The fundamental misrepresentation to which I referred is this one concerned in paragraph 21. I do not believe there can be any doubt about the implications of that paragraph. The Parliamentary Secretary seems to try to create the impression that this was merely a sort of a-b-c chosen in simple economics for the benefit of the public. I do not think anybody could take that statement of the position and leave it at that. It is very much more than that and I do not really think the Parliamentary Secretary does not agree with me.
In paragraph 21, they conclude:
In the light of the considerations referred to in the White Paper, the Government deem it necessary that Departments and State-sponsored organisations should not accede for the present to any claims for increases in wages and salaries or for changes in conditions of work, having the same effect, which would arouse similar expectations in other employments.
In the Parliamentary Secretary's hearing last night—I think he was here— the Taoiseach asserted that now we will not start a ninth round wage increase within the Government services and we will not permit statutory bodies to increase wages and salaries. I do not see how the Parliamentary Secretary can assert with any honesty that that does not amount to a wages standstill order, a salary standstill order. The fact is, whatever gloss they are trying to put on it now, that if this paper, had simply contained the warning or the red light type of warning to the public generally and the trade union movement in particular, the trade union movement would not, I think, have missed the point. I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary should base his case, particularly in the light of the future and the very grave conditions his Government are facing in the future, should they survive this motion, on abuse of the trade union movement by his suggestion that they are predominantly a bunch of hysterics, which is implicitly to suggest that any statements made, following the decision, made in this White Paper, were hysterical in tone.
It was obviously a decision of a majority in the TUC and if it was a decision of the majority, it was a considered decision by a body which has been praised by people from both sides here in very fulsome terms as a consistent body, consisting of people over-responsible or over-conscious of their responsibility to the community. Consequently, I think it does a very grave disservice to the Taoiseach's efforts to try to improve the position created by the Paper by this implicit wages standstill and salary standstill order.
It is no good taking individual members; every individual member and every group has a right to his personal opinions. We must take the group opinion, and the group opinion was a very downright condemnation of this White Paper and that group decision was in accordance with—this is the strange part of this whole White Paper —a decision taken in July last at their annual conference in which they said they would resist any attempts to fix wages or salaries with all the powers at their disposal.
As I say, the strange thing is that the Government should have taken this step without consultation. I do not see why they should shy away from prior consultation. There is no reason in the world to accept an advice given at a consultation but I think there is a fairly generally accepted practice in Government Departments of consulting everybody on matters of importance to the individuals concerned, listening to their advice and then taking it or leaving it, just as it suits. Is the Parlia mentary Secretary conscious that the Government's responsibility is to lead? To that effect, they have taken a decision one way or the other. That is an admirable thing, but at the same time the decision should have been one which had taken into consideration all the factors which afterwards might colour the decision or which might be of importance in swaying the decision one way or the other.
So much might have prevented the very drastic reaction which has ensued from a not notably radical trade union movement. Our own trade union movement here, is, if anything, a conservative organisation.
The fact that the reaction has been so brisk and so spontaneous does seem to me to lead to the conclusion that the handling of the matter by the Government has been particularly ill-advised. I think that condemning and accusing these people of being extravagant on top is not going to help this situation at all.
The Parliamentary Secretary attempted to create the impression that this was a broad ultimatum. He did not use the word "ultimatum" but a much softer word. The public generally in connection with all incomes, profits, dividends, salaries and so on know quite well that we have this decision that State servants and servants of State-sponsored bodies must recognise that they will not get any increase in their wages and salaries for an unspecified time. There is great difficulty with regard to the person who is faced with the need for an increase in salary and who is faced with this restriction on his demand. As far as he is concerned, he does not get money when he needs it and consequently it is a wage and salary standstill to him.
The Parliamentary Secretary has attempted to create the impression that this covers everything. Of course, it does not. Of course, the Government have said there should be profit restraint, dividend restraint, but they have also said that they can do nothing about it. They cannot take any effective steps. That is in complete contrast to their relations with semi-State bodies where they can take effective steps. They have told these groups involved that they may not have an increase, no matter how valid their demand may be. On the other hand, they have said to the profit and dividend people: "We hope you will not increase your dividends and profits but we can take no steps to stop you if you wish to do so".
