Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Mar 1928

Vol. 22 No. 17

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - MINISTERS AND SECRETARIES (AMENDMENT) BILL, 1928—SECOND STAGE.

The PRESIDENT

I move that the Bill be read a second time. The Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill may be said to have had its origin in the Report of the Gaeltacht Commission. That Commission gave its opinion that a special Commission responsible for the preservation of the Gaeltacht was necessary. It recommended the setting up of such a Commission charged with the duty of seeing that all Departments carry out in detail the Government's policy with regard to the language in the Gaeltacht. It was suggested that the Commission should be appointed by and be directly responsible to the President, that it should be vested with authority from the Executive Council to enter into direct communication in an advisory and co-ordinating capacity with the various Departments in so far as their administration affects the Gaeltacht. It was to be required to consider in what way improvements could be made in the arrangements for dealing with the special economic wants of the Gaeltacht.

Two of the members of the Gaeltacht Commission made reservations regarding the scope and functions of the proposed Commission, one proposing to give it an active and directive voice in the work of the Departments functioning in the Gaeltacht empowering it to set up industries, open up markets and so on, with moneys to be provided by the Dáil—the other contemplating an annual grant-in-aid to be expended on industrial development and applicable to recouping to the Departments of State the cost of special schemes undertaken by them with the approval and under the aegis of the special Commission. It is clear from the Report of the Gaeltacht Commission that that Commission felt that the economic situation in those areas where the Irish language has remained a living speech was such as to require special attention. The Government accept this view; they have given very careful thought to the proposals submitted by the Commission dealing with the machinery through which this special attention can be directed to those areas. It must be clear to anyone who studies the matter that the economic problem in those districts cannot be dealt with solely in relation to Irish speakers; it must take into account the whole of the population.

It resolves itself into a number of divisions, principal among which are the provision of economic holdings, the development of the fishing industry and the utilisation of raw material for rural industries. There are, of course, other subsidiary matters, but the big problems are these I have mentioned. These problems at the time of the Com mission's report were engaging the attention of two separate Ministers. The Minister for Lands and Agriculture was charged with the provision of economic holdings, the Minister for Fisheries was in charge of fishing and rural industries. It appeared to us that the best way to secure that the activities in these directions would be satisfactorily and efficiently co-ordinated was to bring them under the control of a single parliamentary head. This was done by an order of the Executive Council entitled the Irish Land Commission (Re-distribution of Public Services) Order, 1927, made on the 20th July last, which transferred the Land Commission from the Minister for Lands and Agriculture to the Minister for Fisheries. The present Bill is complementary to that order: it may be described as entirely a machinery Bill. It amends the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924, by bringing it up to date with the position created by the order, and it makes the consequent adjustment in the styles and titles of the Ministers concerned. Incidentally it provides a definition of the word "agriculture," and confers upon the Executive Council the power, when in exercise of the powers already held under Section 12 of the 1924 Act, it so distributes services amongst the Ministers and Departments of State that it is desirable to alter the titles of Ministers, to make the necessary alterations.

Deputy Fahy has tabled a motion which will give us a debate on all the aspects of the Gaeltacht Commission Report; consequently I do not propose to go into the matter on the present occasion save in so far as it is necessary to explain the genesis of this measure. The arrangements which are being made to supplement this measure by a scheme of co-operation with the various departments responsible for education, agricultural instruction, housing, etc., do not fall to be discussed here. They will, I presume, arise in the discussion of Deputy Fahy's motion. But it will perhaps be proper to explain in general terms why the Government do not view with favour the setting up of a separate Board or Commission as recommended by the Gaeltacht Report. In the first place the problem of land purchase and distribution cannot effectively be divided into two parts, one dealing solely with Gaeltacht areas and the other with the rest of the country. If there is to be migration on any scale it is clear that suitable lands in the non-Irish-speaking districts must be utilised for settling congests from the Irish-speaking districts.

This process would certainly not be facilitated by any arrangement which would provide that the settlement lands were under an authority independent of that operating in the lands from which migrants were being taken. Quite the contrary. Clearly, therefore, if there were to be a special board it would have to function in the greater part through the medium of the existing Departments. A board with purely advisory functions, without executive power or authority and unburthened by responsibility for finances, would be rendered largely ineffective by friction which would be bound to arise regarding details and policies between such a body and the different Departments upon which responsibility for the various schemes would fall. A semi-independent board, vested with authority and provided with funds, operating in a field already covered by the activities of the various Departments, would be calculated to lead to wasteful overlapping and to divided control. The Executive Council sees no reason why the co-ordinated effort necessary to give effect to those proposals of the Gaeltacht Commission, which are feasible and financially possible, cannot be provided through the machinery of the existing Departments. Their policy is to secure co-ordinated effort along these lines, and this measure is one of the steps towards the development of that co-ordinated effort. I move that it be now read a second time.

