well. It is in the national interest that money should be spent on the eradication of bovine tuberculosis.
We are told by the Taoiseach that grants are given for farm buildings, land reclamation and drainage. Let me put this point clearly to the House. What use is a grant to a farmer, if, when he produces more goods, he finds he has no market for them? The Taoiseach asks us to look at all the money we are giving the farmers. The poultry industry was mentioned. Mention was also made of turkeys and pigs. What happened when there was an increase in output over the year? The minute the farmer produced, the bottom fell out of his market. When he was exhorted to produce more, he got less for his pains.
Does anybody think that the farmer is a fool? Is the farmer to be blamed because he cannot sell his butter in Britain? Is the farmer to be blamed because he was not able to sell his eggs or poultry in Britain? Is the small farmer with 25 to 50 acres and even 100 acres to blame when he rears pigs, brings them to the market or fair and is then told by a buyer that he is not interested? Is it the farmer's fault when the bottom falls out of the bacon industry? I do not think it is. The farmer has produced all along the line when he was encouraged to do so but he never got the results, the market, the guarantee of continuity for the sale of his produce.
Now the farmer is organising and he is criticised by the Government. He is told that he is biting the hand that fed him. "We are giving them public assistance in the form of grants and now they are whinging"—that is the Taoiseach's argument. The farmer has not asked for this. The farmer is not looking for public assistance. He will not be treated as some kind of poor relation of protected industry.
The farmer wants markets for his produce and if he gets the markets he will produce. What attempt was made by the Government to get the markets for butter? This is not a new problem. What markets have been secured for bacon, poultry and eggs? The market has been there over the years. It was there in spite of the Government; it was there because the British farmer needed Irish stock; it was there when we had not even a ship to carry the Irish cattle. British buyers started the cattle marts in many parts of Ireland. British buyers make the arrangements for the transport of the cattle and for their distribution in England.
The Government cannot claim any credit for the cattle trade. They have nothing to do with the marketing of the cattle. What have they done with regard to poultry, bacon, eggs and other agricultural produce? I have not seen any steps taken over the years by the Government to do anything about those matters.
I saw a sum of £250,000 voted in this House to enable the Government to explore immediately the possibility of setting up marketing boards and proper marketing channels for the farming community in the lines I mentioned? What is being spent on that? I do not think that even one-twentieth of that sum is spent so far. Can you blame the farmers then? Is it right for the Taoiseach to issue this diatribe on that section of the community, particularly the smaller farmer? It is a serious matter and shows that the Taoiseach is far removed from realities.
The question of marketing is a responsibility of the State. If the State asks the farmers to produce more, it is only logical to suggest that some channel be provided through which that increased production can be got rid of at a price that will remunerate the farmer. That channel has not been provided. Now the farmers want to set up their own channel. I think they should be encouraged. Let us be quite clear. The system in operation was what was described as private enterprise. It was allowed, without order, co-operation or anything else, to reap its profits and there was no guarantee of continuity of supply so far as the purchaser was concerned in Britain or elsewhere.
In other words, the producer took the advice to heart and produced more but by the time his product reached the consumer, a horde of bandits descended on his produce and all made their profit until it reached the actual consumer. No discipline was imposed. No effort was made to prevent exploitation. No effort was made to prevent the markets being choked. No effort was made to prevent the depression of prices. Agents were allowed to manipulate prices in the different fairs, markets and sales to suit themselves. There was no interference because it was all done in the sacred name of private enterprise. You cannot interfere with the individual, although those individuals were in turn exploiting a large section of the community, the producer.
I think that at that stage these people should be brought to heel. That is a form of socialism praised by the late Pope. It is a form of socialism which I hope to see encouraged and expanded in this country, in spite of a lot of the Biddies we have inside and outside this House who condemn the idea of State interference as being something wrong. Where we have State interference, we have discipline and a sense of security.
