Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 Jul 1946

Vol. 102 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Vote 3—Department of the Taoiseach (Resumed).

This is an important Estimate. It is an Estimate on which one likes to speak, because one can speak to the head of the Government. It is a very useful thing to be able to speak to him, because he is more or less a man concerned with all the Departments and to get his ear is certainly something worth while. I am satisfied that for the last ten years or more the Taoiseach must have been a very sick and tired man, because some years ago he aimed at big and noble things and I believe he meant well. I believe that if he could put them into effect, as he really thought he could, this country would be a place worth living in. But, definitely, something has happened. After 25 years of a native Government we find that things are not at all happy or well in this country; things are very sickly in this country at present. The Taoiseach will have to tell us whether something has gone wrong. What has become of all the plans he put before the people and the House? Why can he not put them into operation? Is it lack of finance or lack of national spirit, or what is the matter? At present we have a country with practically undeveloped national resources, a country which has gone lopsided, where the agricultural economy has practically "gone burst," as the saying is, and where industrial development has gone out of bounds and got into an uncontrolled position. That industrial development has taken the whole attention and finances of this State away from the land which is the primary industry of the country and taken away the people to the cities and big towns where the whole rush of money is. If we had a balanced economy we would have a tendency to go from the city industries back to the land.

No matter what industries we start here, agriculture should be given premier place. Until that stage is reached I do not believe we will have any normal development of the agricultural areas. Emigration we will always have. Every nation which is progressive must increase in population and must spread out.

Therefore I am not against a normal flow of emigration. It is good for the world that people should flow here and there like the tide and get new ideas. But I am not satisfied with emigration on the vast scale which we have at present. We should have curbed emigration from this country to a bigger extent. Emigration at present is too vast. It has become a national canker or sore which will have to be eradicated from the life of the nation. We will have to keep emigration within normal bounds and keep more of our people at home. I do not see why we should not be able to do it. It should be possible to do it with healthy industries and our people working as they used to work in the past. I believe they are not working like that to-day. Our people have become more or less soft and sloppy. They want to get things more easily. In the past they had to work for a living and they were better off. We had a bigger population and we were able to give more facilities to that population. They went along in a more easy and peaceful way and money did not really count with them. In fact a man could live in the country with very little money.

At present money seems to be the dominating factor. While money holds that position I do not think we will see much development. Everybody's idea is to get money and, when they have money, it is of very little use to them. I know people with vast amounts of money and they are the most unhappy people in the country. Other families are living in a small meagre way, barely able to pay their way, but they are really happy people. They may not have £5 on a Saturday night to spend but they certainly are happy. I should like to be shown the rich man who is happy. You will always find that he is grabbing for more and more. He generally dies more or less in misery in the midst of plenty. He is loaded down with money and it is no use to him. This country should be built up in a small, normal way by getting away from money and by getting back to the plain, happy family life. If we could do more for the ordinary family man we could put this country on its feet. We have started from the top, which is the wrong way. We are told that you must creep before you walk. We jumped to our feet far too soon.

This country is at least 100 years behind other countries. That is not our fault, but we should realise that we have 100 years of leeway to make up because of 700 years of domination by a foreign Power. We were kept down by every means in their power. Now we have got our freedom. We have jumped to our feet too quickly and gone too far ahead. If we went at a slower and more normal pace this country could give a better living to its people. Indeed, we should be able to provide for 5,000,000 more people in this country. If we thought more of the smaller things and less of the bigger things we would make some headway.

I do not want to criticise the Taoiseach because I think he means well, but I believe our whole national policy is wrong. That applies to every side of the House. As I said, we are aiming too high. We have reached a stage where the agricultural industry which should be in the premier position and paying the best wages is in the worst position and paying the worst wages. There is something wrong there which will have to be put right, whether by this Government or some other Government. We have a false wage policy. We have new industrial development at a rapid rate. I am glad to see that happening, but not in the way it is happening. In the towns and cities we have gossoons of 18 years of age going into factories and earning £3, £4 or £5 a week and going as far as £8 a week, while the agricultural workers, the most important of all, are getting less than £2 a week when living in the farmers' houses. That is certainly wrong. There will have to be a revolutionary change in this country. We will have to see that agriculture takes its rightful place, because if you have men in the cities and towns earning from £4 to £10 per week you will not be able to keep people in the country districts working twice as hard for £2 per week. That is one of the biggest snags we have to contend with. We will have to tackle it and I think this House as a body should tackle it, irrespective of politics.

We will have to thrash out a decent national policy which we can all stand over. There is no reason why we should not. We have been wrangling for 25 years and it has brought us nowhere. The day has now come to consider things more calmly and to have more love for each other. Let us admit that we have failed. Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and Labour have all failed in giving the people the right to live on the right lines. We should have a decent national policy which we could all stand over. Unfortunately politics takes too big a place in this country. Everybody has a better plan than the others, and when the plans are tried out they are found to be all wrong. No Party should go before the electorate with a policy unless they are able to implement it when they get into power. That is where I believe Fianna Fáil failed.

They may have meant well in 1932. They had theorists who told them that this and that could be done and that not alone could we provide a living for the people in the country, but we would have to bring our people back from America, the Argentine and other places. They were not able to do it. The plan has flopped and our people have become disheartened and dis-spirited. They say: "Why did we ever fight for freedom? Since we got our freedom we are worse off than before. We are hedged around by regulations and red tape. When the British were here we had more freedom." I believe that that is a fact. We have not given our people what we promised to give them. We should give up these high-falutin campaigns all over the country telling the people that this could be done and that could be done. Very few of these things can be done.

Take the position of our national finances and the strength of the country. At best we can do very little. The resurrection of this country will take a long time to accomplish. The industrial development we have had has done an immense amount of harm. I would like to see industrial development carried out on orderly and progressive lines. I would not allow one foreigner to come in unless he is a technician. I would not allow foreigners to control the destinies of this country. We should have Irishmen and Irish money purely. If we observed that rule in the past we would have very little trouble to-day. The City of Dublin is practically controlled by foreigners. We have nothing but foreign money and foreign investors. If it was sold out in the morning 90 per cent. of the wealth of Dublin would be brought to Palestine. We have let the Jewish grip get hold on us. I have nothing against them, but they have got a hold and some Government in the future will have to smash it.

I am not out to attack anybody, but what I say is quite true. There is not a decent shop in Dublin that is not owned by a foreigner. That system is wrong. I am not saying that out of spite; I am merely stating the facts. The ordinary man who endeavours to do something in this country cannot get an opportunity. Big money, chain-store money, is used to oust the Irishman. Industrial development is carried on here, not under the name of the man with the money, but under some Irishman's name. The business will be run by Paddy So-and-so, but right behind him is the foreign monopolist pumping in the money. The Irishman's name is over the door and he gets a living out of it, but it is a mean, skulky living. Any man who is not able to stand over his own name should not get any privileges.

One of the principal things that has gone wrong in our country is our educational system. I am sorry the Taoiseach is not here to speak on that subject. I want to draw attention to it, not so much from my own point of view as from that of a pioneer in the County Meath, one of the most able men in this country. He is a pioneer in the same sense as Father Hayes, who started Muintir na Tíre, and Father O'Flanagan, who established Boys' Town. I refer to Father Clavin, Parish Priest of Longwood, County Meath. He has ideas which, if put into operation, would resurrect this country almost in a year or two. He started in a small way and he has already brought great benefits to the people. He has established among them a sense of self-respect. He has certain ideas with regard to the vocational system of education and he suggests the dove-tailing of vocational education with the national school system. He intends to urge that that should be done and, if it is possible, he is anxious to see the Taoiseach on the subject. He knows it can be done but he realises that he will have to cut a lot of red tape in order to get it done.

He wants to have a new class-room built in every national school so that the system of education there can be dove-tailed into the vocational system. He does not want big vocational buildings unless, perhaps, in the larger towns and cities where they may be needed. He wants the national school to be the pivot of our educational system and he wants the new system worked in such a way that school managers will not have to face a crux every now and then. He believes that if his system is adopted we could resurrect this country overnight. We have spent vast sums on vocational education for the last quarter of a century and we have got a very poor return. We are really working on wrong lines.

If the Taoiseach will consider some of the things I am saying, it is my belief that he can do a good deal, even at this late hour, to get back to the ordinary Irish life. We have failed because we have not looked after the family man. The family man is neglected. At the present time we find in many places very unhappy families. Eighty per cent. of our small cottiers and small farmers are living in a miserable condition. You will find in the case of cottiers that they are living on bread and tea. That is a miserable condition of things. In their garden plots you will not find a dozen heads of cabbage and you will not see any pigs or poultry around the cottage.

The little cottage industries which flourished in past years are all dead. The priest whom I mentioned wants us to forget all our big ideas about buildings. If you have money to spend, give the little cottage industries a chance. At present we are building vast sanatoria. We are told that tuberculosis is increasing. I admit it is. Why is the disease increasing? I suggest it is because we are not looking after the plain man. If you attend to the health of the plain man and woman and their little families, you will need very few sanatoria. Establish health in the home unit and try to make their system of living such that they will not look to Dublin, Cork or Limerick but will prefer the home life.

Nearly all our young country girls and boys—a good deal of them have brains and a good deal of them have not—go in for a clerical education and learn typewriting and shorthand and book-keeping. Some of them get jobs in Dublin at a few pounds a week. If you meet them on a Saturday or a Sunday they have hardly a bob in their pockets. Very often the people at home have to pay for their "digs." If you re-establish cottage industries these people would make far better money and they would live a cleaner, healthier and happier life. They would have parental control and the parish priest would look after their welfare and in that way we could revolutionise our whole system.

You can see Dublin spreading like an eagle spreads her wings. Foreign money is coming in and taking over the city. The poor Irish people are hewers of wood and drawers of water for the big monopolists. We shall have to stop that type of development. Many people suffered severely to achieve the resurrection of this country, but we have not got that resurrection. Our experiments have resulted only in failures. We should not be failures. We have one of the most fertile lands in the world. I agree it is partitioned and we have to keep costly administrations in two parts of the country. I agree that we will never get the ideal State until Partition is removed. At the same time, we in the Twenty-Six Counties should be able to have a better State than we have. We should be able to hold up our heads and, after 25 years of freedom, show progress. We should be able to stand on our own feet and be in a position to say that we care for nobody, outside or inside, that we can pay our way and live happy lives and rear a bigger and better population. Can we say that to-day? We certainly cannot. Therefore I maintain that there is something wrong nationally. Financial considerations have to a great extent held us back.

I am not saying that it is Fianna Fáil that holds us back. If Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour were to evolve a policy, at the end of the period of trial of that policy, we would arrive at the same stage. Fianna Fáil have tried a policy for a long time and the stage we have reached now is practically the stage where Cumann na nGaedheal left off. I am not saying that Cumann na nGaedheal had a great policy. It was only a middling policy. They did not put into effect all that they could have. It all boils down to the fact that it is from the land the people will be resurrected, through the ordinary people living on the land. Therefore, the Taoiseach, who has been the responsible head of the Government for the last 15 years, has a good deal to answer for if he has to stand up here and admit failure. I know that it is a thing he will not like to do but I would prefer that he would admit that there is something wrong. I agree that the war, for five or six years, upset the equilibrium but there is no use in sheltering behind the war. The fact remains that we had failed before ever the war started.

I have put this idea before the Taoiseach, and I think he would be the first to adopt it if he thought it was a good thing. As I have already said, this priest in County Meath has established a cookery class. Before he started the cookery class in his area he lectured from the pulpit and in any other place he could, and asked the people to get their children to buy vegetable seeds and to sow them in their own plots. He even bought the seeds for the children and they sowed them. He procured an ordinary house beside the national school and he got one of the best vocational teachers in County Meath and one of the best national school teachers in County Meath and started classes in plain cookery. About 25 or 30 pupils attended the classes.

Deputies may have seen in the Press about a year ago that this priest wrote a strong letter to the vocational education committee stating that he wanted a cookery class in the area but did not want any high-falutin nonsense. He did not want fancy pots or pans or cookers. All he wanted was a cookery class conducted on the exact lines of the kitchens in the homes of the cottier and small farmer, where there is a hearth fire made of sticks and turf, and ordinary pots and pans, even the skillet for cooking the porridge. He insisted on that and would not allow any class in his area to be conducted in a high-falutin manner. Before he started the classes he called the people of the area together and instructed them that there was one teacher in the class and, no matter what anyone knew, they must keep quiet, that they were pupils there to learn, and nothing more, that there was to be no inferiority or superiority complex there. He did that for a very good reason. On previous occasions classes had been started in County Meath. The class would start well with, perhaps, 40 pupils the first week and then those who had been at fancy classes, perhaps at a convent or some other school, would come in the first night and try to show the teacher what they knew about icing cakes and other fancy cookery, with the result that the poor, decent cottiers and the small farmers' children would feel in some way inferior and backward and would sneak out and go home. This priest would allow no nonsense or snobbery, with the result that the ordinary poor person could come there and feel proud.

I was at the closing of that class last night, and it was certainly a joy to see the co-operation between the priest, the two teachers and the pupils. If that is followed up and if a lot of nonsense is done away with, it will help to create the happiest homes in Europe. I do not see any reason why that cannot be done. There is no need to spend vast sums of money. All that is required is a resurrection of the people.

The people in this case are cooperating with the priest and giving every facility. The priest goes around to the houses to see the children cooking in their own homes, in skillets and pots, on turf fires. He will not allow high-falutin cookery classes in his area. He intends to re-open the class in October and to continue it. He has asked me to mention it in the Dáil and anywhere I can and, if possible, to get the Taoiseach interested in it. He is going to re-open the class in the winter, and he wants the Taoiseach and the higher officials of the Department to come down, on some appointed day, and he will show them exactly what his ideas are and how they can be worked out. I ask the Taoiseach, would he come down to a class like that, where new ideas are being tried out, to see if it is a success? If it is a success, would the Taoiseach and his officials consider the question as to how national education and vocational education could be dove-tailed? This priest suggests the building of a large class-room attached to every national school and the discontinuance of the idea of building large vocational schools that cost £8,000 to £20,000 and which are definitely a failure. They may be doing a little good, but they are not doing enough for the vast amount of money spent on them.

