During the course of this debate a number of Ministers have participated and have made statements bearing upon matters of public concern. I should like to open my remarks by expressing the opinion that unless Ministers are frank with the Dáil, unless they put before the Dáil all facts bearing upon problems which the Dáil has to consider, unless information which they give or which is extracted from them by Dáil questions is reliable, then the Dáil cannot do effective work and, inevitably, national interests will suffer. The complaint I have to make, having heard some of these speeches and read others, a complaint which arises not merely out of these Ministerial declarations but out of previous ones, is that Ministers are habitually less than frank with the Dáil and that very frequently the facts given here are distorted by them in order to support the particular argument which they are pursuing. I go further and I will say that there is evidence to suggest that even statistical information which is prepared by the Statistics Branch reaches the Dáil through some propagandist bureau by which it is not infrequently distorted in order to support some political point in which the Government are interested.
Committee on Finance. - Vote on Account, 1949-50 (Resumed).
Will the Deputy give instances? It is a very serious matter.
That is what I propose to do.
The Deputy, I take it, will be required to justify the charge he has made, that statistical matter which comes from the Statistics Branch passes through a propaganda organisation, where the statistics are distorted. If that is not proved, I take it, Sir, that you will ensure the withdrawal of it.
I will attempt to demonstrate that information given here of a statistical character was, on the face of it, false and inaccurate, and that it was published in that manner in order to justify some particular contention in which the Minister concerned was interested.
And that it goes through a propaganda bureau. That is the charge.
I do not profess to have any personal knowledge as to the process.
That is what you said.
I said that it appears to pass through some propagandist bureau on the way from the Statistics Branch to the Dáil.
That is grossly untrue.
We shall find out whether it is or not. We shall let the ordinary members of the Dáil judge that. The Minister for External Affairs has also intervened and asked me to substantiate it. I notice that he has been lecturing his Ministerial colleagues on their behaviour here. I think he would be far wiser to advise them as to the political advantage of honesty in debate and that, if he did that, it would be contributing far more to the effectiveness of the Dáil as a legislative chamber than deploring various regrettable losses of temper, which, from time to time, develop. May I say also to the Minister for External Affairs that if, instead of lecturing his colleagues, he gave them the advantage of his example, it would help them a lot more?
I take it the Deputy is implying that they give false or wrong information to the House. I take it the Deputy will justify that or withdraw it.
I am quite certain that whenever it suits the Minister to colour information that is given to the House in order to support his case he does so with an easy conscience.
The Deputy has suggested that I gave false or misleading information to the House. Is the Deputy going to justify that allegation?
Wait and see.
Then I take it it is a completely irresponsible and unfounded charge.
On the contrary, any charge that I make I will prove.
Can you give the facts?
If the Deputy is allowed to proceed with his speech, objections might then possibly be raised.
The first example I shall give——
On a point of order. I take it that the Chair will not allow false charges to be made against a member of the Government without an opportunity being given to reply to them.
I have not heard any personal charge. I have heard suggestions. Deputies are getting very thin-skinned. Political charges are made frequently in the House.
Will the Chair get the note of what the Deputy has said and read it?
Let me take the very brief formal statement made by the Minister for Finance in moving this Vote.
You were talking about me.
The Minister is not yet the most important member of the Government. It is, of course, a central point of Coalition propaganda to establish that the Government are genuinely seeking economies. They are trying to convince the people that they are reducing the cost of administering the Government Departments. The Minister for Finance, in support of that general propaganda line which he and his colleagues are following, pointed out that 31 of the different Estimates in this Book of Estimates show a reduction as compared with last year. They do not. It was a misleading statement and intended to be misleading, because, in so far as many of these Estimates are shown in this Book to be lower than the corresponding Estimates last year, it is because the Estimates for last year have been written up in an unprecedented way by the addition to them of higher administrative costs sanctioned by the Minister for Finance after these Estimates were passed by the Dáil.
I ask Deputies to turn to the Book of Estimates where these reductions are shown. The first is the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. This Estimate purports to show a decrease compared with last year of £360, but the amount of last year's Estimate was written up by £1,640 in respect of increased remuneration to the officers of the Department sanctioned during the year. There have been other years during which the Civil Service has got increased remuneration, but always the Minister for Finance set out on the face of the Estimate in a footnote the amount of the last year's Estimate and the amount of the addition to it sanctioned by Supplementary Estimate during the year.