We have it in companies like Bord na Móna and the Sugar Company. Admittedly, there is a case to be made —and some Deputies made it—for bringing these companies even more under the control of the House so that we can exercise more control on certain of their activities. That is only a detail. In the broad field, these State companies are the only groups in the State doing a first class job. I shall not refer to them in any great detail except to give an example of what the Sugar Company attempts to do in its own field to help the farmer to get into horticulture and have processed in this country the produce of the land.
The company intends to get a market. It intends to make fertilisers, seed, capital and machinery available to the farming community to produce these goods. What happened? We had an outcry from a number of private companies in the State who said they were being put out of business. They said the Sugar Company was going to squeeze them out. These companies got to the Government's ear and the Sugar Company is prohibited by the Government from selling more than 10 per cent. of its produce on the home market. It is scandalous to see a company, wholly Irish, employing Irishmen, producing its goods from the Irish soil and with Irish labour, being thwarted because of a suggestion that it is likely to hurt a number of companies in Ireland which are allegedly in the same field. The whole thing is outrageous, to put it mildly.
Some of these other companies import their agricultural raw material from Denmark and other countries and they simply process it or can it here. They have the audacity to describe themselves as producing Irish foodstuffs. Are they to get protection against competition by the Irish Sugar Company? Is there not room for the State to move in and discipline the field in that regard, to open up avenues for an Irish company so that it can develop along the proper lines?
Why have the Government not made an attempt to develop other lines except the cattle trade in Britain? How many trade attachés have we in London? How many individuals with a knowledge of agriculture are employed by the Government at the moment in France or Germany, or any of the other European countries to search out markets in them? In 1955, I made a trip to one or two European countries and to Britain and, as a result, I put questions down here about the cost of the London and Paris Embassies. The two together cost £500,000. In the London Embassy, there was a staff of 24 and one of these was employed full-time in the sale of agricultural products. In France, there was a staff of 12 and one of these was a part-time officer whose speciality was looking after the sale of agricultural products.
I know there are brilliant men and intellectuals in our embassies abroad but we can ill-afford the services of such people to keep up a semblance of royalty in these other countries and to ape countries which have far more resources than we have. Instead, we should have utilised our money to look after the trade interests of our country. The blame cannot be laid at the doors of the officials of the Department of External Affairs. It is the Government who are to be blamed for seeking status on the same basis as countries with 40 times our resources. Our Government are keeping up with the Joneses.
I am not satisfied with the employment content in the industrial field, having regard to the grants given under the Undeveloped Areas Acts to bring foreigners into industry here. At least 50 per cent. of the people who have got employment in these industries are girls. Let me not be misunderstood. I have no objection in the world to employment being given to girls, but I feel that the emphasis in industry should be on the male employment content. To my knowledge, where female labour is employed in a number of factories, the wages are scandalous. The girls are employed from 14 to 18 years of age and paid at the lowest possible rate and then, when they come to 18 years, their services are dispensed with. Why is there not some inspection of those factories and some control exercised by the State instead of giving money to outfits that exploit the worker? Were it not that the trade unions interfered, there would not be any improvement at all.
A number of the new concerns that started operations here came in with obsolete machinery. In their parent factories, they have been putting in the latest automation and the most up to date machinery. They are bringing the machinery out of these factories to this country and grants are being made available to them for the purchase of this machinery. There is nothing to prevent them from increasing the estimate of what they think this machinery is worth. They are getting paid for bringing obsolete machinery over here and, in addition, they have ten years in which they pay no tax.
They employ a few girls at the lowest possible rate of wages. Is that a fair situation? Is it fair for the Government to say that 7,000 new jobs were created last year, without telling the rate of wages of the young people working in these jobs? I cannot understand why we are so anxious to tell people outside of the wonderful pool of cheap labour and the wonderful grants that are available in order to bring in industries that are simply assembly industries—a piece of thread, a bit of glue and a little skill. And all the parts used in those industries are brought from abroad.