Wage and salary increases are being restricted but it is presumed that the Government within nine, 11 or 12 months will be through their present crisis and they will then be able to loosen their purse strings and with economic expansion, possibly after an election, there will be a time when profits and dividends can be declared and can run to any level and the people will have forgotten that this profit restriction was simply not operative because it will be taken in the context of a general easing of economic tension. So the position is clearly that it is aimed at a specific group within the society.
The Taoiseach had a certain amount of pseudo-indignation at the suggestion that this was directed at a class. Now "class" has several meanings. There is a section which is affected and a section which is not going to be affected and I do not think there is any gainsaying that. I think that point has been established and the Government will yield to nobody in their regard for the wage and salary workers in general, and all workers in particular. That may be so, but the position here is that there is this specific direction to the mass of the people that no matter what their case is, they will not get an increase in their salaries or their wages. This brings me to another point. Nobody going to arbitration, nobody going to a trade union and nobody going to the Labour Court says: "We want an increase for practical purposes; we want an increase simply because profit is increasing." The general thing is to go and say it is because of hardship or an increase in the cost of living or an increasing deterioration.
We all know the various Encyclicals there are about the necessity for a good employer to pay a just wage and yet the Government have taken a decision here that they will not pay a just wage. They have given their reasons. They say they are not going to pay wage increases to their salaried workers for an unspecified period. I think that is a very serious decision which the Government say they are taking in the national interest. It is also the decision of a Government which can at the same time claim, as the Parliamentary Secretary has attempted to claim, to be prosperous so far as economic expansion is concerned. I consider that is one of the weaknesses of the points the Parliamentary Secretary has tried to bring out. On the other hand, he says emigration has fallen, employment has risen, the real value of income has gone up, total exports have soared to an unprecedented figure. With all of those things, it would seem to me that he is trying to make a case that the Programme for Economic Expansion has been a success. In fact he says it was a success.
The Taoiseach put it in a different way. He said: "The Opposition are complaining not because of our failure but because of our success. They are annoyed because of our success." It is incredible that this runs through the speeches made by members of the Government. The Minister for Finance —usually a well-balanced man—followed much the same line in his speech when he said that things were never better, or certainly were not as bad as in 1956 and 1957. That is the old comparison which has gone on from 1932 as can be seen by reading through the Dáil Debates. The main thing is that there is this attempt to say this Programme for Economic Expansion has been a success and at the same time, they tell the victim— presumably that is all you can call the consumer, the salary worker— that though this has been a great success—it was announced in 1958 and 1959—“we cannot pay you a just wage.” Surely that is much more like the proclamation or declaration of a bankrupt concern which is going downhill, of a concern which cannot make both ends meet, which cannot meet its just commitments? Surely that progress in economic expansion should mean that the Government were going to pay a just wage. According to this White Paper, they are not going to pay a just wage.
The Government cannot pay it, despite the fact that they are trying to claim that the Progress of Economic Expansion announced with such great excitement and enthusiasm by the Government has been a success. It reminds me of the old enthusiastic surgeon who carried out an operation and said the operation was a great success, but the patient died. As far as the public are concerned, that is what has happened, because surely success must be judged in figures of re-employment, and above everything, the standard of living. I can see difficulties for the Government but surely the position now is that we have come to the end of this debate that has gone on at least since 1932 in which successive Ministers have made speeches, very like that of the Taoiseach last night, and the net result to the public has not changed appreciably.
One of the minor political enigmas of politics in Ireland was from 1932 to 1959, whether the Taoiseach was a person of tremendous ability, skill and enterprise who was to some extent frustrated by the inhibitions of the older politicians around him. Most of us wondered what would be the position when this man was on his own, when he was really given a chance. Would he be an outstanding success. We now know it was only a fiction that the people who many of us thought were in his way obstructing the evolution of a dynamic mind and in the way of a strong enterprising forward-looking person who could create a socially just and prosperous society. This just did not exist. Since taking over complete control of the country, he has simply shown he has not got the qualities which many people including myself believed he had, the qualities which would allow him to do away with the old inhibitions that many of our Governments and Ministers for Industry and Commerce in particular have had over the years and, as the present President once said, if we do not succeed within the system, we will change it and decide on a completely different one. Many people believed that Deputy Lemass as Taoiseach would have done that. However, it is quite clear now that he has many serious defects.
