I will now go back to the Parliamentary Secretary who spoke about afforestation and tried to suggest that the figures for that Department are something of which the Government should be proud. In a reply to a recent Parliamentary Question, it was shown that the numbers employed in Cork and Kerry were almost double those for the whole province of Connacht. Where is Connacht getting its share? In Wicklow and Wexford, the numbers employed exceeded the entire number employed in the province of Connacht. Where is the West getting its share there? We were told that the West would get special treatment but the special treatment for the West is a quick and speedy exit to Britain.
On afforestation, what are the facts? I have not said this before in this House but the reason I first came into public life was afforestation. The first time I was associated with public life was because of afforestation. I had a personal interest in the growing of timber and like the innocent I was, I came into politics. Fianna Fáil were in office at that time and I could not believe that any Government could be so neglectful of expanding what could be a major concern for future generations. I had on my mind the negligence of the Government on afforestation and I listened to excuses in this House and outside it from Minister after Minister of the Fianna Fáil Party who were responsible for afforestation.
What did they tell me? That they could not get net wire and that rabbits would eat the afforestation. Imagine that as one of the excuses for holding up a big afforestation programme for years. The Party with which I was associated in 1948 failed in many things but on that issue they changed the outlook of the people in this House and now we have 25,000 acres planted each year. I cannot but bring home to the Fianna Fáil Party that they insisted time after time in this House that we could not reach a figure of 25,000 acres a year but they are boasting about it now because they were driven into it and forced to do it. I often was tempted to believe that the reason we had not more afforestation was that the timber was there in the heads already.
I mentioned a while ago the situation about emigration. What is happening over in England? There was a display of Irish goods in the West End over the past ten days to help our export drive and I think Córas Tráchtála, Bord Fáilte and some other people joined in this display. What I want to know is why that was run in competition with, or at the same time as, the Ideal Homes Exhibition in London. The Ideal Homes Exhibition, as many here know, is a tremendous affair. There were 25 nations exhibiting in it and over 500 leading firms from all parts of the world had goods on display. There were such things as agricultural products in the finished article like sausages, meat and processed foods from New Zealand and all over the world. Firms' representatives and products were to be seen at this exhibition, but there was no Irish stand there and there was no Irish firm except one from the Six Counties. There was no Irish Government stand, no Bord Fáilte stand, no stand by private enterprise from this part of the country.
I should like to know why? Why can we afford to spend money on embassies, luxurious ones? Why can we afford to spend plenty of money on the people who run them when we cannot afford to spend money on an exhibition of that nature? I have referred to this often before. Instead of Bord Fáilte being at one end of the street, Córas Tráchtála at the other and Aer Lingus at another spot, all three should be combined in one allIrish house. If it cost a million pounds, it would be money well spent in London if all the Irish groups were in it, Bord Fáilte, a manufacturing and industrial display centre, Aer Lingus and the tourist people. We should have one there like the Finnish house and not have things as we have at the moment when Irish goods are exhibited, not in the window, but down a corridor at the back where you would not go unless you were brought by the hand and stuffed with Irish whiskey or Irish stout as a form of generosity.
The only place where I see Irish whiskey used outside the State, the only Irish whiskey I see which is got rid of, is in the form of presents. We have reached the fantastic stage where as much Scotch whisky is drunk in Ireland as Irish whiskey is drunk abroad. If I had time to check on the figures, I think I could prove that more Scotch whisky is drunk in Ireland than Irish whiskey is consumed outside the State. What does that lead to? What conclusion can be reached except the jocose one? That in the past ten years Irish distillers have been proved wrong in their approach to their marketing problems. They are not producing the type of whiskey suitable for the palate to-day. I personally like a pot-still whiskey, but that does not mean that the people I meet like it or that they should like it. As I saw to my sorrow, the majority prefer a light type of whiskey and if they do, they should get it. The customer should count. The result of this thick-headed lack of foresight on the part of the distillers here has left Ireland in the position that while the sales of Scotch whisky in America last year reached £47 million, sales of Irish whiskey were only in the region of £175,000, not even one per cent.
