As the Taoiseach is to get in at 4 O'clock and there are about 15 minutes left, I will split the difference with somebody.
Debate on Adjournment: Government Policy (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
"That the Dáil at its rising this day do adjourn until Tuesday, 22nd January, 1963."
The Deputy can have it all.
I do not propose to waste any time. I have listened to debates on the Common Market and while certain features are interesting, such as what will happen to this industry or that industry, other aspects are debated which, in my opinion, are a waste of time and which it is most unwise to discuss. I refer to questions such as the conditions we propose to agree to, or the defensive conditions we are going to accept. We should trust the Government, no matter who the Government, are. Deputy Dillon stated that his Party is behind the Government in their difficult negotiations and I think every member of the House should be behind the Government. They should not take the view that if the Government succeed and do well, they will get certain kudos. That is wrong because to do that is to stab the people in the back because the Government, irrespective of what they may gain, are expected to do the right thing for all the people.
That is the line Deputy Dillon has taken and it is the right line. However, this morning he wanted to know about defence commitments. I think it is unwise to question the Taoiseach on those matters because I am sure the Taoiseach's aim will be to get as much as he can and give away as little as he can. I suppose he is handicapped in this because if he admits that he wants to give away as little as possible and get as much as possible, he may be told: "We do not want you at all." We are looking for something rather than the Common Market looking for anything from us. We are the poor relation, whether we like it or not, and that is why we have to follow Britain and abide by her decision to a large extent. It must be remembered that there are people who have stated that they do not want countries like Ireland in at all. We are not so independent as to be able to dictate conditions. We have to accept that there are certain risks to be taken and because of the advantages we have to take those risks. Many people will ask: "Why should we take risks?" The answer is that there are the two classes of people. One class is prepared to live in the gutter out of fear of getting hurt, and there are those who say: "We want a place in the sun and, if it means taking a risk to get it, we will take it." That is the attitude we must adopt, if we want a place in the sun. We do not know what risks we will be asked to take but we will hope to get as much as we can and give away as little as we can and I think on the whole we will come out well.
It is not right for members to try to trip up the Government by saying that on such a point they said this and now they say they are saying something else. The conditions are not the same as when we were speaking about neutrality. There was no question then of the Common Market or of the economic collapse of this country, arising from being kept out of the Common Market. Like good generals, we have to be creatures of circumstance and that is exactly what we are.
It is silly to tie down the people who are responsible and it is not fair to ask. "What are you going to give away" or that sort of thing. This is a sort of game, whether you like it or not. It is like a game of poker; if you want a man to play a good game of poker, you should not disturb him but should leave him alone. The good poker player is out to win and we must assume that the Government are out to win for all the people, apart from any kudos if they are successful get more kudos if they are successful and the Opposition, if they are really honest, should desire the success of the project, irrespective of whether the Government get kudos or not, and if they are certain the whole country is going to benefit. That is the only point I want to make on that aspect of the Common Market. While it is fair enough to ask questions about the effects on unemployment and so on, to start rubbing it in about our defence commitments is sabotage, I think. We are all alive to the fact that there would be a complete collapse here, if Britain goes in and we do not.
We should look upon the Government as an army. A general in an army has his own views and he acts according to the situation. He may decide to retreat, but he does not want anyone annoying him about the retreat, because he may not intend to retreat far. We should ask questions about the effect on employment and about gearing ourselves to meet the situation. but we should not question the Government about negotiations. We should trust the Government to do the right thing. That would be the more patriotic thing to do.
I think there has been an improvement in the situation so far as employment is concerned. I am not trying to make a Fianna Fáil speech—I am here as a neutral. I know there has been an improvement in employment because you cannot get carpenters, electricians or trades people. I was in an office yesterday and I listened to a conversation between two electricians who were putting up fluorescent lights. One of them said: "I am making £18 a week," and the other said: "I am making £20 a week." I overheard one of them say you cannot get an electrician nowadays. The same applies to carpenters and to workers in the building trade. They have plenty of work.
There is also an improvement on the emigration side. We are told now that emigration is practically normal. We hear that 20,000 people are leaving the country, but thousands are coming back. We must bear that in mind. I have experience of dealing with people who have come back and are looking for houses. I know that within the past two and a half years 850 people who have returned from Britain were rehoused by Dublin Corporation. That is a pointer. I also know that on the housing list in Dublin there are 580 more people who came back waiting to be housed.
That is Dublin. What about the rest of the country?