One of his most serious defects is this inability to accept the fact that he can make mistakes, that he is not infallible. I have only had a relatively short experience of ten years or so of listening to the Taoiseach speaking but I have read many of the debates going back since the beginning of the Dáil, certainly since 1932, and one of the things that has been most consistent in the Taoiseach has been his absolute self-assurance. In spite of all the facts to the contrary in a situation he is quite happy that what he said was right and what he is now saying will prove to be right. We know the fiasco of the Common Market has disclosed him to have been wrong on many occasions. His assessment of a position, his analysis and conclusions about a situation, again and again, have proved to be completely wrong and obviously derived from his own wishful thinking or imagination. This is now on record and I do not intend to go back over it but he has been proved to be completely wrong on many occasions.
The most dangerous aspect of this Government's existence is the fact that this man who is so completely unsettled and unreliable in his powers of analysis of a situation and in drawing conclusions from that analysis, is in control of the country at a particularly difficult time. All the speakers who have said the situation is serious are completely right. I do not think we have been in such a serious position since the 30's. It is even more serious than 1956 and 1957, the reason being, of course, the imminence of a continual deterioration of the situation which appertains in Britain at the moment. This is the factor which will colour events here, no matter what any Government do, growing unemployment no matter what Government are in power. Even if a Labour Government are returned in Britain, I believe the situation must get worse before it gets better.
Because of that, this Government or any Government in power have particularly difficult problems to deal with and in that situation, what is needed more than anything else is a man who is prepared to sit down, look at the position as it is, not imagine the situation as he would like it to be, not a person who is on record as having promised he would do certain things and failed to do them but a person who will say: "This is an emergency situation where there is likely to be growing unemployment here as a result of the pressure against emigration in Britain." This is a situation which requires emergency measures and quite clearly, there are no emergency solutions in this White Paper.
As Deputy John A. Costello said, there are 20 paragraphs devoted to economic baby talk and then there are two paragraphs relating to labour-employer discussions and a reference to the standstill on wages and salaries. That does not provide us with the solution for the grave problems which are facing the Government at the moment. The truth is that the Government are not frightened enough of the situation. They are not sufficiently frightened of the implications of the reduction of tariffs which ultimately is inevitable, the increasing competition from very powerful outside industrial forces, the inevitability of many of our industries going to the wall. It is unimportant now that they are weak and undermechanised. The reality is that they will not be able to stand up to the competition that is coming and that means growing unemployment.
These are matters which the Taoiseach is refusing to face. His refusal to face them today is a consistent part of his character. When the adjournment debate was on last December— Deputy O'Higgins referred to it this morning—the Taoiseach made a number of statements. At column 1470 of the Official Report of the 13th December, 1962, the Taoiseach said:
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.
Again, in the same column:
A multitude of devices have been brought into operation in order to stimulate exports and they are working well and satisfactorily.
That is clearly not a warning. It is not a red light or an amber light; it is the green light all the time. According to him, everything is all right. Again he says: "On the contrary, the indications are that the outlook for the future is quite good, that the falling off in exports is not necessarily a cause for anxiety." Then there is his statement referred to by Deputy Dillon that the various danger signals then appearing were not a matter of great concern. He advises Deputy Dillon to exert himself a little more in reading the documentation made available to him, including the Central Bank report. I wonder if the Taoiseach read the Central Bank report. If he did, he did not see the warnings that things were in a serious condition.
Page 15 of that report states:
State expenditure, borrowing and annual debt-service charges are thus increasing much more rapidly than national output.
And again:
Much of the public capital programme is still of a social nature, and some of the remainder is economically productive in a long term sense only.