Why is that? I am told, and I have no reason to doubt it, that there are 20 million people of Irish descent in America who are mad to help Ireland. There is no shortage of them. There were 20 million Irish people over there on St. Patrick's Day. Would it not be possible for some Government, if not this incompetent bunch who are in now, to take the necessary action to set up a distillery, a national one, to produce the right type of whiskey for America and for the foreign market? Why has it not been done up to this? We are told that private enterprise should not be interfered with. I do not want anybody to take out the distillers and shoot them. They should be left as they are. Nobody should acquire their distilling premises or their rights but the State should do the same as was done in the case of the sugar company and set up an Irish distillery. They should bring in foreign chemists and foreign blenders and as the Government know, they will produce the proper blend which can be sold abroad.
The Government know as well as I do that that proposition was put to them a number of years ago by a very prominent American distributor who suggested to the Government that instead of sending out individuals to sell a few bottles of whiskey, they should use his distributing agency in America where it would be sold on a percentage basis because he had the outlets and the stores. But we said no and insisted on sending Mr. X and Mr. Y and Mr. Z to America to sell Irish whiskey.
The Government paid out £80,000 a year out of State funds, out of the public pocket, to help the distillers to sell their produce in America—the group who said: "We want no State aid; we are private enterprise". When it came to the point, however, the Government said: "For every £ you spend in America to sell your product, we will put up a £ with it". The distillers put up £80,000 and the Government put up £80,000 so £160,000 was spent on publicity in America, as big an amount as we made by selling whiskey there. That is the situation in Ireland because we will not interfere with private enterprise or take the necessary steps to expand on lines on which expansion is vital to the future security of the country.
I could not paint a picture for Deputies of the importance of the sale of £10 million worth of a liquor like Irish whiskey or an Irish product abroad or what it would mean to the Irish people. Even the £45 million or £50 million cattle trade would be less important than the £10 million worth of whiskey because of the employment content in the distilling trade and in all the other industries that arise from and flow from this industry. It would give vast employment. There would be no comparison as far as employment content is concerned between the production of whiskey and the production of cattle, which means in Ireland today the farmer getting up in the morning and having a good yawn, counting the cattle, getting CIE to bring them to the mart and getting rid of them. It is admitted by every economist worth his salt that the employment content in the cattle industry is negligible in comparison with that of other agricultural lines. Why do we not encourage such lines? We have the finest land in the world for the growing of barley. Would anybody think that a Government like this deserve support or credit when they allow such neglect of Irish industries that could be extended?
I may sound very critical but I do not stand up here to praise; I believe in hitting where it is necessary. In the past few months, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Industry and Commerce have been telling the House and the country of the grants that are available for the modernisation of plants, factories and industrial concerns, and telling us of the wonderful spirit that is apparent in our industrialists all over the country, that they are getting ready for the Common Market. Let us all recall that the Taoiseach's forecast was: "We are going to be in the Common Market as full members by January, 1964." We were to be ready for the full blast of competition; our industries would be ready; the technical assistance grants were being availed of and our industrialists were facing up to the problems of modernisation and redundancy.
Legislation was passed here recently which offered substantial grants and attractions in the financial sense to all these so-called industrialists. They were guaranteed against loss. They were guaranteed freedom from taxation over a period of years for their modernisation campaign. What is the true position? Will the House accept a statement made by a civil servant on this? Civil servants, especially the higher civil servants, are non-political in their approach and are prepared to say what they believe to be true, to give the facts. Let me repeat that the Taoiseach and the Minister for Industry and Commerce have time and time again in this House pointed out that they were satisfied with the approach of industrialists to the accepting of the technical assistance grants which were being made available. I want to quote from the Irish Times of the 8th of this month a report of a statement made in Greystones by Mr. Murray, the Assistant-Secretary, Department of Finance, to the Irish Management Institute:
Very few firms had taken advantage of schemes of technical assistance grants.
That statement was made in spite of the ballyhoo made here in this House by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Industry and Commerce that these gentlemen, these industrialists, were ready for the Common Market. Mr. Murray went on to say:
Even more depressing, many firms were not aware of the schemes' existence.