What is happening here must be happening in the rest of the country. I am talking facts, not baloney. These are facts which were given by the manager at the last Dublin Corporation meeting. I know there are hundreds of letters from people in England who want to come back, if they can get houses. I have received scores of letters from people asking could they get a house if they came back. It is a fact that even if people are going away they are coming back, so, as far as emigration is concerned, things are quite normal. There will always be emigration. This is not a terribly rich country and we will always have emigration. It has been going on for the past 150 years and at the moment is nothing like what it used to be. What we have to fear is not the present but the future. I said I would share my time with anyone who wished to speak, and if any member wants the five minutes which is left, he is welcome.
I will take Deputy Sherwin's leave to speak for five minutes. I have in my hand a cutting of 8th June of this year, that is, not two and a half years ago. A curate addressed a meeting of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union at Killarney on emigration and other present-day social problems. He said:
In 1962, we had increased productivity, more cars, more factories, more roads, more washing machines, more of most things, but we had 146,000 fewer people than ten years ago, 281,000 fewer than when the State was founded, and 3,000,000 fewer than 120 years ago.
Some Kerry parishes had little more than one-tenth of their pre-famine population. A parish that had 343 baptisms in 1842 had less than ten per year to-day.
The priest said that there was no need to labour the point. He continued:
Alone amongst the nations of the world we had a decreasing population.
If there was a more depressing fact in Irish life to-day than emigration, it was our acceptance of emigration as a normal natural necessary solution for some of our problems.
Deputy Sherwin might consider that: "Acceptance of emigration as a normal solution." He continued:
Does one who sees tens of thousands of our youth leaving Ireland every year have to be an expert before he can say that there is something wrong somewhere? Does one who sees abandoned farm-steads all over the countryside have to be an expert before he can grieve for the families that are gone?
The flight from the land which is taking place in some European countries to-day is something which took place in Ireland over 100 years ago in a much more severe form.
He continued, on the 8th June of this year:
At present Ireland's total population per square mile of agricultural land was the lowest in Europe. Her rural population per mile of agricultural land was the lowest in Europe, and agriculturally-occupied population was, except for Britain and Spain, the lowest in Europe.
He said:
Emigration, the problem of depopulation, was not going to solve itself. Others are not going to solve it for us. We must solve it by our own efforts and sacrifices.
I read in the Irish Times, a paper which is constantly patting the Government on the back, a report in February of this year which talked about our association with the European Economic Community. It said that people who take an easy view of our entering the Community show:
... a callous disregard of the interests of our working community who at present have to put up with the lowest living standards in Northern Europe—and, even to-day, the highest rates of unemployment and emigration.
That is the condition to which we have been brought by Fianna Fáil and Fianna Fáil policy. We are now trying to get into the European Economic Community. Deputy Sherwin thinks we should not ask the Government questions.
Some questions.
He says they are like an army which may be retreating but may not retreat very far, and we should not try to impede them so that they may re-group and attack again.
The Taoiseach gave an interview on 18th July of this year to a columnist of the New York Times named Mr. Sulzberger. This quotation was given before, but I want to give it again. He said:
We are prepared to go into an integrated union without any reservations at all as to how far this will take us in the field of foreign policy or defence commitments.
That is not a gentleman who is making a slight retreat in order to re-group his forces. That is a full retreat.
Does the Deputy agree with it?
That we are in retreat? I think we are in full retreat.
Does the Deputy agree with what the Taoiseach said?
That we should go in, no matter what the cost? Deputy Sherwin has given the alternative— complete and utter destruction. What preparation have we made for going in? What plans have we? If wo do not get full membership, have we something to fall back on?
The Deputy understands that the Taoiseach will be called upon at 4 o'clock.
I have a minute. There is hysterical enthusiasm here because our application was not turned down at once. Nobody told the people of this country that at the time our application was being considered the Chairman of the Brussels Commission said that the conclusion was still open. It is treated here as if we really got in.
Most people subscribe £1 or 10/- to the Hospitals' Trust. You get a receipt but you do not immediately start to spend £10,000. That is all we have got —a receipt that our application was received. On the foot of that, there is hysteria, because we are being considered for full membership and that it is likely that full membership will be given. I do not know but I do know that we are facing a terrible situation if we get into the full swing of competition after having been feather-bedded for 40 years. We are in a championship competition under a handicap. The feather-bedding was done for years. One does not send invalids out into the roughness of the bad climatic conditions. We have preserved people from competition conditions for years and now we are trying to get into conditions of competition where the competition will be still fiercer. Ministers make speeches and read each other's speeches and get into the mood of saying that everything is all right and then Deputies, like Deputy Sherwin, say: "Leave it to the Government."