Mr. LEMASS

We did not anticipate that this Bill would come up for discussion to-day, but as it has, it is necessary that we should make the viewpoint of our Party clear on it. It seems to us that it is a Bill to legalise action which already has been taken. In Section 4 of the Bill a bad principle is, in our opinion, established. It appears from the somewhat extraordinary wording of the section that there have been doubts in the minds of some persons as to the legality of the act already taken by the Executive Council in transferring to the Department of Fisheries the services of the Irish Land Commission. I think that the President, when introducing the Bill, should have given us some explanation as to the wording of that section. In whose mind did these doubts arise? Have these doubts in any way reflected upon action taken in the courts or in any other manner by the present Department of Lands and Fisheries? It is unusual, I think, to have a section in that form introduced in a Bill of this nature, and in view of its unusualness we think that a fuller explanation should be given to the House than the mere wording of the Bill gives us. We would like to know what exactly these doubts were, how they arose, and why it is necessary to take a step of this nature in order to remove them, and if, in fact, the step that is being taken does remove them.

The Bill proposes, as I said, to legalise an action taken by the Executive Council in transferring the services of the Irish Land Commission to the Department of Fisheries. The President, in introducing the Bill, stated that this was an attempt to improve upon recommendations made by the Gaeltacht Commission, recommendations in favour of putting certain services affecting the Gaeltacht under the control of one permanent Commission, or advisory body. We are not satisfied that a better system of administration could not be secured, not by transferring the Land Commission to the Fisheries Department, but by transferring the Fisheries Department to the Department of Agriculture, and by amalgamating the three services under one head to secure effective co-ordination of effort, and, at the same time, a fairly considerable economy. It will be stated, of course, that the responsibility placed upon one Minister by that step would be very considerable. We do not deny it. It has been fairly generally admitted that the Department of Agriculture is an active Department and that the Minister in charge of it has possibly more work to do than any other single individual Minister. That is, no doubt, the case, but we do not think that the additional duties which he would have if the Department of Fisheries were under his control would necessarily interfere with his work in other directions. I was nearly going to add that by giving him plenty of work to do, we might prevent him starting civil wars whenever he feels inclined that way.

The essential thing, however, is to secure that not merely in respect of the Gaeltacht, but in respect of the country generally, there will be effective co-ordination between the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Agriculture and the Land Commission. We think that the Minister for Agriculture, with the assistance of a Parliamentary Secretary, should be able to do the work of all three Departments. On another occasion we hope to point out that the present Department of Fisheries is not doing its work properly. I think we will be able to establish that the efficiency of that Department is not all that could be desired, and that there would possibly be an improvement in the service, and possibly a considerable benefit conferred upon Irish fishermen, by transferring the services to another Minister. Generally speaking, we would like to have a much more convincing statement than that which has been made by the President in favour of this Bill. The whole question of the Gaeltacht does, of course, involve other matters besides the Land Commission, fisheries and agriculture. It concerns not merely the Department of Education, but also the Department of Industry and Commerce. The fact that the Land Commission was transferred to the Fisheries Department, or even the fact that the Land Commission and the Fisheries Department were transferred to the Department of Agriculture, would not result in machinery being established that would enable the economic problem of the Gaeltacht to be effectively considered and dealt with. As the President said, this problem has more than a direct relationship to the preservation of the Irish language. It is an economic problem mainly, and it will require effective co-ordination between all the Departments and probably every Department of the Government concerned. Because, of course, the Department of Finance cannot be left out of any considerations that are brought forward for implementation. Then, as I said, the particular wording of Section 4 requires elucidation. We hope, before the Bill is put to the Dáil, for sanction or otherwise, that we will get that statement I asked for as to the doubts mentioned there. We would also like to know why the step I have suggested of transferring the Department of Fisheries to the Department of Agriculture, instead of transferring the Land Commission to Fisheries, was not taken. It would undoubtedly result in an economy, and we do not think it would result in any lessening of the efficiency of any of the Departments concerned. In fact, we believe it would result in an increase of efficiency in the Fisheries Department itself. For these reasons I think we should be slow to give our consent to this Bill until we have a much fuller statement from the Ministerial Benches.