Never before was the present device adopted and I suggest that that device was designed to trick the Dáil and the public into the belief that this campaign of economy has been successful. In fact, we know it has not. We can point to almost every Department of State and show that the costs of administration have gone up since Deputy McGilligan became Minister. Taking the Estimates as a whole we find that all the Government Departments and services are estimated this year to cost approximately £65,500,000. That is £6,500,000 more than the net audited cost of these services in the year 1947-48. It is £1,000,000 more than the services cost last year, if the estimate of their cost upon which the Minister prepared his Budget was realised. We do not, yet, know what they cost. We know, however, that when the Minister for Finance was preparing his Budget he estimated that all the Departments and services of the Government would cost £1,000,000 less than he estimates they will cost this year. This campaign of fooling the people into believing that economies are being secured has been pursued by many devices but the most flagrant trick ever attempted was that to which I have referred and which is evident upon the face of a number of the Estimates set out in this Book. There has been a reduction between the total cost of the public services as set out on the face of this Book and the total cost of public services set out on the face of last year's Book. The main contributory cause of that reduction has been the change in the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce. I am referring now to the Estimate of the Department of Industry and Commerce as introduced. Certain changes in Government practice have been announced in the meantime. Many of the charges which formerly appeared against the Minister for Industry and Commerce's Vote will appear in future against the Vote for the Minister for Agriculture.
The amount required for the service of the Department of Industry and Commerce is reduced by £6,500,000. £2,500,000 of that £6,000,000 is attributable to the termination of the emergency turf scheme and the dropping of fuel subsidies. Over £3,000,000 of the balance is attributable to the lower cost this year of food subsidies. In fact, the whole of that reduction was automatic and would have come about if the Minister for Finance had sat in his office for the whole year playing tiddly-winks. In so far as economy means the reduction of unnecessary expenditure in Government Departments and the elimination of waste in the financing of public services there is no evidence of it. On the contrary, all over the field costs are rising, and so far as one can judge from Ministerial declarations bearing upon the question they are likely to continue to rise. If, however, the main change in the Estimates this year, as compared with last year, is the reduction in the cost of food subsidies, then I think it is high time we got some authoritative declaration from the Minister for Finance as to Government policy in regard to food subsidies. Even this year, with the lower cost, the amount required to finance food subsidies comes to no less than 14 per cent. of the total bill for all Government Departments and services. It is, therefore, a matter of some importance that the Dáil and the public should be informed as to what the Government intends to do in regard to the maintenance of these subsidies or the policy of rationing which appears to be associated with them. At the present time, the whole of the Government's policy in regard to rationing and food price subsidisation is clouded in mystery. Here, again, I want to accuse the Government of being less than frank in the Dáil, of playing tricks upon the Dáil, of deliberately misleading the Dáil concerning the facts of this matter. Whenever some Deputy asks a Dáil question as to why bread, flour, tea or sugar are still rationed, or as to the prospects of having these commodities unrationed, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce is put up to give the misleading reply that the supply position does not at present permit of the ending of rationing in respect of these goods. I say that is not true.
Bread, tea, flour, sugar. I say it is not true. I say that the Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce know that it is untrue and that they have another reason for maintaining rationing in relation to these goods but that they are not frank enough to state the reason. There is no scarcity of tea. The Government can buy all the tea necessary to meet the full requirements of the people of this country. There are no restrictions whatever upon the purchase of tea.
You know we have tried to do it.
I know that you purchased last year less than we did in 1947 and the only reason I suggest is that you decided to do that. There is no scarcity of sugar. There is enough sugar in the country at this time to abolish rationing. More sugar can be purchased if home production is insufficient. Why, then, are we still subjected to tea and sugar rationing? Not merely are we subjected to this unnecessary rationing of these foodstuffs, but the Minister for Finance has imposed upon sugar used for manufacturing purposes an illegal tax. I said here in the course of an earlier debate that the policy of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in relation to industry, the policy which he has proclaimed at various banquets and occasionally in this House, is being sabotaged and negatived by the policy of the Minister for Finance and I was asked for an illustration. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is, on every occasion when he speaks about industrial matters, urging the importance of expanding our industrial exports. There is one class of industrial products for which an export possibility exists now and that is sugar confectionery, particularly jam, marmalade and so forth. Those who are engaged in the manufacture of these commodities could, at this moment, be building up an important export trade which might prove to be permanent. I will not put it stronger than that. They are prevented from doing so by reason of the fact that the Minister for Finance is taxing their raw materials to the extent of £20 per ton. I say further that that tax is illegal. The Constitution of this State requires that no citizen can be taxed without the consent of the Dáil and the imposition of that levy for the benefit of the Exchequer upon sugar sold to manufacturing consumers has never been sanctioned by the Dáil.