I should like to congratulate Deputy Sherwin on having concentrated more common sense into the ten minutes during which he spoke than all the previous speakers did for the four hours they had at their disposal. When I was informed that the Fine Gael Party wished to have an Adjournment debate, I inquired, very naturally, what they intended to debate. I was told that there might be some casual or informal reference to the Common Market but that other topics would also be raised. I came into the House this morning not knowing what topics were going to be raised in the debate. I thought I had something to complain about on that score but I found, however, that I was in exactly the same position as all the members of the Fine Gael Party who did not seem to know what it was all about either, not excluding Deputy Dillon.
There seems to be an attitude of mind in those Parties, expressed by Deputy Dillon and Deputy Corish, that they have a right to attack the Government, and to paddle their Party canoes up any creek that appears inviting to them, but that it is ungentlemanly for us to defend ourselves against their attacks and outrageous for us to criticise them in turn. Political life and public office impose many burdens but they also confer a few pleasures. One of the pleasures is that of criticising one's critics, exposing their foolishness and demonstrating their errors. That is a pleasure of which I no not propose to deprive myself.
Deputy Dillon started off by complaining that Ministers are too active in attending various functions round the country at which they make speeches explaining Government policy. That complaint appears to me to be based on a failure to understand democratic procedures and an entire misconception of the function of Government. In my view, the working of democracy requires the building up of the most intimate relationships possible between the members of the Government who have responsibility for the day to day conduct of the affairs of State and the people. That involves not merely frequent and clear interpretations of Government policy, in relation to the prevailing national circumstances, but also listening to the comments on that policy and the criticisms, if there are criticisms, of ordinary citizens, whether they express these comments and criticisms, as individuals or as members of some organisation meeting at an annual conference. I want to make it clear that I have no intention of curtailing the activities of Ministers in this respect. On the contrary, I have been urging them, if possible, to extend the range of these activities. If I am setting too hot a pace for Fine Gael, I do not mind. They will have to trot to keep up with us.
Deputy Dillon expressed concern about the adverse trade balance. He talked about the gap that exists between the value of our visible imports and the value of our invisible exports. It is true that the over-all picture at the end of this year, when it will be possible to determine it in February or March next year, will probably show some deficit on our external payments but, in so far as that deficit has not involved as the Deputy found out, any diminution of our external reserves, it is not a matter for great concern. Our economy is in a healthy state. In a period of national economic expansion there will be imports of machinery and raw materials for agriculture and industry in greater volume than previously. These imports will appear in the trade statistics as physical goods, whereas the money that frequently comes in to pay for them does not so appear.
It is true that this year there has been a falling off in exports, which is a matter for some concern. It is due to a variety of causes, the more important of which is the expansion of internal consumption by reason of the higher standard of living which our people now enjoy, partly as a very direct result of the increases in wages which were negotiated last year and early this year.
There was also a diminution in the value of our cattle exports as compared with last year when they were abnormally high. That is a situation which is not necessarily a cause for anxiety. On the contrary, the indications are that the outlook for the future is quite sound.
It is true that an expanding volume of exports is necessary to enable us to sustain our rate of economic expansion and the policy of the Government is directed towards bringing that about. A multitude of devices have been brought into operation in order to stimulate exports and they are working well and satisfactorily. There is no comparison between the situation that exists today and that which existed in 1956 when Deputy Dillon was controlling the affairs of the nation. The situation today does not require the emergency measures which had then to be resorted to, with serious consequences in that year, in order to prevent the total collapse of the economy. Our progress since has, I think, removed the danger of the repetition of that experience for a very long time to come.
I would advise Deputy Dillon to exert himself a little more in reading the documentation which we make available to him. If he had studied the Report of the Central Bank or other similar reports supplied to him, he would understand our circumstances a little better.
I study them very carefully.
Even if it did not help him to understand the circumstances, it would relieve him of the anxieties, if he really has any, which he expressed today. Deputy Dillon and Deputy Corish played with our unemployment statistics in order to misrepresent the situation as regards employment being less satisfactory that it is. The number of persons registered as unemployed this year has been slightly higher than it was last year for about half the number of weeks to date and lower for the other half but it is very much lower in every week of this year than it was in 1960 and vastly lower than it was in 1956.
There are 300,000 in Birmingham and Manchester.
I will deal with that question also. The sales of unemployment insurance stamps in this financial year to date show that the weekly average number of persons in employment in this year is 7,200 higher than it was last year. That is not enough. That is less than our target. We have not realised our full aim in increasing employment this year but we have increased employment nevertheless. May I remind Deputy Dillon of the time when the average weekly number of persons in employment was 20,000 less than it was in the previous year, in 1956 as compared with 1955? We are not going ahead as fast as we would like but we are going ahead.