I believe it is along these lines that our people can be resurrected. To carry out this idea, large sums of money are not needed. The majority of our small farmers and cottiers do not want money in the sense that the world to-day seeks money. They can live in a decent, frugal way on the proceeds of their poultry and garden stock. They can have a peaceful, happy and contented life. In that way, we will not have the huge taxation that is crushing every one of us and we would end the idea of our young people going off to schools and getting a smattering of education and then giving the advantage of it to London, Birmingham or Dublin. We want to avoid that. We want to develop a love of the country. That can be achieved.

I would ask the Taoiseach to consider the idea of linking up the national education system with the vocational education system and to evolve some means by which these can be dove-tailed. That is the principal idea. If that can be done, it is the opinion of the priest I have referred to, and my opinion, that it will revolutionise the entire education system in this country. At the present moment we are up in the clouds, spending money at the top that would be much more usefully spent at the foundation. Now that the attention of the country is focused on the teachers and the strike it is time for the Taoiseach to consider what is wrong with the whole system. I will not say that the teachers are 100 per cent. right or that the Minister is 100 per cent. right.

The strike does not arise on this Vote. We had it on the Education Vote.

It is time, now that the attention of the Minister for Education and the Taoiseach has been focused on it, to consider many of the problems, and to see how these problems can be solved and to bring out a new idea and a new system, that is, to dove-tail the vocational and national education systems. They should consider the building of an extra class-room to each national school where there could be cookery, woodwork and engineering classes carried on under one school system. In County Meath there are four vocational schools, in Athboy, Trim, Navan and Kells. They are certainly giving a good return because they are thickly populated areas, where these schools are needed.

We have other areas in the country where we have built very big schools and where we have very few pupils in them because of the small population around. Very large sums of money were spent on these vocational schools. I think that we should abolish this system of having these big vocational schools and have the children of a parish provided with a proper education in their own parish schools. Let them get such an education there that they will be able to obtain certificates to enable them to get positions when they leave school. If that were done I think we would get somewhere. As it is we are going around in circles. We are 100 years behind the times. We had 700 years of serfdom and of slavery so that we have a lot of leeway to make up. There is no use in trying to keep pace with people who had their full freedom for 200 or 300 years. For that reason, as I say, we have a lot of leeway to make up and should learn to creep before we walk. That would be a sounder foundation to build on, I think. I hope it is commonsense. It seems to me to be commonsense.

For these reasons I would ask the Taoiseach to pay more attention to small things. Our whole national outlook is warped, as it were. We have too much politics. We too often forget that we are all Irishmen, at least those of us who were in the national struggle. I have the same outlook as the Taoiseach has. He may say that he wants a republic and I may say that I want a kingdom, but our policy should be to resurrect our people in the Thirty-Two Counties and try to give them all happy homes. From this day forward I think we should resolve to give up all this talk about politics. The acid test is whether or not we are a contented nation, a happy nation and a Christian nation, and if we are not, why not? I believe there is a drift setting in here as it has set in among many nations. We have tens of thousands of our boys going away out of the country, going into slums and losing the Faith. When they come home from England, after earning big money there, they will not go to Mass. They will lie in bed. That is because they have been living in big towns and cities, and because they had been jeered at or sneered at and were too cowardly to stand up for their Faith.

It may be that where they lived they were too far away from a church, but at any rate the fact is that in this country we are losing the finest thing we have, our spiritual outlook which was responsible for spreading Christianity over the whole world. It would be far better for this country if we could keep those people at home and give them employment here.

I ask the Taoiseach to drop all this nonsense and get down to bedrock. That is what will give us a happier and a better system than the one we have, as well as happier and better homes for our people. We should do everything in our power to develop agriculture. That would be better for the country than this policy of setting up mushroom-industries and enabling them to carry on under heavy tariffs. The development of agriculture would provide our people with a normal healthy life. In my opinion, far too high tariffs have been fixed for some of our new industries. There should be more competition so far as they are concerned, so that they would have to fight for their existence. The people would be more contented if what I say were done. As it is, some of those people in industry have a monopoly in almost everything. They are making huge profits and are able to pay huge dividends at the expense of the unfortunate devils living on the bogs and in the lanes. I would ask the Taoiseach to remember the fine spirit we had in the country from 1916 to 1921, and to think of the people who marched with him, and with all of us who were in that movement. Many of them were the sons of small farmers, decent men who had not a bob in their pockets. Let us try to bring back that spirit at the present time. If we are not able to do that, then I think it must be said that we are not worth our salt.

Deputy Donnellan raised the question of land division. I agree with what Deputy Beegan said, that the Land Commission will not solve the problem so far as agriculture is concerned, because if you were to divide all the available land in the country into 20-acre holdings you would not have sufficient land to supply the needs of the uneconomic holders, not to speak of the workers on estates that would be divided, or the landless men. Therefore, so far as land division is concerned, that policy would not solve the problem. When the Vote for the Department of Agriculture was before the House I put forward a suggestion for the serious consideration of the Deputies in all Parties who represent western constituencies, namely, that they should encourage the growing of intensive crops that have a very large labour content, such as the production of turnip seed, mangold seed and beet seed, and that schemes of this nature should be confined to the holders of land under a £10 valuation. I am growing five acres of beet seed this year which has already cost me £30 an acre in labour. I expect it will cost me about £40 per acre more before I am finished with it, but the return will be from £110 to £130 per acre. That will leave me a good profit and will be the means of providing employment for a number of men. In the case of a man who had not his own family labour, it would provide employment for small holders and their families. I am surprised that the Deputies who represent western constituencies did not undertake schemes of that sort during the past six or seven years. Such a policy would help far more to solve this problem that we are discussing than merely standing on a platform and pointing to the green fields of Meath and telling the people: "You will get all this land in the sweet by-and-by."

Deputy Dockrell spoke about industry. He said that it was short of skilled labour, of machinery and of money. I claim to be a fairly keen student of Irish industry, and I have not seen any signs of that. Any Irish industry that I know is able to pay 6 per cent. and over on the capital that has been invested in it during the past number of years. I know of no industry, in the south, at any rate, that has not provided increased employment for workers. In many cases, some of those in Irish industries are looking for fresh factories, so that when one thinks of Government policy Irish industry must be sound enough to enable those people to go ahead. I see nothing wrong in that policy. I am in agreement with Deputy Donnellan when he says that, the more industries we have, the better the conditions are going to be in the home market, which is the principal market that we have. I have no fault to find with the Government so far as industry is concerned. I think they have made enormous progress during the past 14 years.

Deputy Donnellan was somewhat at variance with his colleague, Deputy Cogan, who is in favour of taking over big tracts of land and of working the land through co-operative organisations. Some Deputy here near me says that is the Russian plan. Suppose we were to have co-operative farming, I wonder, for example, how Deputy Dillion and myself would get on. If I wanted to put in a crop of wheat in a field, he certainly would not agree and the same would happen if I wanted to grow beet. There would be nothing but rows, so that I do not think that plan would work. I think that if this policy of co-operation were to be followed out to its logical conclusion the local towns would soon become derelict, because you would have just "one big shop" in which 15 or 20 people would get employment. I have seen that happen around Mitchelstown, as well as in the case of a few other towns in the County Cork. Those people in the co-operative movement are now going a step further, and are taking over big farms.

Therefore, if Deputy Donnellan has any hope of seeing the land divided up among the people of the west I do not think it is likely to be realised, especially if, when some large farms are offered for sale, the Land Commission has to compete in the buying of land against the co-operative societies. In fact, the carrying out of that policy would mean unfair competition even against farmers who wanted to buy land to provide for the members of their own families.

Deputy Mulcahy is looking for a policy for agriculture and says that we have no policy. Anybody who has been working land for a number of years and who takes into consideration our position in previous years must realise that the gradual raising of the standard of living of the agricultural community during the past 12 or 14 years has brought about an enormous change for the better—one which I am glad to see. There is very little which the farmer wants to do by way of improving his land or his conditions in which he is not met more than half-way by the Government. The farm improvements scheme covers practically everything the farmer may want to do in the way of improving his amenities. If he wants to make a decent avenue up to his house or to erect a silo or to make a manure pit, he will get a 50 per cent. grant. These things are of great help to the farmer. The same applies to the rural improvement scheme.

So far as the export market is concerned, the first call on the land is to provide food for the people of the country. Until the land has provided the full needs of the people in agricultural produce, there is no occasion to look for an export market. We, certainly, want an export market for live stock, but we have a shortage of bread, sugar, butter, barley for brewing and a general shortage of feeding-stuffs.

I hold that the market for these is as much the property of the Irish farmer as is the production of artificial manures by Goulding's or the supply of farm machinery by Pierce or mills for the supply of flour. I hold that this home market is the property of the Irish farmer and will have to be preserved for him, as has been done during the past 14 years. Deputy Mulcahy says that we have no agricultural policy. It was not a soft job to induce farmers to leave a certain line of policy and change over to a new policy. It took years of training and coaxing to do that. The issue developed practically into a political fight in which Deputies in opposition to the Government went out with the cry: "You cannot grow wheat in this country; you will get sugar so much cheaper from abroad." To my mind, that is arrant nonsense. The Irish farmer is entitled to the full home market. In that market, he is entitled to the cost of production, plus profit. If there is any quarrel between the Government and me on that, it is a straight quarrel in which I maintain that the agricultural industry should be treated the same as every other industry. It is unfair to grind the farmer between the two wheels. So far as beet is concerned, the farmer has been ground between the two wheels for the past four or five years. Four or five years ago, the price of beet was fixed at a fair figure——

It would seem as if the Deputy were initiating a debate on agricultural prices.

Then the recollection of the Chair must be at fault.

I am merely following the arguments on agriculture put up by other Deputies.

On the price of beet.

Beet was not mentioned.

That was the opinion of the Chair.

Export markets for other products were mentioned. There is a wide difference between supplying one-fourth of the sugar required here and 100 per cent. I claim that the Irish farmer is entitled to that market. If we are to fill in the gaps in our agriculture, surely in an agricultural country sugar should not be rationed. It is unthinkable, too, that butter should be rationed in an agricultural country.

Hear, hear!

Or bacon.

The trouble in connection with bacon during the past six years was that the farmer did not produce sufficient barley, oats and potatoes to feed the pigs in addition to the other things which he had to produce. That is the sole reason why you have a shortage of bacon. In very few years, we may be driven back on our own resources again. No Deputy can guarantee us ten years' peace under present conditions. If we are driven back on our own resources, I hold that we shall require the full complement of the land of the country to feed the people, if some of them are not to be undernourished. That, after all, is the main purpose. There would be no use, so far as national policy is concerned, in our taking over the ports and putting ourselves in a position to declare our neutrality in 1939 if we were to be unable——

External Affairs were fully discussed on the Vote therefor.

I was merely making a passing allusion to that matter while dealing with the question of producing our own requirements. There are large gaps to be filled. We have a steadily decreasing milk supply. Why? Young men of the present day on the land—and I thank God for it—are not prepared to work as we worked. They are not prepared to work from 6 o'clock in the morning until 9 o'clock at night. Neither are they prepared to work five or six hours on Sunday without extra remuneration. They see other workers walking around enjoying themselves on Sunday. On my own farm during the winter, I can see agricultural workers having to work five and six hours every Sunday between milking cows, feeding cattle, etc.

Are they not paid overtime?

They get overtime for that now, but my point is that the farmer finds himself ground between two wheels. He is not getting sufficient for what he produces to cover the cost of production and a fair profit. When he happens to get a copy of Irish Industry he reads that every other Irish industry is able to earn 6 per cent. over and above the cost of production and he wonders where he is going to get his profit of 6 per cent. He is surely entitled to look for it. There have been three increases granted in the wages of agricultural workers in the past few years since the price of beet was fixed at 80/- but the price of beet is still 80/-. When the Act providing holidays for all industrial workers in this country was passed, every industrialist in this country was able to go immediately to the Department of Industry and Commerce and to put up a case showing what these holidays would cost him and he was allowed to add that to the cost of the article he was manufacturing and selling—to the farmer in most cases. We, farmers, have no means of passing along increased costs of production to anyone else.

That is a point I would ask the Taoiseach to consider very seriously, because I am more than anxious that we should have in this country plenty of butter and new milk for everybody. I want to see this country in the position that 100 per cent. of our sugar requirements will be produced here. After all, it is the one industry the raw material of which is supplied from the land and surely there is something wrong when we cannot produce 100 per cent. of our requirements in an industry of that kind. There is something wrong when we can allow only so many ounces of sugar per head per week to our people. These are matters into which the Taoiseach might go to see if some kind of tribunal could not be set up before which farmers could go and establish their claim to get a price which would at least represent the cost of production and some percentage of profit.

The day is gone when you had the situation that I saw in my young days where you had the farmer and his wife and five or six of their children working until they were 35 or 40 years of age and when the sons were satisfied if they got 6d. for a packet of cigarettes, a bit of tobacco or a pint of porter on a Sunday. They worked until they were 45 or 50 years very often and all they had to show for it was the clothes on their back. Those days are gone. Boys reared on the farm at present will not work for nothing. They are not prepared to remain in the position that if one of them does not happen to please the father of the family when he falls in love at the age of 40 with a nice looking girl, the father can say: "Get out; you have no claim here". Those days are gone and I thank God for it. The agricultural community were long enough in the position in which they were worse than serfs or slaves. They look forward to getting their share of what they are justly entitled to.

I remember speaking here on the proposal to grant holidays to farm workers and saying that it would be better if every Party in this House came together and fixed a wage for the farm labourer that would be at least equal, considering the importance of his work, to the wages paid in any factory, and urging in addition that they should get special compensation for the fact that they must work on Sundays. I suggested that the price of agricultural products should then be graded up accordingly. I see no hope in Deputy Mulcahy's export market for bringing about any improvement in the position. There is nothing an Irish farmer can produce to-day and sell in the export markets of the world at a price that will yield him the cost of production plus a profit. In 1941 the price of butter on the English market would give us just 3½d. per gallon for milk. To suggest to the Irish farmer that he should produce butter for Britain at a price that would give him 3½d. per gallon for milk is just the same as if I told Messrs. Goulding: "You get all the raw material you can; bear the cost of manufacturing it into fertilisers and I will pay you a price which is 10/- a ton under the cost of production. Produce all you can and I will take it at that price." That policy is no good to anybody; it is no good to the Irish farmer.

