The Taoiseach came into this discussion yesterday in the characteristic role of a knight of old, sword flashing, denouncing all and sundry who did not happen to see the merits of his White Paper. The Fine Gael amendment to it was characterrised by him as dishonest. We were told the Labour Party amendment would not achieve either of the two objectives which the motion sought to achieve—to preserve the normal negotiating machinery and to preserve co-operation and harmony in industrial matters. It is typical of the Taoiseach, I suppose, that the only motion he would be pleased with would be one that he wrote himself, and I should imagine that unless the House were prepared to pass a motion saying that the Dáil approved of everything the Taoiseach ever did or will do hereafter, any other motion would be received with suspicion by the Taoiseach.
The Taoiseach, whether he likes it or not, has come to the stage where he must realise he has got a simple passion which takes the form of believing that everything he thinks is right and everything he does is right. He comes into the House this week, as he did last week, as he did last year and every year during the past 30 years, telling us this is the obvious course to take and that if we question that we do so because we do not understand, that we must leave these matters of higher economics to the Taoiseach and to Deputy Martin Corry and that between the two of them, from opposite directions, we are bound to get the progress which will take us to unprecedented wealth.
I shall not vote for this White Paper because I do not believe in what the Taoiseach says and because I do not believe there is any set of circumstances which would justify the introduction of the White Paper at this time. I can see no set of circumstances indicated by any Minister to suggest that this was justified. It is only a few weeks ago since we had the Tánaiste at a dinner, which I do not begrudge him, getting into the poetic vein of which he was master in yester years and saying that in a very short time he would be leaving the chilly climate of the Celtic twilight and entering into the sunny fields of Europe where he would be installed in all his glory. There was not a worry on the Tánaiste that night or manifest in the speeches of other Government supporters.
But all of a sudden, overnight, we get this White Paper without anybody saying it was on the way or that discussions were taking place or that there were any circumstances to justify it. I would have thought that up to a week ago the Government's case was: "We are doing things excellently; progress is continuing and all the economic indications are favourable to continued progress." Did somebody overnight descend on the Government and give them this wage freeze idea so that a White Paper on a pay pause became necessary? Look at the situation. This day week we had Trade Union Congress and the employers' organisations all preparing for continued consultations to examine the basic and complex problems which affect industrial relations, production and, of course, future productivity. All that situation has now being swept aside and the Government, by this White Paper, have substituted total chaos and criticism for what last week was a peaceful and relatively halcyon scene in so far as industrial co-operation is concerned.
My main charge against the Government is that they have, without any economic justification whatever, acted inaptly, acted unfairly and that they have created anxiety and unnecessary worry at a time when keenness, co-operation and collaboration had much to commend them. The Government have changed a peaceful scene to a scene in which strife is now holding the upper hand and in which all the evidences are that the situation may get worse unless the Government are big enough now to recognise that they have acted unwisely, that they have acted on advice which was not basically correct and unless they have the wisdom to correct the course of action on which, from the White Paper, they appear to have embarked. I see nothing in the present situation which demands such heavyweight and panicky action by the Government.
Neither the White Paper itself, nor last Sunday's special pronunciamento by the Taoiseach, nor his speech yesterday has in any way explained the necessity for issuing a White Paper in these panicky terms. Of course, the White Paper itself is manifestly unfair. It is an unbalanced White Paper in that it is deliberately biased against the worker. It is not a White Paper which is the product of surveying a scene, watching the points in conflict, setting down the case for and against and forming, as far as you an do so, an impartial, honest, independent opinion.
There is practically no reference to profits in the White Paper and practically no reference to prices. The whole emphasis is against the ordinary working people. I have come to the conclusion that this was not an ordinary White Paper. This White Paper was ordered by the Government. It was written to specifications provided by the Government. It had to be in accordance with the instructions which the Government gave for its preparation. In other words, I believe this White Paper was cooked to serve the palate of the Government. That is why we have a White Paper that has pleased nobody except the Government, and it pleased them only because they probably feel that it is better in a storm of this kind to stand together rather than to try to withstand adversities in single file.
No attempt whatever has been made in the White Paper to examine the background of the wage increases in recent years. The main object appeared to be to get out a White Paper whatever you do and to get all the statistics you can lay hold of to show that in recent years the workers have got a certain increase in wages and that they must get no more and that steps will be taken to ensure that they do not. No attempt has been made to examine the background of the wage and salary increases which took place in 1961 and 1962.
This ought to be put on record in this House in the interests of the trade unions. In 1956 and 1957, the unions, bearing in mind the economic circumstances of the time, even though the food subsidies had been cut in the 1957 Budget, nevertheless contented themselves to accept a wage increase of 10/-per week. In 1959, the unions sought to close the gap which was opening and broadening between wages and prices on the 1939 level. It was not until 1960 that the trade unions were able to recover for their members the prewar purchasing power of their wages. That fact was admitted not only by members of the Government but in joint memoranda issued by the Trade Union Congress and the Employers' Federation. At all events, there can be no question that reference to the statistics and publications of the period will show that it was only in 1960 that the purchasing power of the workers' wages had been recovered.