In many trades, as Deputy Sherwin pointed out, and in many industrial occupations requiring particular skills there is a scarcity of workers. In many areas of the country full employment has been realised and, indeed, there are directions in which our economic progress is being retarded at this time by labour shortages. That is our real problem and it is the problem to which I would prefer to see Deputies directing their attention rather than trying to disparage the reality of our achievement so far.
Deputy Sherwin is quite right in one respect, that part of the effort to build up our skilled labour force, particularly for the building trades, is retarded by our inability to give an assurance to those workers who want to come back to employment in this country that there will be houses immediately available for them. We have to review our whole housing policy in this regard because it is obviously undesirable that we should find ourselves retarded in our progress in any direction by reason of that problem. It is a problem which does exist and it is not so easy to see what the solution will be because the basis of our existing legislation is the obligation placed upon local authorities to build houses against established needs, whereas what we appear to need is an arrangement which will ensure building of houses against anticipated needs.
There is also this problem that while we can say with considerable justification that there is no great difficulty in getting employment in Ireland at this time for a person with a skill of any kind, there is still the old problem of an undue supply of unskilled labour. Therefore, we have to find means by which we can convert that unskilled labour into a skilled force of some sort. That will require, not merely a considerable extension of our training facilities, but an arrangement acceptable to the trade union movement which will ensure that those who are given skills by any process we may devise will be permitted to use those skills to secure employment.
In relation to this problem of employment and unemployment at this time, the main matters that are giving the Government concern are these two. First to meet the housing needs of those whom we want to attract back from England to employment here, and to meet the housing needs arising from industrial expansion in particular towns, which is often a cause of great concern to those who are promoting industries—and, secondly securing an effective method by which we can help those of our people who are unskilled to enhance their prospects of employment by giving them skills of some sort.
Emigration is still continuing. It is true, as Deputy Sherwin said, it is a great deal less than it has been. The figures were given in reply to a Parliamentary Question during this week in respect of the 12 months ended October, when net emigration recorded in that period was slightly over 18,000. It is a great deal less than it has been in any year since the end of the war. It is about one-third of what it was in the period which Deputy Dillon tries to represent to us as the golden age of the Coalition Government.
It is possible to pull down that figure a great deal more if we can continue our present rate of progress on the industrial side, if we can help to meet the deficiency in certain classes of skilled tradesmen, on the other side, and particularly if we can secure the new situation in the small farm areas which we are aiming to do along the lines recommended by the Small Farm Committee whose report was published this year.
I was amused when Deputy Dillon read here an extract from a speech which he made to the Fine Gael Ard Fheis last year. "Fine Gael," he said, "has never put the political interests of the Fine Gael Party before the national advantage." Remembering the catastrophic consequences of these two Coalition Governments promoted and engineered by Fine Gael, because of its readiness to subordinate national interest to the most narrow and temporary Party advantage, I am sure the delegates to his Ard Fheis must have sniggered behind their hands when he made that statement or perhaps admired his audacity.
Whose Governments did more for Ireland in six years than Fianna Fáil did in 40.
Deputy Corish complained that I have a reluctance to answer questions about the European Economic Community. That is untrue. I have endeavoured here in the House and outside the House, in a series of public statements, and in reply to specific queries, to give the fullest information on that situation that it was possible to give, while sticking to the facts and trying to avoid guesses as far as possible.
There are two qualifications which I must make, however, in expressing my willingness to keep on giving information to members of the House in this regard. First of all, we are going to be engaged some time next year in important negotiations. I am not going to suggest that they will be very intricate or very difficult but they certainly will be important. A chess player would have little prospect of winning the match against an opponent if he had to explain in the hearing of the opponent the reason for every move he made.
When questions are addressed to me which could in any circumstances, cause difficulties or complications for us in these negotiations, I must decline to answer them. A question was asked this week about the rhythm of tariff reductions which we had proposed to the EEC and that question was answered. It was answered because the information had already been published. If it had not been published, I would have had serious doubts about the wisdom of doing so, not that the giving of that information to the House was so very important but because it appeared to imply willingness on our part to keep on giving similar types of information which Deputies might like to have during the progress of the negotiations.
May I ask the Taoiseach a question now? Does he think it right that it should have been published, or how did it leak out?
I do not know. I cannot control the security arrangements of the European Economic Community.