All this talk about export markets is to my mind useless. We have a market at home which, in my opinion at any rate, you cannot fill within the next five years even with hard work, unless you have a radical change in the condition of affairs, so far as agriculture is concerned. You are not going to fill that market unless you place the agricultural industry in the same position as you placed every other Irish industry—namely, a position in which it would get its cost of production plus a profit. That is your only hope. I am far more concerned, in the present condition of the world, with our ability to feed the people of this country in another emergency than I am in looking for export markets. I would be far more satisfied, if there was another European eruption within 12 months, if we had sufficient milk, bread and butter for our people, than if we were made a present of the whole British market. If all they can offer us is paper money, their paper money is not of much use.

I do not for one moment agree with Deputy Dockrell as far as industry is concerned. Every industrialist that I know of in Cork County has improved his financial position, improved his factory and practically doubled the number of employees he had before the war with very little trouble, and he has a decent turnover. Industry, to my mind, is going ahead by leaps and bounds. I am glad to see it. It is far better for me, as a farmer, to go into a town in which between £500 and £1,000 is paid in wages and sell my produce there than to have to say: "Ship that produce over to England for whatever price you can get." There is some hope of getting a fair price in this country, but there is no such hope on the foreign market. You must take whatever you can get there. That is my opinion of the export market and I give it for what it is worth. I give it also as one who has studied the problems as closely as I could and as one who earns his livelihood by farming and who has no outlook on the matter other than the farming outlook.

Deputy Cogan said that the Government were too long in office and that the people were anxious to get rid of us. I invite Deputy Cogan to look at the Deputy who has come into this House as a result of the recent by-election. On that basis, it does not look as if the people were anxious to get rid of us. The Deputy will be under no misapprehension as to the opinion held by the people of Cork City and it was only a couple of years ago that the matter was tested out all round. To my mind, the Government have satisfied the people. It is a Government to which the people look up and the Government which has their respect, and 50 per cent. of the Government's popularity is due to that fact. The other 50 per cent is due to the fact that the Opposition in this House is useless and worthless. I have not heard a decent case made on anything here by any Opposition Deputy, and, as a matter of fact, in 95 per cent. of cases, I have to be the Opposition myself because no one else is prepared to offer fair or decent criticism on any matter.

The other 50 per cent. responsible for Deputy McGrath's coming in here is due to the fact that there was nothing else on offer, no other hope for the people. We hear a few "hems and haws" from Deputies from time to time, but it is all on the lines of what we heard to-day from Clann na Talmhan—two Deputies speaking one after the other and contradicting each other in a matter of such high policy as the division of land. We get the same thing from Fine Gael. We have Deputy Mulcahy speaking with one voice and Deputy Hughes with another. Deputy Dillon, if I may call him a Fine Gael Deputy—I do not know if he will take offence or not—is not any good either.

I ask the Taoiseach to give careful consideration to the position of the agricultural industry as compared with that of other Irish industries. We are now practically at the crossroads and it is a question of whether agriculture is to hold its place as the premier industry or lose it. It is a question of whether, in two or three years' time, we will have the agricultural community producing sufficient bread, butter, sugar and bacon to obviate the need for rationing, of any commodity, or whether we are to have still more rationing because the people will not work when they are not paid for that work.

Deputy Corry is par excellence the Fianna Fáil Deputy who cannot keep the cat in the bag. Speaking from his experience of the supporters of the Fianna Fáil Party in Cork, he tells us that having met them, having talked to them and having canvassed them on behalf of his colleague, Deputy McGrath, 50 per cent. would not vote for Fianna Fáil if there was anyone else to vote for, that 50 per cent. of the votes which Deputy McGrath got were due to the fact that the voters of Cork said: “Whom else could we vote for? If there were anybody in the field other than Deputy McGrath, we would vote for him, but Deputy McGrath is the only man who has a Party behind him and if we are to have any Government at all, we must vote for McGrath, God help us.” Of course, that is largely true, and I recommend it to the attention of the Parties on this side of the House. That is the testimony of Deputy Corry, and he is no fool. He has been engaged in the campaign in Cork and he knows the Cork people, and he tells us here, openly and frankly, that 50 per cent. of the people who voted for McGrath said: “The only reason for which we are voting for McGrath is that there is nobody else to vote for. If there was, we would not vote for McGrath,” and, signs on it, we have been privileged to welcome Deputy McGrath into this House.

There are three more.

I think Deputy Corry is right. There is no one else to vote for and I want to ask the Parties— Labour, Clann na Talmhan, Fine Gael and National Labour—how long are they going to suffer the Opposition in this House to be divided up into splinters which create that situation in which Deputy McGrath is elected. Deputy McGrath, in so far as he is personally concerned, is very welcome to this House.

Thank you.

He will learn by experiience that if we refer to a Deputy harshly sometimes, we refer not to his person but to the policy of the Party he stands for. So long as the Opposition Parties in this House continue to be splinter Parties, that is what the Taoiseach wants, because, so long as that is the case, 50 per cent. of the voters who vote for his Party will continue to do so because there is nobody else to vote for. I invite the Leaders of Clann na Talmhan, Fine Gael, Labour and National Labour to decide how long they intend to leave Deputy Corry in a position to say what he said here so truly to-day, how long they intend to continue a situation in which one Deputy McGrath after another will march into this House on the strength of the votes of people who, when they marked their ballot papers, said: "No. 1, McGrath, God help us."

You tried them all and they threw you out. The Deputy was in the Centre Party, he was in Fine Gael and he would join the Labour Party if they took him. I do not know what Party he is in now.

There is one place I am in, and that is Dáil Éireann, and the serried phalanxes of Fianna Fáil could not get me out of it yet. I agree with Deputy Corry about something else. I think Deputy Corry is 100 per cent. right——

I must examine my conscience.

——when he says that the farmers have nobody on whom to pass on increased costs. Deputy Corry should not run away.

He leaves the conscience outside. He has gone out to examine it.

He is 100 per cent. right when he says that if you increase costs on the agricultural industry, that industry has nobody to whom it can pass that increased cost, and therefore if you allow the tariff racketeer in this country to pile costs on the backs of the farmers, you are crushing the farmer down to a position of slavery while the tariff racketeer grows fat on the farmer's labour. Deputy Corry is 100 per cent. right, but his remedy for that is to turn the farmer into a tariff racketeer, to give him a victim on whom he can live. The trouble, however, is that there is not any victim we can give the farmer. The farmer is the only victim we have to dispose of and we have sold him to the tariff racketeer. There is nobody left whom we can sell to the farmers. They are the ones who have been sold into serfdom, and serfs do not have slaves.

What Deputy Corry does not see is that he and his Party and their policy have made serfs of the farmers. Deputy Corry says you sold the farmers into the hands of the tariff racketeers and you will not let them pass on to anyone else the burden that is being put upon their backs by the tariff racketeers. The only reason is that there is nobody else to whom they can pass it. Why does not Deputy Corry wake up to that? We cannot enable the farmers to pass on the costs. I have told them that a thousand times in this House.

We have 12,000,000 acres of arable land, of which 7,000,000 will provide all the foodstuffs which the stomachs of the Irish people would contain, if you fill each individual stomach with a ramrod. That leaves the produce of 5,000,000 acres over. You can burn it or dump it in the ocean, you can sell it on a foreign market or let the land lie fallow. But remember that every acre of land we have is required to sustain families living upon it. There are no vast estancias in Ireland, no wide ranches left. Every acre we have is required—and far more if we could get it—to provide the minimum requirements of economic holdings for the people. We cannot solve the problem of the congested areas, of the uneconomic holders, because we have not enough land. If we divided every farm in Ireland over 40 acres, we would not have enough land to give every family at present living on the land a farm of 25 acres. Therefore, we cannot afford to leave a perch of Irish land uncultivated, we must extract from every rood of land the maximum we can get out of it, if our people are to enjoy a tolerable standard of living.

If that is true, the produce of that 5,000,000 acres must be sold—and there is nowhere in Ireland to sell it. The produce of 7,000,000 acres has filled the stomachs of every Irish man, woman and child as tightly, on 365 days of every year, as it is physically possible to fill them. The produce of the remaining 5,000,000 acres must be sold. Here is where Deputy Corry was wrong. He says the price on the foreign market is too low. The price does not matter—and that is the blind alley at the end of which Deputy Corry has been battering his head for the last 15 years. That is the obsession with the level of prices. Prices do not matter. What matters to the man who sells his commodity is profit and that is what Deputy Corry can never see. If I get £7 for a beast which has cost me £6 to put on the market, I have £1 profit; but if I get £40 for a beast and it cost me £40 10s. to produce it, I have lost half a sovereign. The mistake Deputy Corry is making is that he would sooner get £40 for the beast and spend £40 10s. to produce it, than take the £10 for the beast and spend only £9 to produce it. If he has got to sell in the foreign market—and there is no rational Deputy in this House who does not know that he must do so—let us face the fact that we cannot control the price on the foreign market and, if we cannot do that, then must not we, if we are to release our people from the serfdom which Deputy Corry describes, turn our minds to the problem of getting a profit for our farmers at the prices which are available on the foreign market?

What is profit? Profit is the difference between the cost of production and the price you get. Profit is the gap between those two things. It is the gap between the cost of production and the price you get that matters. That is what people live on, that is what makes them rich or poor. If you could raise prices, you would widen that gap and increase the margin of profit. If we cannot raise prices —and we cannot control them—if you bring down the cost of production, do you not produce the same result? You will widen the gap, that gap is profit, it is out of that that the farmers live and it is the produce of that gap which will release them from the serfdom which Deputy Corry describes. How, then, are we to achive that? It can be done to-morrow if, by resolution of this House, we could increase the prices of every commodity we sold in the British market by 20 per cent. Can anyone doubt that we could pass the necessary resolution? What would the effect of the increase be? Simply to widen the gap between our cost of production and the price we get in Great Britain. We cannot raise prices in Great Britain by a resolution of this House, but we can do something else. By a resolution of this House now, we can bring down the farmer's cost of production, thus widening the gap, thus getting for the farmer to-morrow all the benefit we would get him by increasing prices on the British market by 20 per cent.—and more, because if prices rose on the British market by 20 per cent to-morrow, there would be drawn into that market thousands of competitors to meet us there, who do not meet us there at present levels. That is all I have asked the Government to do.

Deputy Corry said that, if the manure ring in this country is entitled to manufacture the manures and produce their costings to the Department of Supplies and say to them: "We want our cost of production, including depreciation, and a fair margin of profit, in the price fixed by you for artificial manure," why is not the farmer entitled to get the same concession? The answer is that the Department cannot give that concession to the Irish farmer, because the Irish farmer has to sell his surplus on the foreign market. But it could and does give it to the manure ring and the manure ring collect out of the farmer. Take the Indian-meal ring. When they got a monopoly in this country, they clapped 2/6 a cwt. on to Indian meal. If it takes 7 cwts. of meal, which is a rough and ready reckoning, to fatten a pig, that meant that every Irish farmer who fattened a pig had to pay 17/6 more for the meal a pig consumed than he would have had to pay if the Indian meal had not been given a monopoly. The Irish farmer had to sell that pig in the British market and, when he went to the British market, he met the Danish farmer who was not paying that 2/6 extra for a cwt. of meal. The Danish farmer was prepared to produce and sell the pig for a profit of 10/-. The Irish farmer had to compete with that farmer's pig and, because it cost him 17/6 more than the Danish farmer to produce the pig, the Irish farmer lost 7/6 on the pig. The Dane who sold 100 pigs in England went home with a profit of £50 in his pocket. The Irish farmer who sold 100 pigs from the next stall went home a loser of £37 10s 0d. Is it any wonder that the farmers of this country have been reduced to the condition of serfs?

The remedy, according to Deputy Corry, is to set them growing beet for the production of sugar at a price higher than the 80/- at present being paid. Sugar costs the consumer 5d. per lb. to manufacture at the present time. The world price of sugar is likely to settle down after the present crisis has passed, at, approximately, 2¼d. per lb. That is about 100 per cent. higher than it was pre-war. That means that, in order to grow beet in this country, our people have to pay 3d. per lb. more for sugar than they should pay. Threepence per lb. on sugar represents 28/- per cwt. or £28 per ton. There are 100,000 tons of sugar consumed here annually and, therefore, Deputy Corry's suggestion means servitude for the farmers who have been sold to tariff racketeers. The mass of our people, over 70 per cent. of whom are farmers, are to pay £3,000,000 per annum towards the cost of sugar. If, instead of growing beet, we imported the sugar we required and the money were appropriated not to the beet factory but to the Exchequer, with the £3,000,000 we could increase the family allowance going into every house from 2/6 to 7/-.

We heard you saying the same thing a fortnight ago.

Is there a Deputy who will argue with me that to increase children's allowances going into every home to 7/- per child after the second child would be less of a social advantage than the payment of 80/- per cwt. to farmers to grow beet? That dilemma has been forced upon us because this House has been deluded into selling the farmer into that slavery so effectively defended by Deputy Corry, not slavery to foreigners, not slavery imposed from outside, but slavery imposed by his own representatives in his own Parliament, sold by his own people into servitude to tariff racketeers who have come to this country from the four corners of the earth to live out of the sweat and blood of our people.

How long is this Parliament, elected by the Irish people, going to suffer our people to be serfs in their own country for tariff racketeers whom we, representatives of the people, have placed in a privileged position and who wax fat at the expense of the ten-acre farmers of the west of Ireland? The Irish people commemorate Davitt, Parnell and others who fought to make our people strong and independent and helped to establish them, immovable, in their own homes. I wonder what they would think now of those people they so firmly established and were able to rescue from the servitude of Balfour and "Buckshot" Foster. Are they to be returned to far more detestable slavery by their own people, sold by their own representatives to slave drivers who count their gain in pounds, shillings and pence?

The position of the Taoiseach is one of the most honourable, if not the most honourable to which any citizen of this country could aspire, not only because he is head of the Irish Government but because he is leader of Dáil Éireann, the custodian and defender of all our rights, privileges and duties. I want to ask the Taoiseach a very explicit question, not in his capacity as head of the Government but in his capacity as leader of the House. That, in my judgment, is as honourable a position as the chairmanship of the Executive Council could be. I want to ask him categorically a simple question, and I demand on behalf of Dáil Éireann a categorical answer.

What a hope!