Further on, it is stated:
On an international comparison of cost per unit of output we have not improved our competitive position since 1950.
On Page 11 the report states:
It is now widely recognised that the recent increase in incomes considerably exceeds the increase in output. This involves increased costs of production, with a loss in competitive power both in the home market and in markets abroad, higher consumers' prices and, probably, increased imports of finished goods and domestic consumption of home produced goods — many of which contain a proportion of imported materials—with a further widening of the external trade gap and a deterioration in the current balance of payments.
I will not weary the House by repeating many of these quotations but I will say that there were quotations in the Central Bank report which did not rationalise the reasons given by the Taoiseach for recommending the reading of it by Deputy Dillon. On Page 16, it says:
The present is a very critical time for Irish industrial development. Salary and wage earners have fared well over recent years, and the time has come for a pause, at least until national output has expanded sufficiently to enable further increases in incomes to be negotiated without risk to continued economic progress.
Nobody has more contempt for the ideology of the Central Bank than I have, but here in this House, it is never questioned. Leaving that aside, here is an authority in which there is a volume of simply worded warnings of the necessity for the restraint now advocated by the Minister for Finance and a suggestion that this pay pause which is now included in the White Paper should be introduced. At the time of the Central Bank report, when the Taoiseach was asking Deputy Dillon to read it, it is quite obvious that he had not bothered to study it himself. At that time, he was talking about the economic situation not being of any great concern.
Surely that is an example of the Taoiseach's complete refusal to accept the fact that the Programme for Economic Expansion has been a failure? It has not been the success which the Parliamentary Secretary to-day suggested it has been. When the Taoiseach brazened it out here in the face of the Opposition criticism and said that there was no need to worry, he did so in the full knowledge that the authority on which he places so much reliance had warned the country some months before the December debate. What has happened between December and mid-February to create the necessity for the restrictive measures now being introduced by the Department of Finance?
The Taoiseach has attempted to justify this discrimination against the salaried worker and wage-earner in their own interests. He says that if they use this restraint, their output will increase and that he will be in a position to reward them for their increased efforts. I do not know of any justification for this thesis at all. It strikes me as being very like this frightening preoccupation with slogans which has characterised so many doctrinaire conservative Governments. In the early days, the key to prosperity was free trade. In the 30's, it was protection and in the 60's, we get back to free trade. We have mention of EFTA, and GATT and the EEC. We are told that they are all going to be the key to our success and that all we have to do is to increase production. There is nothing wrong in saying that we must increase production but it is the way that they set about increasing production that is wrong and that is the basic fallacy of the whole case put forward by the Government.
There is a suggestion that there be consultation between the workers and the employers to get wage restraint. That is not going to solve the problem of the Governments, either in Great Britain or here. The Taoiseach said last night: "Do not make the same mistake twice". Why does he, having accepted that simple truth, go on to make the same mistake as Selwyn Lloyd made in Britain which got him the sack and brought his country to the verge of a very serious economic recession? Surely one can learn from other people's failures and mistakes. This wages pause did not work in Britain and it will quite certainly not work here.
Then we come to the suggestion that the wages pause is the important consideration. There are many economists who are prepared to say that the wage content is not an important part of the approach to increasing productivity, and I think that is simple enough for anybody to see. The wage-freeze is directed against this one section, the wage and salary earners, as opposed to the profit and the dividend owner. In that way, it is clear it is sectional in its direction. This is, of course, on all fours with consistent Government policy over recent years and I think the facts will show that there is a tendency to protect the wealthy minority in this country as against the welfare of the masses. I do not care what you examine, what State institutions you study, you will find proof of the fact that there are two nations here.
I think that is a good phrase to describe the position. There are two nations here, the privileged minority and the underprivileged, the masses. This is actively shown in virtually every Department of State. You have it in education, where our secondary schools and universities are virtually closed to the majority of our youngsters, no matter what talent they possess, simply because they have not got the money. In the Department of Health, you have the position that there is discrimination against the masses under our health services. The wealthy have first-class services because they can pay. I am amazed when I hear people here talking about our Christian society.