In 1961, the trade unions sought increases in real wage standards. Against what did they seek this? Against the fact that since 1958 the gross national product had increased by 16 per cent, exports had risen by one-third in the two previous years and company profits had increased by over 50 per cent. Was it unreasonable in these circumstances that the unions should seek an increase in real wages? The result of the negotiations—what has come to be described as the eighth round wage increase—was to give the unions an increase of approximately eight per cent in real wages. But when you remember the fact that the gross national product had increased by 16 per cent, that exports had gone up by one-third and company profits by over 50 per cent, nobody will say that the increase secured by the workers was in any way unreasonable or was an unfair burden on the nation's resources, particularly when it is remembered that from 1939 until 1960, there was a gap to the disadvantage of the workers as far as wage rates were concerned.
Was there anything special in wage rates going up in Ireland under the eighth round of wage increases in 1961 and 1962? Wages had risen in Britain during the same period. Wages had risen in the Six Counties during the same period. Wages had risen in every one of the OEEC countries during the same period What had taken place in Ireland had taken place in many other countries and there was, in fact, no phenomenon as far as wage increases were concerned in Ireland during that period. In other words, we moved as Europe had moved, as Britain had moved, as the Six Counties had moved. In many cases, we moved with less speed than a number of these other countries.
Deputy Colley referred this evening to the increase in the cost of living. He thought that the workers had caused that. But what are the facts? The facts show that the increase in prices between August, 1961, and November, 1962—without going back to an earlier period—was four and a half per cent. Only half of that was due to wage increases. The other half was due to the action of the Government, particularly in respect of the increases imposed in the 1962 Budget on tobacco, beer, spirits and other commodities. Even if you assume that prices increased here, as they did, by four and a half per cent between August, 1961, and November, 1962, the fact remains that prices increased also during that period in Britain, in the Six Counties and in Europe. Again, we are merely in step with the rest of the world—the part of the world with which we have the closest association. We had no means of insulating ourselves against what was happening in these other countries.
Where is the justification, therefore, for this pay pause White Paper to be found? Is it to be found in imports, in exports or in our balance of trade? Let us see whether it can be found in any of these cases? In 1962, the export of our manufactured goods increased by five per cent. Our imports in the same year increased by less than five per cent. and the imports for 1962 were less than for any year since 1957. Although they increased by less than five per cent. half of that increase was in respect of capital goods such as machinery.
Look at the other exports in 1962. It is true that there was a fall in cattle exports and wheat exports but the cattle population is still here and available for export this year or at some later date. If you take imports, on the one hand, and exports, on the other, and balance the two, having regard to our invisible exports in the form of tourist traffic, dividends on foreign investments, emigrants' remittances and items of that kind, you find, according to the Central Bank, that our total deficit on our foreign account last year was only £12 million. Although the deficit appeared to be £100 million, without taking into consideration our invisible exports, when you examine the matter in detail, the position is that the deficit is only £12 million. We find also that the banks' net external assets last year rose by £12 million so that, in fact, judged through the banks, there was no loss of foreign earnings and no loss of external assets. In fact, the net foreign assets of the banks today are £27 million higher than they were in 1960.
Do these figures provide any justification for a wage pause? In the face of these facts and others, most of which have not been mentioned in the White Paper, is there any justification for imposing the wage pause when in fact we should be congratulating ourselves on the stability achieved and providing for its continuance by means of co-operation and understanding with all the elements involved? Instead, the White Paper comes like a bolt from the blue.
Although the Tánaiste has made two speeches since the issue of the White Paper, nobody has yet made any effort to say why it was not possible to consult the Irish Congress of Trade Unions about what was intended. Congress did not expect their agreement to be sought. They did not expect the Government to say: "We shall do nothing without your agreement". Congress would have been satisfied if the Government had told them what the problem was and said they would like to discuss it with them, and said : "We know you are doing this sort of thing every day of the week; we know you have wide, long and deep experience. We know you have a point of view to put which cannot be put by the Government without that specialised knowledge which trade unions have." There was no reason why the Government should not have said : "Let us have a one-day or a two-day session and tell us what you think should be done. Let us discuss all this, distil all this and see if we can get something in the long run which will meet the situation for all of us."
Never in the past two days nor since the issue of the White Paper have we been given any satisfactory reason why Congress should not be consulted. It would be clear to anybody with any savvy that the first thing that should have been done was to consult Congress and the employers' organisations and to gather and distil their views, even if in the long run the Government had to take a decision on their own without the other two bodies. A vital mistake was made in saying: "We do not want Congress; we do not want the employers' organisation. We shall go ahead and have a death-or-glory ride now and a wage pause."