Is it right—I say right— for a Deputy of this House to borrow money from a constituent when he is going to make representations to a Department of State on that constituent's behalf? That question is capable of a simple answer, "yes" or "no". If it is right for any one of us to do it, it is right for all and, if it is wrong for any one of us to do it, it is wrong for all. It does not matter on what bench we sit. As far as the honour of this House is concerned, it does not matter whether we sit on the Government Benches, on the benches of Fine Gael, on the Labour Benches or on the Independent Benches. We are the one body, and the honour of one of us is the honour of us all. If the honour of one of us is touched the honour of all of us is touched. I state that no Deputy of this House has the right to ask or accept from a constituent a benefit on the occasion of that constituent asking him to make representations on his behalf to a Department of State or on the occasion of the Deputy actually making such representations.

Is the Deputy not now raising a matter that was fully discussed very recently in the Dáil?

No, Sir. I very specifically declined to discuss that specific question when I raised another matter in this House and I was sharply upbraided by Deputy de Valera, Junior, when I refused to discuss it; he called me pusillanimous and accused me of lacking frankness because I specifically declined to discuss it. I made no charge, he said. He is right; I made no charge. I simply read out a document and said, "Let there be an inquiry" and I was sharply taken to task for that very reason—that I refused to discuss it. I refused to discuss it because I did not want to discuss it; but now I am going to discuss it.

On a point of order, there are at the moment legal proceedings pending as a result of the document Deputy Dillon read out here; the matter set out in that document was incorrect, but the newspapers published it.

What exactly is the point of order?

The Deputy is now raising a case which was raised here previously on a motion. As a result of the document which Deputy Dillon read out here on that occasion an apology has been made by certain newspapers here in Dublin to Deputy Briscoe. As well as that, I understand that legal proceedings are pending. In those circumstances, is it in order for Deputy Dillon to raise this matter now?

The Deputy has now referred to the matter in a much more specific way than either Deputy Dillon did or I, when I intervened.

The Deputy in raising a point of order has now introduced personal names and has made a much more specific reference. But I would like to point out to Deputy Dillon that one of the fundamental rules with regard to Estimates is that the subject-matter of a motion recently discussed or decided cannot be debated on such Estimates.

I understand that the Taoiseach will not take up the position that he is on the records of this House as having moved that it is proper for a Deputy of this House to borrow money from a constituent when he is making representations to a Department of State on that constituent's behalf. I am asking the leader of the House to say now in his capacity as custodian of the honour, privileges and duties of the Dáil, and of every Deputy in this House, whether he is prepared to take his stand clearly and unequivocally on one side or the other on that categorical question. I made it clear to the House where I, as one of the least of the Deputies in this House, stand. I challenge the man who, by virtue of his office, accepted and is responsible for the honour, duties and privileges of every Deputy of this House, to state as unequivocally as I have where he stands upon that plain and simple question.

I would prefer that the Deputy should raise such an important matter on a specific motion.

I know the preferences of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle but this is a matter on which I am not so shy. This is a matter in which I must determine my own position. The Taoiseach is the Taoiseach.

The Deputy must be ruled by the Chair.

But not by the Chair's preferences, to put the Chair's construction on the rules of order.

If the Deputy does not accept the suggestion I will make an order.

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle may attempt to do so but he cannot make orders which are not provided for under the Standing Orders of the House; and I have no doubt that he will not try to do so.

What the Deputy is endeavouring to do is to put a simple question to the Taoiseach. He is not endeavouring to go into a case that was dealt with here on a prior occasion.

In any case, I have put the question; I have made my position clear and I invite the Taoiseach to do likewise. What I have said is all that I desire to say, and I was quite resolved that I was going to say that.

Does the Taoiseach decide what a Deputy may do as regards his own private business?

I still believe that his judgment on such a matter is one to which it would be worth while listening.

Will you leave the matter now, Deputy?

Could the Taoiseach stop you from making a loaf of bread?

These interruptions are not in order. The Deputy should address himself to the Chair.

He is on dangerous ground now.

The ground is not so dangerous as parts of Athlone. There are two minor questions which have been touched on again by that Daniel come to judgment—Deputy Corry—and mind you, Deputy Corry, whatever you may say, is a scurrilous Deputy but he is a courageous Deputy.

I do not think the Deputy should refer to another Deputy as scurrilous. I think it is very improper.

Is that an unparliamentary word?

If it is, I withdraw.

The Deputy will withdraw the word "scurrilous."

Unreservedly. He is a gentle-spoken Deputy—a gentle and civil Deputy.

That is nearer to it.

But he frequently speaks the truth which his colleagues are afraid to speak, and the poor fellow frequently gets sent down the country for three months at a time and is warned not to show his nose in Dáil Éireann; signs on, we do not see him very often for months at a time. It may shock Deputy McGrath to know that such a thing can happen to a Deputy.

You have said a lot of things that shocked me.

You are alive still.

But Deputy Corry said that he felt that the competition of large co-operative societies with shopkeepers seemed to him to be unfair. Now, I want to ask this question. We have a co-operative society in Ballaghaderreen where I live. I was one of the first shareholders in it. I think it is a very valuable institution to have in any town where there is an adequate supply of milk. Where the co-operative society enters into retail trade—selling to the agricultural community the goods they require—I think they have a perfect right to do that if they want to, but I would ask this question: when they engage in trade of that character why do they not have to pay income-tax? They pay none. These co-operative societies become, in fact, joint stock companies and the shares are held by a number of neighbouring farmers. Originally these farmers were the suppliers but in many cases some of the men, who became shareholders with the intention of being suppliers, have since ceased to be suppliers but have retained their shares. When they embark on the business of selling sugar, tea, flour, manures, agricultural equipment, clothes and boots to the people of the neighbourhood what difference is there between the activities that they carry on and the business carried on by an ordinary shop owned by five or six people who have combined together to form a small joint stock committee?

Now such a business in a town has to pay corporation profits tax and income-tax. The co-operative society, which may be doing 10, 20 or 30 times as big a business and is annually distributing dividends among its shareholders and glorying in its ability to do so, pays no income-tax at all, and very frequently distributing, on the one hand, cash dividends and, on the other hand, dividends in the form of supplements to the price paid for milk to their suppliers. Why are they free of income-tax, while the man who has built up his own little business without any assistance from Government funds, as all these co-operative societies have, without any of the publicity provided for the co-operative societies by the central organisation in Dublin, without any of the distinguished patronage which co-operative societies enjoy, has to pay income-tax? That does not seem to me to be fair.

It is sometimes convenient to leave an unjust and inequitable law upon the Statute Book, but it is not a rôle that should be played by a Legislature such as this, which does represent all our people and which acknowledges the obligation to hold the scales evently between them—minority and majority alike. If we once consciously come to consent to the proposition that, where a vested interest in this country has grown strong enough, we, the Legislature, will forbear from facing that because the Government Party are afraid to tackle the vested interests, on that day we begin to slip into the morass of corruption which has brought older and more venerable Parliaments than this crashing to the ground. Our people do know, I believe, that if freedom is to survive in this country they must for ever know that this Parliament can be neither bought nor intimidated by anyone.

If it can be explained why co-operative societies should have this privilege while their neighbours are denied it, I will be glad to admit myself wrong. I have been watching it for 20 years and the more I watched it the more incomprehensible this discrimination has appeared to me to be. Unless someone can clarify my mind and expose the error into which I have fallen, I maintain the position that I now occupy and I suggest to the Legislature that it is its duty to examine this question dispassionately and take such steps as may be necessary to require the co-operative societies to bear the same burdens as their direct competitors or to relieve their competitors of the burdens from which we delivered the co-operative societies.

Now the last thing I want to mention is this. Listening to Deputy Giles, it often strikes me that he talks more common sense in ten minutes than ten other Deputies talk in 12 months. Deputy Giles talked about education and making provision for the rural community and, particularly for the agricultural labourer. Most of us Deputies have lived in the country and are familiar with the circumstances obtaining therein, and it must have struck every man and woman here who moved about amongst the people that there is one outstanding phenomenon to be observed in almost every townland, and that is, that you will find one farmer with a given acreage and income whose house is clean and neat and pleasant, whose table is well-furnished and whose children are a joy to look at. You go down the road to a man who has the same acreage and who you happen to know has the same income. You go into his house and you find that it is dirty, that they are always pulling the devil by the tail, that the children are in rags, that the woman is an old streel with her blouse caught with a big pin across her front, her hair in wisps down over her forehead, and that there is neither comfort nor anything else to draw that man home when his day's work is done.

I have been watching that for a long time and I have often wondered what was the real root of that trouble. I have often been embarrassed when people have commented on the appalling poverty which must afflict agricultural labourers in such-and-such a district, I knowing well that at the time I could bring the critic to many houses of agricultural labourers which bore all the exterior signs of comfort and agreeable life, but the houses we happened to be looking at at the moment were houses where the woman of the house did not know how to use her husband's income, such as it was. A certain small percentage of these cases are due to the fact that the women or the men in the houses are either in delicate health and unable to do all that is necessary to be done to keep the house clean, or else they are of sub-normal intellect and, therefore, the kind of people it is virtually impossible to help in their home. But a very, very large proportion are people who are working like niggers, eager and anxious to do the best they can. The women are up at the crack of dawn and will not go to bed until midnight. But the more they do the worse the house becomes. They never catch up on their work; they are never able to reach it.

I want to suggest to the Taoiseach in that connection that that grave social problem in rural Ireland cannot be satisfactorily tackled until we can provide for the women of rural Ireland, rich and poor, at the end of the academic years they spend in the primary schools, a training in the elements of domestic economy and how to run a home. Accordingly, I make this public suggestion for the solution of that grave and chronic problem: that we adopt one of two systems, either the Swedish system or one of our own devising. The Swedish system is that on to every national school there is built what you might call a hag, a lean-to, and to every one of these schools there is appointed a domestic economy instructress who goes around the schools in regular rotation, giving a day to each. On the day she attends, the girls in the sixth standard and upwards are excused from their books and sent in to that teacher and they spend their day studying domestic economy of the kind they will be called upon to undertake in their own homes if they marry or remain spinsters in the locality where they were born.

I think probably a better system would be to provide in the national schools that the girls who remain at school, instead of being allowed to stop schooling at 14, be required to continue until they are 15 years and in every parish we should establish a central parochial domestic economy school where there would be a bed in the hag like the feather bed they have in their homes, together with a kitchen and a hearth, representing the conditions that obtain in their own homes. Here the girls would be required to attend from 13 to 15 years of age. There should go around the schools that morning—that is, the national schools in the parish—a school bus and all the girls from 13 to 15 years of age who go into the national school will be collected in the bus and brought to the local parochial domestic economy schools. There we would provide them with some academic learning, if it was required and it probably would, but at the same time as they were pursuing their academic studies, such as they were, they would be instructed in the elements of domestic economy, so that we could ensure that every girl leaving a national school could go home and help her mother for the years she remained at home and could keep a decent house for whatever man she married, when the time for marriage came, or keep her own room clean if it was God's will that she should remain a spinster for the rest of her days.

I do not believe that would involve any material expense compared to the advantage that would accrue to the community as a whole. I believe it would dispose of a very serious social evil in our rural community. I believe that if we had that problem disposed of, we would then see for the first time, in true perspective, the economic condition of our people.

There are many people at this moment enduring all the pains and wretchedness of virtual destitution because the woman of the house is not making the best use of the exiguous income which is available to her. I do not say this plan I adumbrate removes the necessity for pressing forward the task of raising the standard of living of our people, but it would ensure that whatever we were able to do along those lines could be turned to the best advantage by those into whose hands the incomes go.

I like the idea of the central parochial school because I do not believe this job can be effectively done unless we can get the girls out of the school benches and into the kind of kitchen and bedroom and hen-house that they would be expected to look after if they became farmers' wives in later years. I want them to be taught in those houses not in theory but in practice the every-day life which the wife of a small farmer in this country is expected to lead.

When Deputies declare that there is no hope in the land in this country for a livelihood for the people who elect to live there, I beg of them to remember this, that there is not one amongst us, with very few exceptions, whose father or grandfather was not reared on a holding of land. There is not a priest in the Church in this country who does not owe part at least of the means that enabled him to realise his vocation to such a holding. There is not a country in the world that is not beholden, either for spiritual or medical care and solicitude, to men who were born, bred and reared on such holdings, and subsequently educated out of such holdings.

I think most Deputies will agree with me that the fact that these holdings did educate those men, did provide for them in the way that we know they were provided for, was largely due to the women whom the farmers married. If they married good women who knew how to run the home to its best advantage, miracles could be performed, but no matter how good the women, if they did not know how to do the job—and a very difficult job it is to do—destitution and misery were their fate.

The holdings presided over by mothers who were not equal to the task they were called upon to do have largely populated the slums of Liverpool and Glasgow and elsewhere. Young men and women fled from destitution and degradation at home to the greater destitution and degradation of industrial slums, choosing the devil they did not know in preference to the devil they knew.

Those things, I suppose, Sir, are more vivid to people like yourself and myself who come from the province of Connaught and glory in that fact, but I direct the attention of Deputies from the less civilised parts of this country to the same problem and invite their co-operation in putting right something that I think calls for redress.

The Estimate for the Taoiseach's Department is a most important one in view of the fact that the Taoiseach is head of the Government and the leader of Dáil Éireann. The Taoiseach is responsible for the members of the Government, whom he nominates when the Government is being formed after each General Election. He, as their leader and guardian, is responsible for their activities. I believe that a word of advice and instruction and guidance should be delivered by the Taoiseach to those Ministers in charge of whom the people have placed him.

If the Taoiseach was properly exercising his duty and properly realising his responsibility, he would not have in his Government one Minister who, I submit, is irresponsible in view of his conduct, and that is the present Minister for Local Government and Public Health. There is no Deputy who does not know the low depths of indecency that that man's tongue can descend to when dealing with political opponents.

The Deputy is under a misapprehension regarding the functions of Ministers. Ministers are, by the Ministers and Secretaries Act, responsible to this House for their various Departments. The Taoiseach is not responsible, and is not to be taken as responsible, for the administration of each of these Departments, but for general policy, which may run through four or five Departments, and the Taoiseach's Vote is not to be taken advantage of to make a personal attack on any Minister.

I submit to your ruling, Sir, and I accept your suggestion. I was only raising the matter with a view to drawing the Taoiseach's attention to the matter of a word of advice which might be helpful in future. I do believe that the Taoiseach, holding such an honoured position, would certainly have very great influence with the Ministers who are responsible to him.