It is regrettable if it should not have been mentioned that it should have leaked out.
I want to make this qualification about that proposal, that it was made last year and there have been changes since last year. It will not necessarily be the arrangement that will result from the negotiations even if the principle of a special rhythm is accepted. Two important changes are obvious: first of all, our own decision to commence a process of tariff reduction by an across-the-board cut, beginning on 1st January next and, secondly, the fact that our entry into the European Economic Community is now obviously going to be later than we had originally assumed. These circumstances may or may not involve some change in that rhythm but what I want to make clear is that we will enter into these negotiations endeavouring, as Deputy Sherwin very sensibly remarked, to get the best possible arrangement for this country.
He is literally the white-haired boy today.
He certainly has been talking sense which I cannot say for others.
Naturally, he is talking sense.
The second type of question that I do not like answering is one which asks me to speculate about the possible course of events in the future. I know that, at most times, that is what the Deputies want me to do, not to give them facts, which they probably know, but to speculate as to how events may turn out. It is an unwise operation for any politician to endeavour to prophesy regarding a course of events which is not under his control. It is true that I have said here, and elsewhere, that I think the British negotiations will be successful and that both Britain and ourselves, and the other applicant countries, will be members of the European Economic Community by 1st January, 1964. I think that is true, but the important thing from my point of view was to emphasise, again and again in all the statements I make around the country, the probability of these events so that any remaining element of doubt as to the outcome of these operations will be eliminated from the minds of those who have work to do in preparing the country for this new situation.
A very small hole in the bottom of a bucket will eventually empty the whole bucket, and a very minor element of doubt in the minds of those people to whom I have referred, as to the inevitability of their having to undertake these operations will reduce their sense of urgency and encourage them to put off to another day the practical operations on which they should be engaged. It is for that reason that I feel it is in the national interest that I should endeavour to eliminate as far as I can any speculation as to the outcome of these negotiations, any remaining doubts as to our eventual membership of the European Economic Community; but, when I make that case, I know that I am talking about events that I cannot control and on the basis of information which may be incomplete.
Deputy Dillon queried a statement I made regarding the progress of Denmark's negotiations. I do not think this is of the slightest importance, but my information is that substantive negotiations have not yet taken place with any of the applicant countries other than Great Britain. It is true there have been some meetings at Ministerial level between Denmark and the member states of the European Economic Community during the course of the year. I do not think very much was done at them, but I do not want to pretend to have a knowledge that I have not got. There may be in Denmark a political situation which requires the Government there to seek to have these meetings held.
It is definite that the Community have now decided to give absolute priority to the negotiations with Great Britain and there will be no further action taken in respect of ourselves, Denmark, or Norway, until these negotiations are completed to the point that there is an outline of the arrangements which indicate the character of the final agreement. I do not think there is any bearing whatever on our negotiations in the relationship of the Community with either Denmark or Norway. In my view, our application involves fewer complications for the Community than the application of Denmark or Norway. Indeed, it should present the Community with no difficulty at all.
A suggestion has been made here that I have been in some way less than frank with the people in informing them about the political implications of this movement towards European integration. I, from the very first day on which I began to speak to the Irish people about what was happening in Europe, about our intention to apply, or the circumstances of our application for membership of the European Economic Community, have on every single occasion endeavoured to direct public attention to, or arouse public interest in, the political implications to secure understanding of the fact that an economic union was intended to be the foundation for a political structure. Nobody knows now what form that political structure may take. It is quite obvious that there is a very wide difference of opinion not only between the existing members of the Community but also amongst all the applicant countries as to the form of an agreement for political integration, as to the timing of it, as to the scope of it.
I dislike the suggestion that there has been any misunderstanding here of the significance of our application by reason of any failure on the part of the Government to make the position clear to the people. I think implications of that kind can be damaging to our prospects. It might be a good idea—indeed, I have it under consideration—that I should publish a suitably edited brochure containing the speeches I have made on this subject, inside and outside this House, since the date of our application— suitably edited, I might add, only to avoid unnecessary repetition, because there has of course been a great deal of repetition on my part. I think such a brochure would be helpful not merely in informing people abroad, newspaper correspondents and the like, about our attitude but also in securing an understanding here of the consistency of our policy from the start in this regard.
Does the Taoiseach propose to deal with the defence implications?
Deputy Dillon criticised me today because of certain remarks I made at the Fianna Fáil Árd Fheis in regard to the probable form of a European political agreement. It was he who asked me to speculate on this. I did not want to do it. I did not think it was wise but, with my usual courtesy, I did not want to disregard what he thought was a reasonable request. But I made it clear that speculation was not very useful and could be misleading.