Is it any wonder that the Minister for Health, Deputy MacEntee, said in the past few months that Ireland was in a backwater, if the pets of the Government were not even aware of the grants that were being made available from the people's money to help them to modernise?
However, in regard to a number of those firms who have been given grants for modernisation and automation we do know what is happening. In many instances those technical assistance grants have meant that large numbers of the workers are being displaced and that machines are being installed which are now doing the work that was done by manual labour or by human skill. That is the march of progress. I do not dispute the fact that automation and modernisation are necessary and must be pursued but I do believe that side by side with that modernisation the worker who is displaced must be given alternative employment.
It is wrong for any Government to hand out £50,000 to any company in this State to expand moryah its export potential and in the course of expanding it to reduce the number of its workers unless a guarantee is given that these workers are to be absorbed in some other industry. The proof of how little this Government like the worker or how little regard they have for him lies in the fact that this House passed legislation very recently giving technical assistance grants and all sorts of cakes and incentives to the industrialist to modernise and get ready for the Common Market.
Did they bring in any legislation to see that the displaced worker would be given the benefit of retraining grants, that he would not lose his job or that if he did lose his job he would get compensation while he would be retrained for another job? Not at all. The policy pursued is automate and emigrate. There has not been the slightest attempt on the part of the Government to replace in alternative employment a single individual who has been displaced as a result of the modernisation campaign.
That is the industrial field. What has been happening in the agricultural line? When a boy or a girl becomes surplus on the land is there any retraining grant for him or for her? What happens? They have to take the boat for Britain or America. I have yet to hear a trade union insisting that a worker in rural Ireland or a farm labourer was entitled to retraining or to redundancy payment. It is only those in a strong position who are able to negotiate and they negotiate only for themselves. It is every man for himself in this matter. The Government should look after the interests of all the citizens, help the weaker sections of our community, help those who are being displaced. It is poor consolation to our people in rural Ireland to be told by the economists and by Ministers here: "It is inevitable that you leave the land. It is the inevitable line all over Europe and because the Minister for Transport and Power, Deputy Childers, says so, it must be the same in Ireland."
This Government are facing a very tough period. Our exports are going down. I will say this for the Minister for Finance in all sincerity—although I do not think he has great regard for what I have to say—that he is the ablest man in this Cabinet. I believe that. He has got his Party out of more awkward holes than any other Minister they ever had. He is not appreciated in his own Party.
As far as exports are concerned, the so-called drive, the dynamic, that was there 18 months ago has gone and the figures are going down. We will be given all sorts of explanations. Why should that happen if the Government are right in stating that there has been a dynamic approach since they came into office? Why should there be a slowing down? Why should we reach the stage this year, for instance, that in relation to the EEC countries, the group we were breaking our necks to join, our imports in the past 12 months have increased by over £8 million while our exports to the Common Market countries have decreased by almost £¾ million? That represents a very serious situation. We are importing at the moment £43 million worth from the Common Market countries and exporting to them roughly only £10.7 million worth. The adverse balance there has gone up by over £8.5 million in the past 12 months and we are not in the EEC. How do we propose to reverse that situation if we become full members of EEC, as the Government have suggested we should?
How do we propose to transport our goods to the continent of Europe? What shipping have we? Where is it? Is it available? Is it not a fact that as far as shipping is concerned, we are completely dependent on groups outside this country which could tie a noose around our exports if they so desired? Anybody who has read the papers in the past couple of days knows what has happened in regard to certain Irish exports, that the West Indies shipping group have decided that they will not allow certain shipping lines to come into Dublin. Have we any answer to that? Have we ever decided to go into the shipping business in a proper way and carry our own produce?
Several Deputies have mentioned that the ships of Irish Shipping Limited are on charter service. The simplest way to explain what they are doing is to say that they are out on hire, on hackney service. It is only a group of nitwits that would allow the Irish Shipping fleet, which should be carrying Irish goods all the time, to be on hire service for the benefit of every other country, carrying goods between New Zealand, Canada and Australia, while the rates for transportation of goods from here to Britain are pushed up by the carrying companies and we cannot do a thing about it.