They are responsible to this House. Ministers are responsible to the House, by law.

Yes. I have no more to say on this point. I thought I would have much wider scope to deal individually with these Ministers. I am not concerned, like Deputy Dillon, with the things the present Government have done. Every year, on the various Estimates, particularly the Taoiseach's Estimate, we hear praise from the Government side of this House bolstering up Government plans and schemes that have been adopted by the Government, and legislation introduced by the Government, to the fullest extent. I am not concerned with what the present Government have done, and I think no Deputy on this side of the House should be concerned with what they have done. We should be concerned with what they did not do. I say here now, in the presence of the Taoiseach, that the present Government have not taken any serious step to avoid the death of the Irish nation which is fast approaching day by day. I say that nothing has been done by the present Government to end emigration, unemployment, poverty, debt, low wages, starvation, forced sales, evictions, high rates, high taxes. The cost of living is going up by leaps and bounds while wages are going up with the speed of a snail. That is something that ought to concern every Deputy of the Opposition and every Deputy of the Government Party who really has the interest of the Irish people at heart. He should concern himself with those things which, I submit, the Government has not remedied.

I say, as I have said on more than one occasion in this House, that if travel facilities were placed at the disposal of the vast majority of our young people in the morning, and if there were no restrictions on emigration, this country, within one and a half years, would be like the Sahara Desert, simply because there is not one able-bodied young man who would remain at home, in this country, to slave in poverty, under the conditions that are forced on him by the present Government if he could get a better and more decent standard of living by going across the Irish Sea.

We ought to be ashamed of ourselves that, after 20 years of our own Government, we have reached the stage when we have nothing to offer the young people. Consider the sad state of young men, qualified Irish speakers, with the Fáinne, who have attended courses in the Fior-Ghaeltacht and who served in the forces of this country during the emergency and gave loyal service at the call of the Taoiseach when he told the Irish people that we were in grave danger of invasion. When they were demobilised, they had to sign on at the various employment exchanges throughout the country. There is the case of a young man in Lismore, a letter from whom I read in this House not very many months ago. He was sent by the employment exchange to scrape the roads of County Waterford and to raise a heavy hammer in the stone quarries of Waterford, simply because there was no better employment to offer to him. It is a lovely thing that we have men with spirit and with educational qualifications who are not ashamed to go out and toil in quarries or on the roadways, but I think the Taoiseach should feel small when he considers that the Government of which he is the leader has nothing better to offer such citizens than a heavy hammer to work eight hours a day in a stone quarry for 38/- a week.

How many are there in a similar position? How many young men are there to-day living under the most deplorable conditions that tongue could not express? How many young men are there who on leaving school are looking to their parents for advice and guidance as to the steps they should take for their future careers? How many are there who write to Deputies and Senators appealing and begging for influence with a view to securing jobs for them? My experience as a member of this House for three years is that no week passes in which I do not obtain a bundle of correspondence from qualified persons seeking positions.

There is one principal step which the Government should contemplate and which they should take quickly, that is, a step to end unemployment in this country. We may be told that unemployment is not as great to-day as it was in years past. That may be so, but it is simply because England was good enough and was in a position to employ 175,000 of the best, young able-bodied Irish men and women who were forcibly driven from their home and their land and their family. They were driven to England to obtain work for wages that were denied them by the Government of this country. I am sorry that such a state of affairs exists. At the present time the workers, to the number of 175,000, are not sorry they have emigrated because they have certainly kept the life blood flowing in the veins of their fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters at home by the cheques and money orders that flow into this country from England every Saturday morning. There is many a home that would have been in a state of chaos if it had not been for the money that was sent home by the sons and fathers and daughters working in England.

They emigrated to secure employment so that they might fill the cupboards at home that would otherwise be empty, and could be empty for present Government policy. The cupboards were kept supplied by the proceeds of the labour that these workers were forced to seek abroad. As I have often said from the public platform, the saddest part of the whole thing is that the vast majority of the people do not seem to realise the folly that while 175,000 of our people were working in England to send home funds to support their relatives, their relatives were lubricating their throats, with John Bull's money, to praise the Fianna Fáil policy.

I am sorry that we had that experience in the past. If the Irish people sow nettles they cannot expect roses to grow. I submit that the nettles were sown in the past, and are beginning to sting sorely now. The sooner the Irish people get a proper sting of the nettles they have sown the sooner they will realise that if they want to grow roses they must sow the proper seed. I am of the opinion that, no matter what kind of a picture may be painted by the Taoiseach when he is replying to-night, as an honest man he must admit that he has failed to solve the great problem of unemployment. I can remember reading a speech in the newspapers that was made by the Taoiseach, I think, before he became Leader of this House.

That must be more than 14 years ago.

I am sorry, but I think the speech was made more recently. I think he was Taoiseach at the time. His statement was to the effect—a hair shirt for one, a hair shirt for all. I submit that he has changed very much from the policy he was preaching when he advocated a hair shirt for one, a hair shirt for all, because to-day I see that it is a silk shirt for the rich and no shirt at all for the poor. I am sorry that he has stood for, and subscribes to, that policy. Unemployment is a curse in any country. It is the curse in this country. It has been encouraged by the fact that we have a Government which is paying doles and subsidies to unemployed persons.

I say, as I have often said before and as I have preached in my constituency night after night, that no Government should pay any man a penny by way of dole. I do not want to be misrepresented by speakers from Government platforms when they address a group of horrified unemployed workers by saying that I am advocating that they should not secure some means of existence while they are unemployed. I say there is no reason why any citizen should be unemployed. I would not pay any man for doing nothing. This Government has certainly paid thousands of pounds to people for doing nothing. It is a waste of money to pay any man for standing at a street corner. Instead of doing that, I would give the money that is being paid out in doles by way of a subsidy to prospective employers or farmers to add to whatever wage they can afford to pay to their workers in order that workers may get a decent wage.

Any man who is unemployed and is in receipt of financial assistance from the Government for doing nothing is not an asset but a liability to the State. The sooner the Government realises that a man's value is in the work that he can do, in the things that he can produce, the better. If the Government is going to continue to pay doles to men for standing at street corners and keeping up lamp posts, there is a very serious responsibility on it, because it is encouraging laziness. It is making it a criminal offence for that man to do a day's work or two or three days' work. If a man can get 24/- a week for doing nothing, he is not going to work for 35/- a week. Pay no man for doing nothing.

There is a huge amount of work to be done in this country on drainage schemes, if put into operation, on afforestation, on bog development schemes, on road making, on the development of our mineral resources, and on housing. We all know it is essential that such work schemes should be carried out. Yet we see the Government paying out huge sums of money by way of unemployment assistance. The sooner the Government realise that it should pay no man for doing nothing the better it will be. Instead, it should pay men wages and put them into productive employment. I do not mean that a person who is incapable of doing work should not be given any assistance by the State. If persons are disabled or medically unfit for work, then the appropriate Department should provide them with a sum sufficient to give them a decent living—that is people who are prevented, through no fault of their own, from taking part in the nation's work.

I am sorry that the Taoiseach did not see fit to accept completely the plan put forward by his Lordship the Bishop of Clonfert, the Most Reverend Dr. Dignan. I believe that if he had done so it would have gone a long way towards relieving a number of our social evils. Everybody knows that Dr. Dignan resides in rural Ireland, and that he is wide awake to the great evils of unemployment and to the circumstances of the poorer sections of the people. He was the one big man, the one mighty mind, that spoke fearlessly, and suggested a remedy for the horrid state of affairs that exists to-day, despite the fact that the present Government gave his plan the blind eye and that the Taoiseach gave it the deaf ear. I was quite pleased to read the statement that was made recently at a trade union congress by, I think, Deputy Everett, to the effect that he believes that legislation is going to be introduced at an early date whereby the Dr. Dignan plan will be implemented. If the Taoiseach does not wish to study Dr. Dignan's plan, I hope that he will spend some of his time studying some other plan that will help to relieve the horrid hardships that exist throughout the country to-day.

I look upon the Estimates that are introduced for the Departments each year as an opportunity for stocktaking. To-day we are taking stock of the Taoiseach's Department. Nothing has been done that we need be proud of since his Estimate was before us a year ago, two years ago or three years ago. We do not see that anything is going to be done to relieve the hardships that exist in the homes of the country. We have the old age pensioners. I am not going to make any long reference to them because their case was very ably discussed in the House in recent weeks.

I believe that the standard of living that is being offered by the present Government to old people, to those whom we have been taught to love, honour and respect, is something that we cannot be proud of. Those old people have completed 70 years of labour and toil. At that age they should be able to take their rest in comfort for the remainder of their days. I strongly urge on the Taoiseach that he should use his offices to see that steps are taken to increase the standard of living for them in their old age. The Taoiseach studies international affairs and the conditions in other countries. He knows very well that in the territory he refers to as the Black North—the Six Counties—there is an Ulster Government which offers the old people an allowance of 22/6 per week. Here, in the Twenty-Six Counties, we have nothing to offer them but 10/-, plus 2/6 emergency cash allowance, which they have to beg from the relieving officer and thus bring themselves to the same level as paupers. That is a bad position in which to have any section of our community. I am sorry that the old age pensioners have been treated, in my opinion, with the height of disrespect. Every time an appeal was made on their behalf, it was without result. In the Six Counties, 22/6 is payable to the old people, while here our allowance is 10/-, and then we hear appeals from all sides of the House for North and South to come together in national unity. That is the desire of every true Irishman, whether he belongs to the Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Farmer or Labour Party. Surely, the people of Northern Ireland would not be so insane as to surrender that right to 22/6 a week and throw in their lot with the people of the Twenty-Six Counties who, in similar circumstances, are entitled to only 10/- a week.

The question of Partition was discussed on the Vote for External Affairs.

I was not going to offer a solution for Partition. I was merely making a comparison, if I might, with your permission. That is the state of affairs which does not exist in any country outside the Twenty-Six Counties. I ask the Taoiseach to apply some remedy whereby assistance will be given to those who are unable to work so that they may be able to live in decency. As regards wages, I am surprised that some serious attempt has not been made to increase them all round. Wages are by no means in accordance with the cost of living. I cannot see how any citizen can support a wife and family on £2 a week. In the country, the workman will have a family of six to ten and I cannot see how an agricultural labourer can support such a family on £2 2s. or £2 4s. a week, as the case may be. The wages policy of the Government is a bad one. The policy has been to keep wages down and keep the worker in slavery. The workers are commencing to realise that no serious attempt is being made to put them in a decent way of living. I am sure that the Taoiseach has read Rerum Novarum. Pope Leo held that the worker was entitled to a living wage in order to bring up his family in Christian decency. The Taoiseach knows that rates of wages at present are not in accordance with Christian teachings, nor are they sufficient to enable the citizen to pay rent, purchase the necessaries of life and keep himself fit for the employment in which he is engaged. That matter needs serious consideration.

Perhaps I may make a short reference to the agricultural community. As Deputy Dillon has rightly pointed out, we have 12,500,000 acres of arable land. The Deputy pointed out that 7,000,000 acres of that land would produce sufficient food to keep every man, woman and child in this State sufficiently fed for 12 months of the year. There is something radically wrong when we have 12,500,000 acres of arable land and only 2,500,000 of a population and we have not sufficient for that population. Some economists tell us that an acre of land will produce enough food to keep the life in one citizen for a year. I remember reading that on one occasion. How are we to account for the fact that we have 12,500,000 acres of arable land and only 2,500,000 of a population and that the greater part of them are half starved? That is a thing I cannot fathom. No serious step has been taken to put the smallholders in the way of producing food. We have many smallholders and we have huge ranches. No steps have been taken to see that those ranches are properly acquired, divided and distributed amongst the small holders. In my constituency, as in many other rural constituencies, attention is being drawn month after month to the fact that there are there ranches of the best land while we have smallholders, agricultural workers, cottage tenants and landless men who are well equipped to work that land. Cottage tenants have only a rood of ground, which would not be sufficient to supply their vegetable requirements for 12 months. Those cottage tenants who have to keep a cow for the supply of milk to their families have to graze the cow on the high road. At the same time, we allow huge tracts of land to be undivided. Day after day, claims are coming to the responsible Government Department and even to the Taoiseach for action to relieve the congestion which exists.

A serious attempt should be made to smash the ranches. I am sure the Taoiseach is aware that the greatest enemies the Government had were the ranchers. The greatest enemies the Irish people have are the ranchers. When we were discussing the question of the division of the ranches, a Minister made reference to the case of an alien or a citizen who bought up huge tracts of land, not for the purpose of producing food but for the purpose of gambling, turning over huge profits, dividing it up and selling it out to whatever big farmer in the district would give him the best price for it, making the big farmer a rancher and leaving the poor man and the small-land holder completely aside.

I am sorry we were told that that was Government policy. I can remember distinctly being told that it was Government policy that no landless man was to secure an allotment of land. I say it is bad Government policy which allows any citizen, whether he may be Lord this, Earl that or the Duke of something else, to deal with land as he wishes. Legislation should be introduced to ensure that the land of this country will not be used for the purposes of gambling, that it should be utilised only for the purposes of food production and should be distributed amongst the people likely to make the best use of it.

Great encouragement has been given to certain groups of capitalists to go round the Twenty-Six Counties in the very same manner as Cromwell went centuries ago, plundering and destroying. They purchase every huge mansion and estate that they possibly can and deprive the local people of any opportunity of having these lands divided amongst them. They sell it out to their own friends or to whomever gives them the biggest price. I know one case in my own constituency of a ranch purchased by a capitalist for £5,000. Before he had finished he had made £17,000 out of it.

Is it not a sad state of affairs that under Government policy these capitalists and financiers are allowed to grow fatter and richer at the expense of the poor small holder, the cottage tenant or the landless man who is allowed to grow thinner and poorer under that same Government policy? I think that no sympathy should be shown to ranchers. Their lands should be broken up into suitable allotments to be divided amongst the most deserving applicants. I believe that if the ranches were dealt with in that way the unemployment question would be solved. I think that the Government ought to give very serious consideration to these two problems. When we are faced with a number of wrongs, we can only right them one by one, but if we take unemployment and try to solve it and then proceed to divide the ranches amongst the small holders and deserving applicants, we shall certainly have done a very good day's work.