That would be true of everything at the Árd Fheis, would it not?
That does not come well from the Deputy. If the Deputy had been there, he would be rather ashamed of his Party in the Dáil because the level of the debate was much higher than it usually is here.
I think it is reasonable to assume that if there is an agreement, and I doubt very much if there will be any attempt to move towards an agreement until the question of the present applications for membership of the Community has been disposed of, it will be at that level at which the consent of every country involved can be secured. At this point of time, judging by the known position of some of these countries, it will be a rather vague commitment indeed, but it will be no more than a beginning, and it will be seen to be no more than a beginning, the first step on a road which will eventually lead to some closer integration of the countries of Western Europe for their mutual benefit. So far as I am concerned, I have tried to make clear in all my statements that we accept that it is in that direction that Europe is going. We want to go along with Europe on that road. We are not at this point of time saying to any country in Europe that we will want to stop at one point or another. We are making no reservations as to how far that road will take us. Mark you, if we started to make reservations now, I think we would not get very far on it at all.
I want to refer just briefly to a suggestion made in the course of this debate in regard to the issue of neutrality. That word is used by people who never attempt to define it. The suggestion was made that there has been some change in our attitude either for the purpose of easing our entry into the Community or because of some pressure exercised on us from within the Community.
Either of these suspicions is completely unfounded. Long before the matter of our membership of the European Economic Community became practical politics, I made a statement at a function in Dublin—a meeting in the Four Courts of the Solicitors' Society—which received very considerable newspaper publicity at the time, in which I declared the policy of the Government. I made this statement on 1st December, 1960, when the possibility of our applying for membership of the EEC had not arisen at all because of the then attitude of Great Britain to that development. On that occasion I said:
Ireland is not a member of any military alliance. We have no international commitments of a military character except insofar as they arise from our membership of the United Nations. Specifically, we have no contractual obligation to declare war when some other country becomes involved in a military conflict or to provide any facilities to another country in these circumstances.
This absence of contractual obligation outside the United Nations, however, does not answer the vital questions: whether, if war should develop between the Western democracies and the Communist powers, we could avoid involvement or would wish to be regarded as neutral or could be indifferent as to the outcome.
Later in the address I gave, on behalf of the Government, in which I was then Taoiseach, our answers to those questions and I said:
We do not profess or pretend to be indifferent to the outcome of the East-West conflict, nor present ourselves as neutral on the ideological issues which now divide the world. Nobody who knows our people, their deep religious convictions and love of freedom, could ever think of us as neutral or negative in the present situation. We are clearly on the democratic side, and everybody, knows West and East, that is where we belong, and, come what may, we would not wish them to think otherwise.
I have said nothing on that issue since which differed in a single iota from what I said then.
And that still represents the policy of the Government?
It still represents the thinking of the Government. I do not believe that policy declarations by heads of Government should be converted into straitjackets. Nothing which I have said in declaring the policy of the Government in which I am the Taoiseach, or nothing my predecessors said, was carved in stone, or is anything like a commandment which must guide our policy for all time. There are certain immutable principles which will direct that policy but circumstances change and with them policies and programmes must change also. I have declared our position in this issue and certainly I can say that the principles which have determined our policy will not change. Of course one cannot know what circumstances will arise in the world and I certainly am not laying down any decision to bind my successors.
If there are any fundamental changes, will the Taoiseach make an announcement?
Certainly.
Here?
I shall make announcements anywhere and at any time I think wise. This idea that all announcements made by the Government must be made in the Dáil is absurd because part of the function of the Government is to inform public opinion on matters of national concern, to endeavour to get them to think about the problems which the Government have under consideration, to state the facts of particular circumstances so that understanding of them will be widespread and to ensure that when a decision is taken and communicated to the Dáil and to the public, there will be widespread understanding of the reasons for it by the largest possible number of people. I must confess that I was not greatly impressed by Deputy Dillon's anxiety about the future of the workers employed in protected industries here, to prevent the establishment of which he devoted a large part of his political life.
He has more people employed than any member of the front Government benches.
That is a literal truth.
If it is a deathbed conversion, I welcome it.
He was giving employment when you people were not known in this country.
If the Deputy had been in the House then he would know that Deputy Dillon never missed a chance to deride these industries and to endeavour to prevent their coming to fruition and as for the old man of the sea, Deputy McGilligan, he wrecked more industries than I succeeded for many years in getting re-established.
Was the Shannon Scheme a white elephant then?