The PRESIDENT

The principal Act states in Section 12, sub-section (1)—

"It shall be lawful for the Executive Council from time to time by Order to prescribe the organisation of all or any of the said Departments of State and of the business and administration thereof in any manner which may seem to the Executive Council to be expedient or proper in the public interests and in particular to create units of administration to be called offices (divisions or branches) and so on down along."

"To remove doubts it is hereby declared and enacted that the powers conferred on the Executive Council by sub-section 2 of Section 12 of the principal Act extend and always have extended to public services established by or under Acts of the Oireachtas passed after the passing (whether before or after the commencement) of the principal Act as well as to public services established."

And so on. It is really a question of interpretation to remove as to the interpretation any doubt as to the legality of making the Order of the 20th July last. There is no doubt about the legality of that, but it is to remove doubts as to interpretation. It is open, I think, to question as to whether or not the wording of the principal Act was quite clear, and it was to make it clear and to enact that the powers conferred on the Executive Council by that Act extended and always have extended to public services that this particular clause was put in, but it had no reference whatever to the legality of the action taken on the 20th July last.

Mr. LEMASS

Would it make it clear if I were to ask the President how the fact that there were doubts was first brought to the notice of the Government?

The PRESIDENT

I do not remember. On the Committee Stage I will be able to deal with it in more detail, but it is purely a question of interpretation. I think it arose in connection with whether it would be within the competence of the Executive Council to change the Ministry of Lands and Agriculture by an Order. It was not found possible to do that, and it was found within the competence of the Executive Council to dispose of one of the departments of it. Take, for example, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. It is not a very good example, but if one were to desire that telegraphs might be put in——

Mr. F. LYNCH

To education.

The PRESIDENT

I do not know about education, whether that would be good to put in. Say with the Ministry of Industry and Commerce. It would be possible to separate one or the other but not possible to dispose of the Ministry.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE (Mr. P. Hogan)

As Deputy Lemass pointed out, the Gaeltacht services are manifold. There is agriculture, education, finance, fisheries, housing. Finance, of course, includes the Board of Works and land reclamation, etc., as well as the acquisition of lands. All these are Gaeltacht services which must get special attention in the Gaeltacht. I take it that is what the Gaeltacht problem means, that so far as all these services are concerned, in view of the conditions in a certain area known as the congested districts, all these must get special attention—more attention and a different kind of services in this respect from the rest of the country. Deputy Lemass pointed out that it was important to the Gaeltacht that services such as Agriculture, Land Commission and Fisheries should be co-ordinated, and he used that as an argument for merging the three under one Ministry. But to be quite logical you will have to go further. You would have to merge education with them. Of course it is a debatable point, but certainly it could be argued, and it certainly is my opinion, that the most important service you can do for the Gaeltacht is to educate it. You should add education as well. And undoubtedly, as he pointed out himself, you should add Finance. If you want to reduce the thing to absurdity, as the Deputy has tried to do, why not go ahead and include Finance, Agriculture, Land Commission, Fisheries and Education in one Ministry and call it any name you like, because that is really in essence what the Deputy's contention amounted to? It was an endeavour to reduce to absurdity the proposal which we make here now. We think, and anybody who knows the West will agree, that the three most important services, putting it that way, which must affect the day to day lives of the people in the West are: Number 1, the service that deals with the acquisition of land; number 2, the service that deals with fisheries, and number 3, a certain uneconomic service if you wish, connected with drainage—special concessions in connection with drainage and special concessions in connection with housing; special concessions in connection with rural industries—more or less uneconomic services that have to be subsidised.