At the present time there is a certain amount of discontent in this country. I can recall a statement made quite recently by a prominent member of the Government in Athlone, that a certain section of the people were out to arouse suspicion amongst the whole Irish people. That statement got great publicity in all the Irish newspapers. The statement was quite correct.

I can say there is a movement on foot and the Taoiseach knows it. It is about time the people began to get suspicious, seeing the state of affairs that exists at present with wages as they are, unemployment unsolved, ranches left undivided, rates soaring to their present pitch and huge additions to taxation being piled on every day. It is about time people did become suspicious and ask themselves when all this squandermania is going to end.

Something will have to be done in regard to financing the farmers of the country. I have advocated that here on more than one occasion; for example, on the Taoiseach's Estimate this time last year. Appeals may be made from this side of the House for better rates of wages for agricultural workers. These appeals certainly are justified and there is no Irish farmer would stand in the way of the payment of a good decent wage for an honest week's work but, as I pointed out before, you cannot get money out of a farmer's pocket unless you put it into it. If the Taoiseach goes over the records, he will find that the big majority of farmers are on the verge of bankruptcy. He will find that month after month farmers are appealing for time to pay their annuities or are appealing for financial assistance or for all sorts of grants and loans. I think that all that indicates that farmers generally are in a bad way. I think they should be placed in a position in which they would be more independent and be able to carry on all their all-important work free from the worry of financial embarrassment. At present the vast majority of farmers are forced into a position of beggary. They are begging from one end of the year to another. How many farmers are constantly writing to Deputies and public representatives asking them to use their influence to get loans from the Agricultural Credit Corporation or asking them for recommendations to various financial institutions in order to secure a certain amount of capital?

I think there should be some scheme—I am not capable of outlining what the scheme should be; I leave that to the Government or some higher authority—to finance farmers to their full requirements. The Taoiseach knows that no man can work and be contented whilst a weight of debt is hanging over him. He must know that the vast majority of our farmers are born in debt, live in debt, die in debt and leave a legacy of debt to their sons and daughters. Something will have to be done to remedy the position in which the agricultural community finds itself to-day. The banks do not seem to be as ready to make advances to farmers as they are to make advances to other citizens. I say, as I said before, that a burglar or a gangster with a six shooter is more welcome in the financial institutions of the State than an Irish farmer. I think that should not be the position, that the Government should make our farmers independent. The only way to do that is to see that money is made available for them to enable them to stock their land, to produce stock for sale and to pay decent wages. You cannot get juice out of a stone.

The Deputy is repeating himself somewhat.

This question of the financing of farmers will have to be considered very seriously. These are the three points to which I wish to draw the Government's attention, and I trust that, in the interests of the poorer sections, steps will be taken to enable a better standard of living to be made available for our people than they are compelled to accept as a result of present Government policy.

Each year, as this debate comes around, I find myself more and more incapable of dealing with all the questions raised. I am sure that if I took one by one the questions raised by individual Deputies, it would take me several hours to attempt to deal with them as they should be dealt with, so that I can only hope to touch here and there on some of the points raised.

Deputy Mulcahy deplored the fact that I did not give a general review. I do not deny that there is something to be said for it. I have often asked myself if it would be possible to give, at the beginning of a session of Parliament, a general indication of the legislative programme intended to be put before the Dáil by the Government and, at the end of the session, to take stock and to see how far we had been able to get with the work which was proposed. The fact, of course, is that each Department does that; at least when the Estimates come on, each Department gives—I do not say that it does so in advance—a general indication of policy. As each year comes around and the Estimate for a Department comes to be considered, the Minister in charge does give a review of the work his Department has been doing and very often indicates what is intended for the year ahead. If there was an attempt to review that whole situation on my Estimate, I am afraid it would be a complete repetition of the debate on the various Departments, so that, although I understand, from a certain angle, the desirability of what the Leader of the Opposition suggests, I am afraid it is not workable; at least, so far, I have not been able to work out any plan which would enable it to be done.

I suppose the first thing which should be done is to give a general indication of what our policy is. I have been doing that myself and other members of the Government have been doing it not merely during the years we have been in office but for years before that. There was raised here, for instance, the question of our attitude towards private enterprise, and the suggestion was made that we were sapping initiative and, as some Deputy suggested, crushing private enterprise by regulation, etc. Our position in that regard is that we believe in private enterprise, that we conceive that the part which the State ought to play is to encourage private enterprise and only to come in to assist private enterprise when either it is incapable of doing the work or has shown very clearly that it is not going to do the work necessary in the general interest. Our policy has been based on that general idea.

The line we have taken, therefore, is, so to speak, a half-way house. It is not one of complete laissez faire, so far as private enterprise is concerned. We believe that private enterprise, apart from the part it plays in providing a livelihood for those engaged in it, has a part to play in regard to the general interest, and, whether we are dealing with industrialists or with the farming community, that is generally our attitude. The first duty of the farmer, as it is the first duty of the industrialist, is to secure a living for himself and his family, but he has also, in the way in which he uses private property, a social duty. The duty of the State is to see that a proper balance is kept between the social duty which the farmer owes to the community and his right to the use of his property for his private interests.

I do not think it can be shown that there has been any interference with private enterprise here, except where, as I have indicated, it was shown that the public interest demanded it, or that private enterprise in itself was not producing efficiently the goods needed or was not producing them at all. There are Deputies who take the free trade point of view and argue here as economists have been arguing, or were arguing, for half a century or so. By taking a partial account of economic life, they will try to prove that they are right, but the fact is that most nations in the world had to abandon it because the premises on which it was supposed to work most efficiently did not exist.

The alternative produced a queer result.

I quite admit that we are not living in a perfect world by any means, and it is a question of on which side the balance of advantage lies. A partial estimate, however, of the economic situation is not enough, and I suggest that some of the Deputies who talk altogether from the free trade point of view are taking only a partial view of the matter and not looking at it as a whole. The members of the Opposition who have spoken have spoken from a variety of contradictory standpoints. It was suggested by one Deputy—I think, Deputy Dillon—that they ought to get together and try to frame a common policy.

I think it was Deputy Corry.

No, Deputy Dillon.

Deputy Corry, in order to relieve the dilemma of Deputy McGrath's supporters.

I leave it to the Deputies. Let them try. Deputy Dillon is a very bad example himself of this getting together, seeing that he is in an independent position and does not get in with any of the other Parties. During the general election, when a policy was suggested which I believed would be a bad policy and which I opposed, I made the suggestion, that the various Parties which were, as individual Parties, contesting the election should come together, try to frame a common policy and proceed on the basis of that common policy. It is clear, however, listening to the arguments they put forward and the viewpoints they expressed, that they will find it very difficult to come together. You have the two extremes—the extreme individualistic point of view represented in the Opposition and the extreme socialistic view on the other hand. I hold that we are keeping to the middle of the road and that the policy which we have pursued is the middle policy, the one likely to get the best results.

The policy of stealing the bather's clothes.

I do not understand what the Deputy wants to convey, but it does not matter what it is. Ours is the policy of common sense, of saying that either of the extreme situations would be worse than the present one. Deputy Mulcahy suggested that we should draw the dividing line clearly. We cannot do that. You cannot draw a dividing line and say in what circumstances the State will come in. That has to be judged according to the circumstances of a particular case. It has to be argued out whether, in an individual case, private enterprise is managed so efficiently that it is meeting the general social requirements.

There may be differences of opinion on that and as to when the State ought to come in and when it ought not. If I am asked an opinion in general, I would say the State should be slow about jumping in. I think we have been slow in jumping in in that way. Our hope was that private enterprise, if given a bit of time, might be able to find remedies, and it was only when we satisfied ourselves that there was no likelihood of these remedies being found that the State took action.

Deputy Norton seemed to suggest that we were in favour of emigration. Of course we are not. It has been the aim with us from the start to find a livelihood in this country for as many Irishmen and women as possible. That was the foundation of much of our policy with regard to promoting industries. We believe that only a certain number could live on the land. I have often given the example of a farmer's household with four or five children, where it is quite obvious that only one can remain behind and, if a boy or girl marries into some neighbouring family, there are only two, on an average, out of that family likely to remain on the land. If you have settled upon the land already as many as the land can reasonably hold, then out of every farmer's household of five children three must find a livelihood somewhere else.

Should we attempt to find the livelihood at home or should they have to emigrate? The only way we could see of getting them a livelihood at home was to try to build up here industries in which they might find a livelihood, as only a certain limited number could be absorbed into the professions. We built up our industries to supply things which were needed by our community, in so far as it was reasonably possible to do so. I say "reasonably possible," because you can take any policy to such an extreme that it becomes almost absurd. For example, I was asked many a time if we wanted to grow tea, bananas or oranges here. I suppose you could grow oranges under glass, but it certainly would not be a very profitable sort of business, I imagine.

But preferable to light beer, the Taoiseach will agree.

Light beer would be very nice. As a matter of fact, I did not know, until it was brought very forcibly to my mind, that we are producing a very light beer here, but its colour is not the same as that of the light beer which is produced on the Continent.

With the Taoiseach's help, or in spite of it?

I did not say one way or the other. As a matter of fact, it was there—though I was not aware that it had become so light—over a period of years. Deputy Norton spoke about emigration. I cannot imagine any Irish Government which would welcome emigration, but if you cannot provide the industries to keep your people employed there is no way out of it. During the war, I suppose that, by using whatever assets we had, we could keep our people here, if we were forced to do so, and we could have maintained them unemployed. That would not be good for them and certainly would not be good for the country as a whole. They went away, but the emigration during the war was an exceptional situation. The marvel was that we were able to keep so many of our industries going during the war. There was a shortage of raw materials and a certain attraction in the lure of high wages, which took them away. I feel pretty certain that a large number of those who emigrated during that period will come back again. I hope so.

The suggestion was made by Deputy Dockrell that we had not skilled tradesmen to help us to get on with some of the work for which we were preparing. I do not think it can be said, at the moment, that it is a shortage of skilled tradesmen that is holding anything up. At the moment, anyhow, I think it is shortage of certain materials. The moment those raw materials become available, I think we will get ahead. As regards those who were married and whose families are here, I feel certain they are likely to come back again.

There are not enough men in the building industry to carry on with the materials we have to-day.

I am not so sure of that.

It is a fact.

The Deputy may hold that view, but I am not so sure.

The building contractors hold it, too.

I am not so sure. The position may be that you have not at the moment such a volume of work that it will go out generally that there is work for those people at home. Skilled tradesmen are not likely to leave what they regard as steady employment, unless it is pretty certain that there will be a continuous flow of employment here at home. In the past, the rates of wages paid here compared very favourably with the rates paid in London and elsewhere. In some cases, they were higher here. It would be very strange if a large number of our people do not come back, when it becomes widely known that there is a livelihood and a continuous flow of employment here in any particular business.

Deputy Norton spoke about France. I have replied to the Deputy already, that the position is that the French Government made known to us that they would like to have some of our people go over there, but we did not enter into any formal negotiations of any kind. It is quite obvious that, if we were going to do that, a number of questions which Deputy Norton raised would very properly be raised. We are certainly not encouraging any people at all to go. There was an interview given by some French Minister, or member of the administration, to an Irish Press reporter which was published in the Press here and which gave rise, unfortunately, to a good deal of misunderstanding.

Deputy Norton also spoke on the question of new Ministries. I expect that steps will be taken after the recess to deal with that matter. There will be no question of dealing with it now. I pointed out, I think, when the matter was raised before by the Deputy, that I did not see that a great deal was going to be gained on the lines he suggested, namely that there would be much saving on overlapping. That is not what we hope to gain by having new Ministries dealing with the income maintenance services. I should like to say this about Ministries in general, that quite a number of Deputies want a new Ministry for this and a new Ministry for that. We could go on sub-dividing the work done by the various Departments of State in such a way that we would have three, four or five demands for Ministries. We have a relatively small House and it is desirable that the strength of the Executive, in proportion to the strength of the House, should be kept as low as possible, consistent with doing the work efficiently. I may say that, as far as I am concerned, there are two or three other cases in which a good case could be made for independent Ministries, but we have to look at the matter very carefully before we go too far on that line. Personally, I only agreed to these when I felt there was an almost unanswerable case for them.

Will they be established this year?

I said that I hoped when we come back after the recess— in the autumn—there will be proposals.

Proposals for their establishment?

Proposals.

Will the Taoiseach say how many?

Two; one dealing with social services. Mainly at the start its function will be to investigate the situation as a whole, and to examine it carefully. I should like to say in advance that I do not want anyone to think that the setting up of that Ministry would be part of any preconceived intentions as to lines on which we could develop. It will be set up, in the main, as an investigating Department, because I feel it is the most satisfactory way of dealing with the whole situation.

The other is Public Health?

The scheme is completely different from the one put before the House by the Minister.

In regard to that, there is no difficulty. The matter of public health was of such definite and outstanding importance that it should be established.

I think the other was much clearer.

I do not think so. It might indicate commitments which we would not accept in advance. Deputy Norton also stated that we ought to be capable of organising full employment here, as the British did during the war. I think that that is such an absurd thing for a Leader of a Party to say that I can hardly attribute it to him.

I said that the British and other Governments were able to organise their people on the basis of full employment.

Is it to be the policy, that we are to have in normal life here all the restrictions and all the regimentation that nations at war had to use in order to bring about that result?

Does the Taoiseach remember 1932?

I thought that, at first, I had made a mistake and that I took a note under the wrong heading. I am sure the Deputy does not seriously contend that we can, in ordinary peace time, bring about organisation which nations like Britain brought about when at war.

Take New Zealand.

That is quite a different matter. If my note is correct, he asked me about the British. Some one raised a question with regard to New Zealand at some stage. I do not think it was Deputy Norton. I think it was Deputy Cogan, who went on the other foot. It is all very well to compare our circumstances with New Zealand, but the fact is they are hardly comparable. Although we are relatively a thinly populated country we have seven times the density of population of New Zealand. We are an old country. There has been organisation here for centuries. New Zealand is a new country, with nearly four times our area, but its population is only half ours. That gives eight times less density of population or, in rough figures about seven times. They have four times our area and half our population, and that gives a density of one-eighth. The Deputy is not going to suggest that with a country so favourably situated on the globe, with a good climate, fertile land, and a good deal of mineral resources, we could hope in our State to have anything like the comfort that could be got by that small population. To attempt to do it in any way like that would mean that we would have to cut down our population seven-fold. I do not know whether you could argue logically that, if you had only one-seventh of the population with the present amount of land, by using machinery, we would be able to get a higher standard of material comfort.