I feel pretty sure the workers of this country know that concern for their welfare and future has always been an integral part of Fianna Fáil policy and that it will continue to be so. These reports being published from the CIO are not intended to be assessments of the position these industries will find themselves in when free trade is upon them. They represent the beginning of an operation designed to make these industries capable of withstanding free competition when they have to face it. I have said already that we are far more advanced in our preparation for the adjustments necessary to face the new circumstances than any of the six member countries were at the corresponding time before they commenced their tariff dismantling and, as far as I can see, we are far more advanced in Government arrangements than any of the countries seeking membership with us.
If you believe that, you will believe anything.
The purpose of these surveys of industries is designed to bring out the problems we have to deal with. We will not leave them there to weep over as Deputy McGilligan would have us do. We want to devise ways to enable them to expand so that they can increase their efficiency, to reorganise them so as to ensure that they will not merely survive but expand in the new circumstances. Deputy Dillon referred to one of those industries, the motor assembly industry, which he claimed was typical of those that might not survive. I am one of those who would agree the motor assembly industry is not likely to survive. A report on this industry will be published in the early future. There are some people in that industry who do not agree, who point to what is happening in Belgium where the motor assembly industry, built up like ours, has not merely survived but is expanding because it has been found that the additional cost of local assembly is less than the cost of transportation plus the cost of repair of damage to completed cars in transit.
I do not think our market is big enough to give this industry in Ireland the prospect of the same future as appears likely to be the case in Belgium. We have therefore in that instance a problem of converting these factories to other activities. Even if we come to the conclusion, as some firms certainly will, that at a point of time, be it four, five or six years hence, when the reduction in tariff has reached a point where it equates with the higher cost of assembly here, that they will have to go out of the assembly business, these factories will be converted to new uses. We are urging on plans now for this conversion. We are saying to these firms: "We will give you the financial aid, the technical assistance, all reasonable help to you and your workers to enable you to complete that conversion in good time." Some of them have already made these plans but not yet on a scale that would enable me to say that the whole problem presented by that industry, brought artificially into existence by high protection, will be resolved when that protection, is terminated.
I am quite certain that the enterprising and practical men who control these factories—who invested their money in these factories—are now considering all possibilities in that direction.
The Taoiseach did say——
Certainly, the decisions in individual cases when taken will have to be announced by the firms concerned—not by the Government.
The Taoiseach said in July last that there was dissatisfaction with the slow rate in making these changes.
The Deputy must understand my position in this matter. I think we are as well advanced in the preparations as could reasonably be expected, starting from the date on which we made our application for membership. On every occasion on which I got a suitable opportunity I have urged on the managers of industry, the trade unions and all the other people concerned that they must speed up their preparations for adjustment to the new situation. I shall certainly not say now that our situation in that regard is satisfactory. In some sectors it is. Nevertheless, the theme of every speech I have made and shall make in the next year is that time is running out—it is running now—and that we must not lose any of it by postponing the changes which common sense indicates are required.
Remember that even though these reports of the CIO are coming to us now, one by one, week after week, the contents of these reports are known to the firms directly concerned a great deal earlier because they are aware of the material collected and the recommendations prepared by the survey teams. All that material and all the recommendations prepared by the survey teams go to the CIO which has the obligation of rewriting the report on each industry to ensure non publication of any information given to the survey team in confidence and also to relate the recommendations of each industry to the overall programme of industrial re-organisation.
Therefore, even though there are a number of industries the reports of which have not been published to us, the firms concerned are aware of what they contain and of the recommendations——
At Question Time the Taoiseach seemed to doubt our view and to think we had misread the forecast on unemployment in the two reports we have.
I think the Deputy has read these reports looking only for that figure in each of them — what number of workers may be rendered redundant if nothing is done. He has always missed that qualification——
That is wrong.
If all the recommendations are accepted by the Government and industry, in one there will be 1,500 out of 4,500 rendered redundant——
——unless the production of the industry is expanded. I have read the report and considered it. That is why I am asking the Deputies to read these reports for what they are—the foundation for a plan of action. We are not merely wringing our hands in sorrow over problems that will arise. We are setting out to solve them. Each report is designed to ensure that the facts will exactly be stated, the problems measured and the right solutions arrived at.
It is not right to say there will not be unemployment——
I have listened to Deputy Corish's song of defeat this morning.
That is not a bluff.
To a large extent the future of this country and of the workers depends on the confidence with which we face these problems.
You have to know the problem first and to accept it.
The Deputy seems to be setting out to undermine their confidence, to try to create a picture of a problem too big to handle.