That was a mistake. Congress had a point of view and they should have been allowed to make it. No harm could have been done even if the Government disagreed with every view expressed. There is something to be said for consulting people, especially if you want them to travel some portion of the road with you under conditions which will have to be shared. The mistake the Government made was to rush into this thing at the last minute with a complete change in the attitude that everything in the garden was lovely and to confront the country with their White Paper, without a single economic index to support it and to give the country a panicky, heavyweight wage pause which has no counterpart in any other democracy in Western Europe.
Would it have caused any great assault on the economic fabric of the State if the White Paper were delayed for a few days while important bodies were consulted? I do not think it would. Nobody on the Government side thought it would but, of course, the mistake has been made now and whether "Pa" is right or wrong, everybody has to say that "Pa" was right. We are given no reason but "Pa" does everything right and there has to be a gang-up in support of a line of policy which I think was a most mischievous line for the Government to pursue.
I believe that, properly put to the Congress and the employers' organisation and when it is shown that this was not aimed at the workers alone, co-operation might have been got in the special circumstances confronting us in view of the debacle which has been reached in EEC circles in Europe. There was some reason for the Government putting their cards clearly on the table. The Government are not an injured innocent in this matter. The country still remembers the war-time wage-freeze and what was threatened in 1947, another wage-freeze. The country knows also that in the Department of Industry and Commerce there is a Bill, drafted by the Taoiseach, purporting to freeze wages and to make it an offence punishable by very heavy fines if wage increases were granted, once the Bill had been passed by the Dáil.
If you have to your credit—or discredit, as I prefer to term it—a war-time wage-freeze, a threat of a 1947 wage-freeze and a Bill drafted by no less a person than the Taoiseach himself, with that record, I should think ordinary prudence and sagacity would suggest that you would go to these outside organisations and say: "Forget about the past. These things happen in certain circumstances and the Irish people are frequently forgiving and quite willing to let bygones be bygones. Here is the new situation and here is what we are thinking of doing about it. Here is the problem that has to be faced." You could then put it to Congress and to the employers' organisations that something should be done to meet the situation the Government had in mind. If they disagreed, the Government were still free to go any way they liked but the Government put themselves in the wrong by refusing to consult with anybody except the outdated economists who give us figures of that kind. If this country were to rely on the prophecies made by economists over the past 30 years, they would be an outlawed occupation, so many of the prophecies have been unfulfilled.
I believe from my discussions with the Congress that it wanted to help, and I believe that the Congress still want to help in any action where they can be convinced that the need for a prudent approach to the wages issue is something that begets their understanding and support. After all, the Congress are on record as saying in their statement :
We are in favour of an expanding economy since only by this means can workers' living standards be raised. Because this is our objective we are naturally in favour of increased production and raising productivity which in fact, go hand in hand, but since it is accepted that increasing the level of productivity is a management responsibility workers cannot be criticised if the rise in productivity lags as it did last year. While management, in general, can be criticised for its lack of initiative particularly in respect of export markets it must be recognised that in the conditions of our economy a real drive towards economic development must come from the Government by the planned use of all our resources.
That is the view of the Congress which I do not think is out of step with any of the views expressed by the Government.
I think the Congress are right in their declaration, that the main responsibility for ensuring progress and development in the industrial and agricultural field lies on the Government. But I believe, notwithstanding all the goodwill that the Government can mobilise from their own resources, they are entitled to expect and to receive on an agreed policy the co-operation and understanding of other vast and valuable agencies which have a contribution to make. The Government should get their goodwill by approaching them and not by merely handing out to them a decision and saying: "That is what we are going to do; you can take it or leave it, whichever you like." The expansion of production and productivity leading to full employment and rising living standards can be got in the circumstances here and that will come all the quicker, the more those who are responsible for the physical operation of it, whether on the factory floor, at the directors' table, or in the trade union organisations which cater for those in between, are consulted and given their share of the responsibility to make their contribution.
The Irish Congress of Trade Unions in their issued statement make this comment:
The Irish Congress of Trade Unions recognises the importance of the need to obtain full employment with rising standards by achieving the highest possible rate of economic expansion with reasonable price stability——
with reasonable price stability——
——and without too seriously upsetting the equilibrium in the balance of payments.
Surely there is evidence of a desire to co-operate and surely this goodwill and enthusiasm are not to be blunted or spurned merely because the Government want to appear as the omnipotent controller of national affairs? I believe that the co-operation of the Congress can be got and that others can be found as well to co-operate on an agreed policy which will give results, which will raise living standards and open up a better and fuller life for our people.
I would make this suggestion to the Taoiseach, I think he should pull out his White Paper entirely. We have had two days' discussion on it and there has been no justification whatever for issuing it. The country is not as bad as they make out it is. He should pull out the White Paper and see the Congress and the employers' organisation and get a conference on that basis. You cannot operate this paper by Government action alone. I strongly advise him to seek the round table instead of the jackboot as the best method of settling this whole problem.