Deputy Cogan wanted increased holdings. I do not know whether he meant an increase in the size of holdings or an increase in the number. I do not exactly remember what he said. My note merely says "increased holdings" and I am not quite sure now what he meant exactly. Let us take it under either heading. I suppose "increased holdings", if it means anything, means that the uneconomic holders should be brought up to a reasonable standard.

The Taoiseach could spare himself a lot of trouble if he would ask Deputy Cogan what he said.

I looked at Deputy Cogan most appealingly, but he did not seem to respond.

The Taoiseach's interpretation is quite correct—increasing the size.

That means bringing the holding up to a reasonable size. That is the actual policy of the Land Commission and that is its prime function. Its first duty is to use the available land, first of all, to increase the existing holdings which are uneconomic in size. The moment we tried to fix the economic size of a holding we got into trouble. I myself was inclined to accept the viewpoint of some of the western Deputies. I wanted to keep the amount of land given to each particular holder as small as possible. The fact is that it costs about £1,000 to establish a 25-acre holding; of that £1,000 only one-third comes back and gives some return and, therefore, a present of £700 is given by the State with each parcel of land.

Is that other than the Gaeltacht migrants?

I take it to mean establishing a completely new holding.

That only applies to the Gaeltacht migrants.

I think it is more or less a general average figure.

Give them back half the value of the land.

Wait a moment. Now, we have to be very careful in what we do. We have to exercise the greatest care because this is done in the interests of the community rather than in the interests of the particular individual. We must, therefore, protect the community interests in the matter and ensure, as far as we can, that the person who gets the land will utilise it in a manner which will be of value to the community as a whole. That is the only return the community asks in return for that £700. That £700 is given to the holder to enable him to rear and maintain a family upon it and, in process of doing so, to give to the community the goods and services which it needs; in other words to produce for the community. We tried, therefore, to ensure that the people who got this land would use it properly. The people most likely to prove efficient in using such land are those who are already holding a certain portion of it, and the idea is to add to what they already have an amount sufficient to make the holding reasonably economic. I got into trouble in earlier days when I pressed for the lowest economic amount. I was surprised when I was told that in rich land like Meath and Westmeath 30 acres was the economic size of a holding in order to provide a man with the means of rearing his family and making him independent of other factors. I remember on one occasion, when I was pressing for a little over 20 acres, being told by people, who had no wish to lead me astray, that 30 acres or 35 acres were essential in County Meath. That rather amazed me, because I knew the size of holdings in other parts of the country— holdings which were much smaller— where industrious farmers raised families, educated their children properly and even gave them facilities for going in for professions and, on the whole, lived quite comfortably. I found it difficult to understand why in an area of rich land, such as you have in County Meath, a larger holding was desirable or essential, while in other parts they did with very much less and were able to get on reasonably well on much smaller acreage.

They do not live solely upon the land in the West.

I know that, but I am thinking of the ones who do. In Cavan and, to a certain extent, in Monaghan—though I do not know it so well—you get much smaller farms but worked by very industrious farmers who are able to rear their children and live comfortably if, perhaps, frugally.

There is a nice little nest egg coming in from America.

I quite admit that that happens sometimes. I candidly admit now that the direction in which I was going was opposed by so many people that I withdrew. The amount of land, therefore, in the individual holding went up; I think it is an average of 25 acres of good land now. Most of us will admit that we should not increase it unduly. I agree with Deputy Giles's suggestion that if we settle people on the land they should live off the land and should be independent of work on roads or other work to supplement their incomes.

Deputy Donnellan painted a very interesting picture of my visit to his home town of Dunmore and he attributed to me a statement which I think I would be quite incapable of making because it required so much imagination in order to express it in the way in which he expressed it. I do not think I would have been capable of making that statement. But he did remind me of something else; he reminded me of something which I have often said. Often in the past I have driven down to the West, down towards Frenchpark and in Deputy Dillon's direction.

One of the things which struck me forcibly in the course of that drive was that in the greater part of it the homesteads were very spares. Suddenly one would come to a point where, stretched in front of one, would be a large expanse of obviously poor land and all over that there would be clusters of little whitewashed cottages. I was struck by the extraordinary situation of having such a large population in an area like that, existing somehow, while in the rich land behind there were so few. I feel there was something in that situation and I think we should do everything in our power to remedy that. We should put upon these large areas of Meath and Westmeath more homesteads. I think that is the policy which has been pursued and it is quite wrong to say, as has been said, that we turned our backs on that policy. Even during the emergency that policy continued under many difficulties. The only people who were competent to implement the tillage policy of the Government during the emergency were those who had some knowledge of the land. We had, therefore, to take over a very substantial proportion of the staff of the Land Commission to do that particular work. Despite that, we managed to get along. During the period in which we have been in office we have distributed two-thirds of a million acres of land while our predecessors distributed something in the region of 450,000 acres. It must be remembered too, that it is much easier to carry out a policy of land division in the early stages because there is more power of selectivity; and it is easier to distribute land in the initial stages because there is more and better land at one's disposal. It is essentially more rapid in the beginning than in the end and it is only when one is approaching the end that one has to deal with problems like rundale, and so on, in the West. I think one Deputy suggested that land division was a cure for unemployment; other Deputies blew that suggestion sky-high. Very little calculation would show that that could not be.

Somebody stated that we have about 12,000,000 acres of arable land. I have often tried to find some firm figure of the acreage of what you could really call arable land. Although you find over 11,000,000 acres put down several times for it, I have been forced to come to the conclusion that we have really only roughly about 10,000,000 acres of land that you could call arable land, 25 acres of which, say, would constitute an economic farm. If you take 10,000,000 acres and give 25 acres to each farm——

We surely have more than that.

I am telling the Deputy my experience. I tried to find out and the 11,000,000 odd are not accepted. I asked, I think it was the last time, would they give me some figure and I was told that I might take 10,000,000 as the figure. Even if it is a little bit more, let us make a calculation on roughly 10,000,000. With 25 acres for each farm, you will have only about 400,000 families on the land. You will find that if you have farms of that size you will not have any labour except family labour. A farm of that size has to depend on family labour. Therefore, you would have hardly any agricultural labourers as such.

When you suggest 25 acres, do you mean 25 statute acres, or 25 Irish acres?

I am talking of statute acres. The other would be very substantial. The place where disagreement comes in, you might say, lies in the figure between 25 statute and 25 Irish. When you do that you find that it would support only a relatively small population. Then, again, the natural growth would mean that you would have another problem. If you settled it for one particular period of time, the moment the families developed you would have another problem. We have been dealing with the problem of those who will have to live elsewhere than on the land. I am not suggesting, of course, that if you have people living on the land you will not have distributors of various kinds, shopkeepers, etc. But the position is that we are trying very hard to finish land division. I suppose there is hardly any other matter in reference to which I have been regarded by the Ministers in charge and by the Departments as such a nuisance as land division and trying to push it ahead. At one time we increased the staff from about 700 to 1,100. We increased it substantially. As you can see, there was a 50 per cent. increase.

There was a good deal of opposition to that on the ground that it was not the best way, that you cannot divide land like that, that you cannot divide it in a hurry and do good work; that if you want to do the thing with thoroughness you have to take your time about it, and that there is no magic want that you can just wave and say: "Here is the land divided." There are a whole lot of processes to be gone through if you are to do the thing in the way that will work out best for the community. You cannot start and deprive a person of property without some legal process. You have to arrange to have an examination of these individual cases. Then you have to select the applicants, go through the applicants to see that the person who is most likely to use the land properly is given the land and that, in regard to claims for enlarging holdings or giving economic holdings, cases that are worthy of consideration will be considered and the other cases turned down. Where there is land going, everybody wants a bit of it and, if you are making a present of something like £700 to individuals, you know very well that you will have quite a number of applicants for it. All that has to be gone through and takes a considerable amount of time. Then, as was pointed out when we were increasing the staff, the fact that you are training them slows down the process for a period. Later, you may get an increase in activity and in results; but at the beginning the work is actually slowed down because the new people who are brought in have to be trained. Anybody who has any experience knows that you will have to spend a considerable amount of time with people who are coming in for the first time to see that they do not make serious mistakes.

There are various estimates as to the amount of land to be distributed. Under our present policy, unless we are to press that very far and go beyond it, we would not get much more than 500,000 acres more to be distributed. That is all the land that is available. A large proportion of that land has to be used in making uneconomic holdings economic. Before we reduce the amount that is available we have to consider very carefully the problem of the West. There you have a large number of people on very small holdings. If you want to make economic holdings of these, you have to get the people to agree to leave these holdings. You have to try to get land somewhere else on which to put them. It will be a much slower process. If we are to deal with the West, with our present staff at any rate—and as I pointed out, since we came in it was increased by about 50 per cent.—we will not be able to go faster because the problems we are dealing with to-day are more intricate. If we are to go the distance we can in regard to resettlement of the land and solve the problem of congestion, we cannot hope for a much more rapid rate of land division than in the past no matter how hard we press for it, because the problems to be solved are much more difficult. I admit that some of the difficulties we had before are fading away. It was very hard to get people accustomed to farming land in the West to leave it, but that is now gradually remedying itself and the Land Commission are not meeting the same difficulties they met before.

Another point that was raised was co-operative effort. We certainly have been encouraging co-operative effort so far as we can. The worst thing that has happened in modern times is the effect upon us of what is done elsewhere. People are looking to the State to do things which they ought to do themselves. That is one of the most harmful things. There are a number of things that can be done by local people to help themselves, if we encourage the local organisations to do them. I am sorry that I only heard portion of Deputy Giles's speech. He spoke about something being done with regard to the education of girls. It is a matter with which I and every member of the Government and every one interested in the country must be closely concerned. We had a picture of two families in relatively similar circumstances to start with and with at least the same possibilities available to them and the difference between the household that is well-managed, particularly by the housewife, and the other which is not well managed is apparent to everyone. If we could make it possible that those who are managed badly would be managed as well as the best, we would have achieved a great deal, indeed, for the raising of the general standard of comfort of our people.

I have made a good suggestion.

What was that?

The Minister for Finance will tell you about it afterwards.

I will be very glad to consider it. It is a thing I like to do—read through these debates—and although it is not possible to answer all the points that are raised and deal with the various suggestions that are interlarded with a lot of useless matter, I try to cover most of them. I like to consider them and examine the possibilities. At any rate, this is not a new thing, the putting of an extra room on to a local school. That was one of the points suggested, and it is not quite new. When I was in the Department of Education I know that suggestion was examined. One of the troubles was that it involved more than merely the cost of erection. To put this extra room on to the schools would cost about £2,000,000. That expenditure would not stop me if that was all that had to be considered, but there was also the question of the teachers. That would have added very considerably to the cost at that time. At the same time, if it was clear that we would get good results, it is the type of expenditure that we would be prepared to face at any time. Assuming we could afford it, if the capital invested was likely to produce good returns in the way of improving the standards of our people, we would have been prepared to consider the idea favourably. I quite agree with that and I am sure that the Minister for Finance and the Government would not have objected if a scheme of that sort could have been worked out.

I have a much better plan.

I will examine it when I have an opportunity of reading the debates.

Fair enough.

The Deputy mentioned a parish school, which is somewhat different. The argument the Deputy put forward was that the children need to be taken out of their immediate surroundings and put into some place which will approximate to their home kitchens and in which they will operate in a way similar to how they would work at home. Most people who have a practical turn of mind will agree that that is the sort of education that is needed. They do not need instruction in how to cook in an Aga cooker, which it would not be possible for the majority of our people to get. They do not want to know how to cook in these circumstances, but rather in the way that will be possible in their own house. I do not think there is any difference of opinion in that connection.

One of the things that pleases me most about this debate is that it shows there is very largely a common outlook. We may not approach things in the same way, but we have the same objective and there is generally a common outlook about these things. We have the difficulty, however, that when you come to implement it, you break up into parties.

And it is not done.

The Deputy usually contends that a great number of things are not done. Deputy Dockrell said that the land is not being efficiently worked and he spoke about the way they work it elsewhere. It is possible, if we had a denser population, a bigger industrial population, that there might be more intensive working of the land. Those who are near big towns go in for market gardening, but it cannot be suggested that, for a good while at any rate, we can get the land in the country as a whole as intensively worked as a market gardener would work it. If you take Belgium, you have the position there that there is a very dense population and the land is very precious. Therefore, there is a very great incentive to work it intensively. That does not mean, however, that it ought not to be our aim to try to get as much out of the land as possible. But do not forget that the farmer wants to live reasonably well and that he has a right to get a fair amount of recreation. We have those engaged in industries applying for holidays, and a farmer has as much right to them as they have. Without much machinery he has to work harder than other sections of the community in order to get a certain production from the land and I do not think it is fair to him.

A farmer going on a holiday would be looked upon as daft.

Well, a few of them did go to Lisdoonvarna and Lahinch and Salthill. We are not living in the moon.

They would be like angels' visits.

Farmers from our part of the country went off on their holidays. I am not saying that every farmer did, but a fair number went.

A week at the sea did them all the good in the world.

And the city merchants retire to the land.

Deputy Dockrell said the land was not efficiently worked. There has been an examination of farmers' problems in order to see how the land could be made more productive and in what directions the farmers could go. In that connection, we may cross swords with the free trade outlook. Deputy Dockrell also said that taxation in regard to industries was preventing development. The trouble is to reconcile the views held by Deputy Dockrell with those held by Deputy Norton. Deputy Norton wants social services of various kinds; he has not enough of them. How will we get the means by which these services can be provided? The only source from which we can get money to meet social services is production and it is vain to hope that we will be able to improve our standards unless we are able to improve that production.

If the farmers want to have life made a little easier, if the workers want the same thing, if they all want shorter hours and vacation and if they do not want to work as hard as they have been working, then we will not have adequate production. We cannot have it in every direction and we have to get a reasonable mean in this case. The Minister for Finance, in his Budget speech, pointed out that the quickest way to bring about an improvement in conditions here is to get a bigger output from the industries already existing. That is not excluding the development of new industries. The quickest way would be to get a greater output. I would say to labourers and industrialists that they ought to remember that it is only by improving their methods and getting more efficient and greater production that we will get all these results, and in no other way.

More efficiency, but not necessarily longer hours.