You have to do housing in a different way. You have to attend to industries in a different way in the Gaeltacht; you have to subsidise and give them State assistance. It is not stated by anyone, even the most enthusiastic Socialist on the Fianna Fáil Benches, that you must subsidise all the industries in the rest of the country, but it is admitted, so far as the Gaeltacht is concerned; so far as rural industries are concerned, and other services of that kind are concerned, that they have to get special concessions from the taxpayers of the rest of the country. The same applies to the housing that is done by the Land Commission in the Congested Districts. All those, what I call, for want of a better word, uneconomic services which have to be heavily subsidised in a different way from the same services in the rest of the country are to be merged under one Ministry, the Ministry of Lands and Fisheries or whatever the new title is to be. Anybody can make a case against that, just as you can make a case against any compromise. Anybody can reduce it to absurdity by pointing out how services that other Ministries have to deal with could be put under one Ministry. Deputy Lemass has done it effectively. But that does not get you any further. You really could not put finance, education, agriculture, Land Commission and fisheries under one Ministry, and if you were to aim at Deputy Lemass's ideal that is what you have got to do. You do not carry the discussion any further by merely stating that in the opinion of certain Deputies any one averagely good man could look after these services. I am surprised that these arguments come from these Benches, because I understand that Deputies on those Benches were in favour of the re-establishment of the Congested Districts Board, or something approximating to it. This motion does not re-establish the Congested Districts Board, but it gives a body which is more effective for its purposes than the old Congested Districts Board was. When I say that I do not mean to suggest that the old Congested Districts Board was an inefficient body. It was not, but it had not sufficient powers; it had only powers to deal with land within the Gaeltacht. Land purchase, of course, is an extremely important service so far as the congested districts are concerned, but that Board could only buy land within the congested districts, and it was quite powerless to make an impression upon the congestion problem in the congested districts. Here you have the Land Commission, who can buy land in Dublin, Meath or anywhere else in the Saorstát, and they can migrate people from the congested districts in order to make room for others. The Congested Districts Board could not deal effectively with the problem we have now, for the reason that they could not go outside the congested districts to buy land. The Land Commission can do that, and I think it is evident on the face of it that a body with powers to purchase land when the land is available outside the congested districts in order to migrate congests there and land owners in the congested districts so as to make room for tenants who have very small holdings and who need relief, is far more effective in dealing with the problem than was the old Congested Districts Board. The Department of Fisheries has charge at present, and it can co-ordinate all the services of the Congested Districts Board—the fisheries, rural industries, and so on. It has all the powers of the old Congested Districts Board, plus the Land Commission, to deal with the land problem in the congested districts. So that those who consider that something in the nature of the re-establishment of a special Board on the lines of the Congested Districts Board to deal with the Gaeltacht problem was the right way to approach the problem have got that now in the Department of Fisheries, which includes fisheries, those other services, and finally land purchase. I do not want to say anything on this question suggesting that agriculture might be lumped in. As I said before, the same thing might be said about education and finance. I think it would be bad business from a number of points of view. I think, with great respect to anybody on the opposite Benches, agriculture is an industry that is quite sufficient for any one man, no matter who he is. He will find quite sufficient to do, and the better he is the more he will do.

Further, I think it is desirable to keep agriculture a separate Ministry, attending to the normal agriculture of the country. I do not think it is right that the Ministry of Agriculture can be looked upon as a body which in its spare time has to deal out a certain amount of philanthropy, a certain amount of loose money for relief, and so on. That idea, I think, owing to historical circumstances, got deep root in this country, but we are getting away from these historical causes. For instance, there is a big amount of land divided now; 11,000,000 out of 15,000,000 acres have been divided under the Land Acts. That is done and finished with. The owners have their land; they have economic holdings to a great extent on that 11,000,000 acres of land. Land purchase, so far as a very big area of the Free State is concerned, is complete. Farmers should be required to tackle down to their problems and should get all sorts of assistance in the way of education; they should get away from the idea that the ordinary farmer, living on a good holding in normal times, has to be helped by the way of doles, grants and so on. For that reason I would rather see agriculture, and I think anybody who thinks over it will agree, regarded as a Ministry that is engaged in promoting services which are normal, economic, and which require development rather than philanthropy, doles, subsidies, and so on. I do not want to suggest that there is any problem in the Gaeltacht which, by reason of the fact that it is to some extent uneconomic, should not be attended to. It should be attended to. We have to recognise the fact that, so far as a big proportion of the land of the country is concerned, it is economic, and farmers should be expected to work their land economically. On the other side, you should recognise the problem that there is a big proportion of farmers living under uneconomic conditions and that it is the duty of somebody, as a special problem, to look after them. That is a special problem. These two problems should not be mixed up. It is not good for either one or the other, apart altogether from the fact that it is absurd to say that one Minister should be capable of looking after and dealing adequately with all these services. It is unsound in the long run, even if one Minister could do it. It is wrong to mix two problems that should be kept apart. The Department of Agriculture are carrying on all these normal services in the Gaeltacht in the same way as in the rest of the country—the same with Education and Finance. But there is no doubt that there is a special problem and that that special problem is essentially one for the Department that deals with fisheries, rural industries and the acquisition and division of land.

Mr. FAHY

I move the adjournment of the debate until to-morrow.

Debate adjourned.