If anyone in rural Ireland wishes to start in a big way in the growing of fruit and vegetables, the local bank manager would probably fire a double-barrelled shotgun at him. When an Irish company want to expand the production and processing of Irish fruits, they are told that they cannot sell more than 10 per cent. of their output in this country because if they sold more they would harm X, Y and Z factories which have their headquarters outside this country. As far as our industrial wing is concerned, the only thing it has done is to give employment to Mary Ellen and Michael Pat who might have otherwise been working in Manchester and other English cities at £10, £15 or maybe £20 a week. Instead, they are now working in some part of Ireland at half that figure or less.
However, the people who are employing them are getting equally as big a dividend as the people who would have been employing them in England. There are lower wages in Ireland but not lower profits. Can anybody tell me why it is possible for a firm to come half-way round the world from a country where there is a surplus population and the lowest possible wages to this country and set up an assembly factory here? Is it because they know they can get coolie labour as cheap in Ireland as in the country from which they come? I do not think that is a healthy state of affairs and it would be far better if we concentrated on our agriculture and the products that come from it.
It amazes me to listen to the unctuous voices on the radio telling the people that another new factory has been set up in X town, that 25 or 50 people are to be employed initially and that it is hoped that number will increase to 200 in 18 months' time. How many of those concerns have reached the minimum since they were set up? How many of them have gone the other 50 per cent. in employment content in the past five years? How many of them who started off with 30 employees and promised they would reach 300 within two or three years have done so? We never get those figures. It is always a fair carrot to say "Right. We are starting off with 30 but we may have 100 or 200 before we finish." But I have yet to see the 100 or 200. There is no incentive to these people to give extra employment if they have ten years to make their money here and then depart.
The Minister may not like these statements. I want to make it quite clear to him that, bad and all as it is to be handing out State money without any control over its expenditure, without any safeguards on the people's money, it is far worse to find Irish land left on the open market so that these people can not alone come in and establish industries but can buy up Irish land to the detriment of our farming community.
I do not care what anybody outside or inside this House may think of what I have to say. I am against that. I hope I will not be described as being narrow minded in this. I welcome the idea of visitors coming here. I have nothing against the tourist trade, but I have everything against allowing the tourist to remain here and oust Irishmen. If any Deputy thinks that the foreigner, no matter how good he may be, should have the same rights in Ireland as an Irishman, let him examine his conscience and examine also our Constitution, in which it is made quite clear that the Government's objective must be to set up the greatest number of economic holdings on which Irish people can make a reasonable living. I am not saying anything against foreigners as individuals or in their private capacities, but it would be a betrayal of that principle and a great tragedy if they were allowed to displace the Irish in their own country. They can do that if they are allowed in here without any form of restriction. I hope the Government will keep a weather eye open in that regard.
The Government's chances of lasting any length of time are slim. I would ask the Minister at this stage to get his Taoiseach to consult with the Leader of Fine Gael, Deputy Dillon. I saw the two of them in close conversation around the Bishop of Clonfert at a recent conference. I think the Bishop of Clonfert should resume his conference, call these two men together and tell them, since there is no difference between them, instead of play-acting in this House, to get together in one Party and form the next Government so that the Irish people will have an opportunity of judging on a political philosophy and of seeing the results of a combined approach to a question rather than the approaches of two different Parties with the same policy. Until that is done there is very little hope for this country. It must be done soon. It must be done if there is any question of the Common Market.
On that issue, Deputy Dillon has stated that Fine Gael are better negotiators than Fianna Fáil. That was his only criticism of the team going over for this Government. We know that as far as the team going to the Common Market negotiations is concerned it does not matter one iota whether it is Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil. No one need try to cod the public that one is a better team than the other. The material either team would have to use is limited and is the same. Our bargaining power is limited. But, at least, if they got together at this stage it would clear the field for proper political development here.