The shorter hours are not necessarily inconsistent—it has been proved by careful study——

The Irish farmer is as efficient as any in the world.

I believe some of our small farms that are well run—farms such as those that were on the bright side of the picture indicated here this afternoon—are as good as any in the world.

And the medium size and big farms are well run.

People will have different opinions, but that cannot be helped. Deputy Dockrell talked of the taxation on excess profits. There again the Minister for Finance pointed out that we take 75 per cent. of the excess profits and the 25 per cent. was intended to enable them to build up a reserve so that they could start out at the present time. Deputy Dockrell also pointed out that if the value of the unit of money had gone down to one-half what it was, you want in pounds twice as much capital to do the work you did before.

If the Taoiseach wishes to continue I shall not proceed with the question on the adjournment.

I do not think that I would contribute very much. Most of the things I have to say most of the Deputies will anticipate. I am in the hands of the House. It is whatever the House wishes.

The Taoiseach has not yet said anything at all about the Government's attitude to the principle enshrined in the Report of the Vocational Organisation Commission.

I hope to get on to that in due course.

Does the Taoiseach wish to report progress?

I think we should finish to-night because there is a great deal of work to be done. If the time is up, I will stop.

Deputy Cogan is willing to withdraw.

I understand I will get an opportunity to-morrow of raising the matter I proposed to raise on the adjournment to-night.

Is it the idea to go to 10.30? I do not think it would be necessary for me to keep the House until 10.30, but I will avail of the privilege to continue. I am thankful for it. It is suggested that we have more unemployment to-day than we had before. I suppose we have, with the war, but I think, whatever anybody might do in the way of talking, nobody is going to talk of the present situation as if it was a normal situation. Everybody knows it is not so. Everybody knows there was a devastating war. We are only a small part of the world, but there was a devastating war in the world all round us and with the conditions which that brought about, I think—and I think it is the opinion of our people—that, on the whole, we were very fortunate. That does not mean for a moment that there are not numbers of things that have to be remedied and numbers of things we would like to see otherwise. But, if anyone says that we have more emigration, that more people are leaving the country than there were before the war, my only answer is that we are still, as far as supplies are concerned, to a certain extent in the war situation and that we may expect some of that for a period until we are able to reverse engines, until, instead of having difficulty in getting raw materials, we will have raw materials which will be diminishing in price and becoming more readily available.

Will the Taoiseach be good enough to answer the categorical question that I put to him?

I know the categorical question. I will deal with that later. I see a figure here that I mentioned already. The staff we had in the Land Commission before it was increased was 748. It went up to 1,126. I was, roughly, right. It is very easy to talk, provided one puts no limit to one's imagination and one is in no way bound by facts of any kind. Deputy Flanagan began talking about unemployment and said we had not adopted Dr. Dignan's scheme. I have a pamphlet here, a copy of the scheme. I looked through it and I do not see any scheme for reducing unemployment. I see a number of suggestions dealing with sickness benefits, disability benefits, maternity benefits, marriage benefits, retiral pensions, mortality benefit, and so on, but I do not think there was any scheme for employment in it.

Deputy Mulcahy is anxious that I should indicate what the Government's attitude is towards the Vocational Organisation Commission's Report. I may say for myself that we established the commission in the hope that we might get a solution of some of the difficulties that arise when the State has to take part, to the extent that we have to, in development of various kinds. One of the principal difficulties we saw there was the question of organising the rural population—how were we going to get that done? I do not think that anybody would hold that the scheme that has been suggested there is really a workable scheme. I do not think so myself. I do not think it would work out. It is much too complicated and too cumbrous. I may be wrong about this. When we were setting up the commission, I met the commission and I think I indicated that this was going to be one of the principal tests—how far a scheme applicable to our rural community could be devised. In the foreword to the Report, I think, the chairman indicated quite clearly a fundamental thing, that is, that these things cannot be superimposed, that they have to be a natural growth.

You can encourage them, and we are prepared to encourage them, so far as we can, but they must be a natural growth and not something that is imposed from on top. If one was going to begin, the natural place to begin, although it would not be the way in which you would meet some of our fundamental problems, would be with the professions—the professions that want to get a statutory position. That would not present any great difficulty. But, when you come to the others, all you can do is to say: "All right, if the workers come together in various occupations and, by their trade unions, organise themselves, and if the employers on the other hand do the same thing, and you get these into some sort of common organisation, well and good." But we are not doing anything that would stop that. As a matter of fact, the whole trend has been to try to get the workers and the employers together. There are organisations of workers—it might be necessary to get a closer knitting together of them in various related occupations—and there are certain organisations of employers. We would be only too happy to do anything we can to bring these together, provided that we take care of the community interest, as we would have to. It would be our interest in Parliament, as the supreme body looking after the interests of the people as a whole, to see that the two did not meet just to exploit the rest. That, of course, could happen when both the employers and the employees in a particular type of industry—particularly if there was anything like protection of it—might combine to get for their own particular organisation a situation relative to the rest of the community which would not be justified.

Our general position with regard to vocational organisation is that we believe that if it is going to be of real value to the community it will have to be a natural growth. All we can indicate that we are not averse from that, that we would be very glad to see it, as we would, for instance, be glad to see co-operation. The question of co-operation was raised here this afternoon. One of the Deputies spoke in favour of it; another Deputy seemed to think that the State was already favouring certain forms of co-operation and was giving it an unfair advantage. We are anxious to see co-operation, but I admit that we would have to take care that it was not encouraged beyond a limit and at the expense of other sections of the community. We are in favour of co-operation and of the development of a vocational organisation of the type that I have mentioned, but, again, we feel that we should not impose it. We feel that if it is going to be something that is not artificial, that if it is going to have its foundations in the lives of our people, it should come from below and not be superimposed from the top. I do not know whether that satisfies the Deputy or not.

It does not explain, say, whether the State would welcome the development of a council of education or a council of public health. The attitude seems to be that the State does not wish a council like that to arise.

Speaking for myself, and from my short experience as Minister for Education, on this matter of a council of education, I know perfectly well that it is a very easy thing and a very natural thing for a person to say that it would be of great advantage to the Minister to have the assistance of a group of people who could be regarded as experts in the matter of general education, and that they should be available for consultation in regard to various aspects of education. The trouble is that it is not so easy to get a single group. The Minister at the moment has the assistance of a number of groups. Our system of education is denominational. When, for example, the Minister is dealing with the secondary schools he meets the representatives of those who are in charge of secondary education, both Catholic and Protestant. When it comes to the question of primary education, he has two or three groups that he meets, but if you have a single group and if you bring the members of it together it is a question whether you are going to get the same sort of frank criticism and frank advice that you would get by taking them separately. Therefore, as far as helping the Minister is concerned, it may not be so satisfactory from the public point of view or from the point of view of the practical help which the Minister would get. I doubt whether the present system is not really much better.

The modern educational outlook is that the present segregation of primary education is no longer efficient. The modern outlook is that everything surrounding secondary education and technical education wants to be more closely knitted.

The Minister, with the assistance that he gets from his staff, is supposed to do the co-ordinating part of the business, to see in the case, say, of primary education to what extent it meets the needs of our community. I remember that when I was at the Department of Education there was the question of having an education for girls which would be associated with the lives that they were going to lead afterwards. From my experience there, there is this point that I would like to impress on the House—it is one which is very easily forgotten—and it is that you have only a few precious years to teach the children, and my own belief is that you will not do any good by adding another year or two. I know all the difficulties, and I do not know whether we would be able to surmount the difficulties that are there by adding another year or two to the length of time that the children are at school. It would be a tremendous advantage if it could be done, but at present there is only a very limited period within which to do that teaching. Roughly, the period would be between the ages of 7 and 14. Within that time the children have to learn subjects that are very difficult to them. We grown-ups may not realise that. When I was about 14 years of age, and when I attempted to learn another alphabet for the first time, I soon discovered how difficult it was to do that. I found that it was not such an easy thing at all. Within this limited period of time I speak of, it is necessary to get the children to learn to read, to write, and to do simple calculations. Now, these are essential subjects for girls between the ages of 7 and 14 whether they are going to become farmers' wives or to follow some other occupation.

At any rate, when they leave school they will be perpetually shut off from the world unless they master these subjects during the few years that are available to them. During those years their minds are immature and they require that time to get knowledge of these subjects. In this country we have the question of a second language which will be of tremendous value to the children personally as well as from the national point of view. We have to remember that if this work is to be done there will be no time for a lot of the other things that are suggested.

As far as the programme is concerned, there are tremendous possibilities for the individual teacher. A good teacher in, say, a country school can, in a thousand ways, illustrate things as he goes along from the lives of the people. He can give great encouragement to the children in rural schools. He can get them to appreciate their rural surroundings and get them to live in these surroundings, but I doubt if you can ever do that by means of a programme which is to be universal, even in the rural areas. When people talk about teaching rural science and so on, in my opinion if you want to do that you can only do it at the expense of the other subjects which are often more fundamental. Children, as I have said, between the ages of seven and 14 years must be taught reading and writing. They must be taught to do simple calculations, and I believe that within that period, which is so valuable to them, they should be taught these subjects without any trimmings. If you want to bring in these other things the only way to do it is to extend the school age. If it were simply a question of my will I would like to see the school age extended. If we could afford to do that, then you could do two things: you could consolidate the knowledge that had been acquired and you could make it lasting.

To-day people talk about the little that children know when they come out of school. In an earlier day, as we are all perfectly well aware, they knew little when they left school. Deputies who can look back on their own days in the national schools are perfectly well aware of that. How many of those who were in the national school with them and who, for example, took up work afterwards as labourers, would be able to write a good letter? As I say, all this talk that the children of the present day know little when they leave school is not a new thing at all. While on that subject, let me say this, that there is no one has a greater admiration for the work that was done in the old days by the national teachers than I have. I think that there was tremendous work done by them everywhere. It was work that was invaluable to the country. The position then is that to-day we expect miracles from children between the ages of 7 and 14. Deputies, I think, will have to make up their minds that they cannot have these miracles, If, as I say, you extend the school age you can do two things. You can, first of all, consolidate the knowledge which the children have got so that it will remain with them permanently, and, secondly, you can, if they are living in a rural community, introduce them to rural science and some of the other subjects that were mentioned so as to fit them for a life that is to be spent entirely in the country.

Would we not like to hear what a council of education, representing all branches of education, had to say on that particular point?

So far as the Minister is concerned, it might be well but I do no say that that is a good reason.

And for members of the House and for fathers and mothers.

There is no place in Ireland you will get such representation of the father's and mother's point of view as in this House.

But they have no technical experience.

They have a great deal of practical experience. We have not been reared in glass houses. Each one of us, save the exceptional member, has had a home of his own. We have seen our children grow up. The farming community, the labouring community and the other sections are represented here. I doubt if you could find in Ireland a more representative body, from the point of view of what actually happens in the education of children.

Why do we not do our own carpentry and electric light work, then?

We have not the same experience in that regard. We, as parents, have had our responsibilities. Each one of us in his own home has had a variety of experiences. Deputy Mulcahy can speak of his experience, as I can speak of mine. Deputy Norton and Deputy Everett or somebody else can speak of theirs. We can speak of that of which we have most intimate knowledge. We know, from the practical point of view, what is happening our children and what kind of education they are getting. I believe that we have here an assembly representing parents as good as could be got in the country.

As representing parents, but not educationists.

I am merely taking up the Deputy on one point—that dealing with parents. When I was in the Education Office as Minister, I had the association of headmasters of Catholic secondary schools, the association of headmasters of secondary Protestant schools, the headmasters of the primary schools, the association of teachers, and virtually every type of expert body, to which I could appeal when I desired to test out any particular programme. I had the inspectors, who go through the various schools, from whom I could ascertain whether the view taken by the teachers was a peculiarly teachers' point of view or whether the view taken by the managers was a peculiarly managerial view. From the other bodies I have mentioned, I could ascertain whether the view taken by the inspectors was a peculiarly inspectorial view. I do not deny for a moment that, from the point of view of public appearance, if you had a single body, called a council of education, it would meet a certain amount of criticism which is at present levelled at the system.

It could be urged that you had more of a unifying authority and were not dependent on the Minister and his staff as the co-ordinating authority. In the long run, however, they will have to be the co-ordinating authority, because you cannot give to somebody else, unless you get rid of the present form of organisation, power to determine what salaries you will pay. I should like to see the Minister for Finance handle the situation if an outside body were to have that power.

The Ceann Comhairle ruled out debate on the subject of the teachers' strike.

I am sorry if I transgressed. My reference was, however, germane to the question whether you can have a co-ordinating authority other than the Minister. I doubt that you can.

Germaneness was not accepted as an excuse.

I surrender.

It is for an advisory body we ask.

If it is advisory in that sense, my answer is that, so far as practical utility is concerned, the Minister has that at the moment. He can go to any particular group who are affected and they will talk to him more candidly in that way than by other means if he desires their opinion as to how they will be affected by a certain programme or by certain regulations.

The Taoiseach has not answered the question I put.

If the Deputy had put that question three or four months ago, I would have no hesitation in answering it, because it would not have been related to any particular circumstance. If I am asked the question, completely separate from anything else, whether it is good practice for any individual Deputy to get a loan from some person for whom he seems to be at the moment seeking a favour, I do not think that it is right. That is quite independent of anything else. The Deputy was terribly annoyed when I spoke to him last on this question. I wanted to show that, if you deal with that as a general principle, it goes very far. If I may remind him, he said: "When I went into a Department to get something done, I told them, `It is not Deputy Dillon with whom you are dealing; it is Mr. Dillon, a trader from Ballaghaderreen'." That sort of thing will not satisfy anybody.

Is not that correct procedure?

Surely the Deputy knows that that would not satisfy anybody.

It was notifying a Department of State of the position.

I say that Deputies, because of the public position they hold, have not merely not to do a thing which is wrong in itself but to avoid doing things which are right in themselves but might appear wrong, because of the scandal they might cause.

Vote put and agreed to.

Two items—Nos. 7 and 8—were not ordered for to-day but might, perhaps, be taken now.

With the leave of the House.

With the leave of the House, of course. It is necessary to deal with these matters before the Appropriation Bill can be circulated.

Has the Leader of the Opposition indicated his willingness to fall in with this course?

Yes. I think it would be advisable to introduce the Appropriation Bill to-night.

Top
Share