Why have this great Government, who talk about their patriotism, not sought to establish a shipping line between this country and Britain over the past 30 years? Is it not a fact that when the establishment of Irish Shipping Limited was first mooted, the present Taoiseach only laughed at the idea; and that he had said six months before Irish Shipping Limited was established that there was no need for an Irish shipping service and was forced through circumstances six months afterwards to change his tune? If Deputies wish, I will produce the quotations from the Taoiseach's remarks in that regard. Irish Shipping Limited is in existence but is used on the wrong lines.
At the present time, a great deal of lip service is being paid to the idea that we could export Irish processed farm products to countries in the Middle East and to the newly emergent African states. What are we doing about it? There are Deputies talking about the price of milk. There is a market for processed milk in many forms in these newly emergent countries. Have we made any attempt to capture that market? I have listened to NFA and Creamery Milk Suppliers' delegations talking nonsense on this issue. Their argument is that these countries have not got the money to pay for these commodities. Why cannot we make a barter arrangement with these countries? We import fruit, cocoa and other products from these countries. Why cannot we exchange Irish milk products for these goods? Why do we have to look for pounds, shillings and pence? If the farmer gets his money for the milk he sends to the creamery, it makes no difference to him if there is a barter transaction carried out by the Government in relation to the manufactured products.
I cannot understand why such an arrangement is not negotiated by the Government if they are serious about getting a market for Irish farm products. The solution to that problem is to increase output and to export rather than to talk about increasing the price of milk in existing circumstances, shoving up the price of the finished product to the Irish consumer and, on top of that, forcing him to pay a subsidy on the sale of the commodity in Britain.
This Government will not face reality. They have no policy. They live from day to day, from week to week. They say they are pragmatic in their approach. If one is pragmatic in one's approach to major issues, such an approach should not be allowed when it comes to running the State. The people need a guiding light, some political philosophy and its ruthless pursuit for the benefit of the community. Those on both sides of this House who have worshipped at the shrine of private enterprise, which means that the strong get stronger and the weak go to the wall, who have believed in that philosophy and that free-for-all, have now brought this country to the stage that we will be accepted into no camp, that we are not welcome in Europe and that as far as Britain is concerned, we are going over asking a Tory Government if they can give us any hope or encouragement.
We are not a viable outfit. We are an undeveloped country, whether we like it or not. It would be a great day for this country if we accepted the fact that we are undeveloped and started from scratch. We have undoubtedly a first-class roads system, a communications system, a reasonable housing situation, but we have to accept at the same time that we are undeveloped. We must come down from the clouds and cease to ape the imperialist standards of countries that were glorious in former days, moryah. We have to spend on the right lines the money made available by the Irish citizen.
The first thing we will have to have is a series of elections. I do not like any more than any other Deputy the idea of having to fight an election—I have not big moneybags behind me— but the discomfort and inconvenience of fighting an election are as nothing in comparison with the interests of the community. If we say that the public are mature in their thinking, we should give the public a chance to prove their maturity. I believe there is only one way to get that shown, that is, by a general election, as soon as possible.
The attitude of these two major Parties who were born out of misfortune, born out of tragedy, who grew up and created this unnatural division through tragedy and misfortune, must be ended before there can be a healthy approach to Irish politics. There must be a healthy approach to the left and to the right. What we have here are two rights and, in this case, two rights make a wrong. If those two Parties are not prepared to sink the personal bitterness between them now, let the public do it. I challenge those major Parties to produce for the public one major issue in respect of which they differ in any degree whatever on the manner in which it could be solved.
To my mind, we have here a big machine which has been creaking in its running for the past 30 years. All we have had is a different set of drivers of this antiquated creaking machine. We have had Fianna Fáil tinkering with the machine, and when they are driving it, it goes anywhere it likes. It is no solution to have their twin brothers, Fine Gael, because when they are driving, it is a group-driven machine. That machine will have to be scrapped before it is too late and the Irish people should be given that opportunity.