It is set out here and the Taoiseach refuses to accept it.
The Taoiseach, without interruption.
This is not a new experience. All down the years my recollection is that the attitude of the Labour Party has been directed to undermining our national confidence, to deny our capacity, just as they refuse to accept the reality of our achievements so far. They have made up their minds that nothing can be done in the future——
You set up the Committee.
Somebody is getting rattled.
It is not me.
I suspected it was.
Deputy Corish queried the programme of legislation I promised for this session. I shall not take any undue pride in the fact that we produced for the consideration of the House two of the largest Bills that ever emerged from the office of the parliamentary draftsman——
——one of which took only eight minutes to go through the House.
They are not through yet. Very many important measures have gone through the Dáil and a number of important measures have been introduced for consideration after Christmas. We know that progress in this Session in respect of legislation was delayed by the postponement of the Estimates debates in some cases from the summer period. I hope, however, in view of Deputy Corish's complaint about an insufficiency of legislation emerging from the Dáil, he will co-operate with me in getting his Party colleagues to agree to cut the cackle and to get down to the business of enacting legislation which the country needs in order to complete that——
We advocated that legislation about five years ago.
OK, let the Deputy take all the credit he can for that. I shall not even ask him to turn up the record. The Dáil is resuming after Christmas rather earlier than usual. I am afraid we shall have to ask Deputies during that period to continue to meet three days a week. We shall have a number of important Bills for consideration. I should hope we would be able to tackle these Bills none of which will be controversial in any Party sense, in a constructive way and that the desire will be not merely to improve them but to ensure that they will move to the Statute Book with all due speed. We can meet in the comfortable knowledge that there will not be much other business, other than those Bills, to be dealt with, at any rate in the first weeks. I should hope it will be possible for us to get the Book of Estimates out at a reasonably early date so that the normal financial business of the coming year can be begun reasonably early.
It seems certain however, that a large part of our legislative work next year will overflow into that period in which financial business is the main concern of the Dáil. I think we might indeed consider the possibility of an arrangement during that period under which one day in each week will be devoted to legislation and the other two days to Estimates so that we can complete the Estimates debates before the summer recess next year, unlike this year, and, at the same time, complete the legislation that is required.
I have nothing more to say except to wish you all a very happy Christmas.
The Taoiseach made no reference to the matter of Haughey and Boland.
I raised two points with the Taoiseach, both relating to matters to which I think it desirable to refer. The first was the conduct of the Parliamentary Secretary in differentiating between members of this House in the circulation of official information and the second concerns the propriety of the appointments of firms with political connections, without the matter being brought to the specific attention of the Dáil.
When the Deputy opened up his rag bag this morning I did not know what rags he would pull out. So far as the Parliamentary Secretary is concerned, I have no complaint. I have expressed the view very frequently that any Minister or Parliamentary Secretary should be in charge of his Department and should be the spokesman there. He should be the medium of communication between his Department and Deputies and he should not surrender that function to officials.
I am not talking about that at all.
That is not the point.
I gather that Deputies want an undertaking from me that I shall see to it that the business of Government is so conducted as to benefit Fine Gael. I can give no such undertaking.
Spread it equally.
As regards the appointment of a firm of auditors by some public company, that is not a function of the Government. I should regard it as contrary to the concepts of democracy that any firm with some indirect associations with some member of the Government should be debarred from pursuing its normal business.
Indirectly?
Very indirectly.
We shall deal with that on the Finance Estimate in which the Minister for Finance is an overwhelming shareholder.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 56.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carroll, Jim.
- Carter, Frank.
- Carty, Michael.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, James J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Leneghan, Joseph R.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Con.
- Medlar, Martin.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Mick.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dolan, Séamus.
- Dooley, Patrick.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Padraig.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Gallagher, James.
- Galvin, John.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James M.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Hillery, Patrick.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Moher, John W.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moran, Michael.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- Ormonde, John.
- Ryan, James.
- Sherwin, Frank.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
Níl
- Barrett, Stephen.
- Barron, Joseph.
- Barry, Anthony.
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Jack.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Browne, Noel, C.
- Burke, James J.
- Burton, Philip.
- Byrne, Patrick.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Collins, Seán.
- Connor, Patrick.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan D.
- Costello, John A.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
- Everett, James.
- Farrelly, Denis.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McQuillan, John.
- Mullen, Michael.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Donnell, Thomas G.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. K.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tierney, Patrick.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies J. Brennan and Geoghegan; Níl: Deputies O'Sullivan and Crotty.
Question declared carried.
The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 22nd January 1963.