It is not true that we could not obtain sufficient wheat to abolish the flour and bread rationing. The recent wheat conference, at which an agreement was signed last week, was apparently embarrassed by the surplus of wheat which the exporting countries had to offer. In fact, instead of the importing countries, as in previous years, being concerned to write up the amount that they were prepared to contract to buy, they were, this year, trying to write down the amount which they would be under contract to buy for the period of the agreement. The price of wheat has fallen, and the Government was able to authorise its representative to sign that agreement upon the basis that for its duration the maximum price which they would have to pay for wheat purchased under it would be $1.80 a bushel—roughly about £18 per ton. Why have we got these unnecessary rationing schemes? If the real explanation is that the Government is economising in foreign exchange, then why do they not tell us that? I do not believe that is the explanation. On the contrary, I know that it is not. I suggest that the reason why rationing is still maintained is because the policy of price subsidisation is still in operation as regards these goods. I suggest that when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce gets up to tell the Dáil that the rationing of tea, sugar, bread and flour has to be maintained because the supply position does not permit of anything else, he knows that is a misleading explanation. He knows that the true reason why the people of this country are being subjected to the unnecessary rationing is because the Government cannot make up its mind between two courses, each of which they think might be politically unpopular—either to allow the prevailing prices of these commodities to rise, or else to vote more money out of revenue for their subsidisation. Let it be clear, however, that when the Minister for Finance boasts about having reduced the cost of Government services, even though the amount which the people pay in taxes is increasing, the price which the country is paying for that notional reduction is the perpetuation of the rationing of essential food for long after the supply position had so improved as to make it unnecessary.
Can we get some statement of policy from any Minister on this matter? How long is this going to last? Have we to face the prospect that so long as the maintenance of the present price of these commodities involves the payment of some subsidies, then we will continue to be rationed? Is that the position? Is there any reason why the people of this country should not get the benefit, in flour and bread prices, of the fall in wheat prices recently recorded? Is it the policy of the Government to maintain these prices at their present level so long as any subsidy is payable? Can we get some information, other than the false and misleading information which is occasionally given to the Dáil by the Parliamentary Secretary? How long are we going to suffer this unnecessary rationing of essential food stuffs, and why?
The Government, of course, can provide the necessary dollars to supplement our tobacco purchases and to increase the delivery of tobacco from bond by 12½ per cent. because, of course, that is going to bring in more revenue. We can get an announcement as to the doubling of the basic petrol ration and, again, we have to bear in mind that an increase in the petrol ration means increased dollar expenditure, but that also brings in increased revenue. Why is petrol rationed? Will someone give me a sensible reason as to why the petrol ration was not abolished altogether? We imported into this country last year 58,000,000 gallons of petrol. Our normal pre-war imports of petrol, averaged for the three years 1936, 1937 and 1938, 38,500,000 gallons. We have a 50 per cent. increase already over the pre-war total petrol supply, and petrol rationing is still being maintained. There is not a Deputy in the House who does not think, as I think, that the Government could, in the present supply position abolish petrol rationing entirely. Why is it being maintained? What secret motive is there in the minds of the Government to justify the retention of petrol rationing when the supply position does not require it?
The reduction in the price of wheat, and the conclusion of an agreement to buy annually 270,000 metric tons of wheat at 1 dollar 80 a bushel is practically responsible for the whole of the drop in the food subsidies. It is possible that there will be a further drop. Under the agreement which will shortly be submitted to the Dáil for ratification, there is provision for the possibility of a further drop. At what stage will the Government give the people the benefit of these reductions in price? At what stage can the consumers of flour and bread hope to get their supplies cheaper because of the drop in the price of wheat? Will the Minister for Finance even say that it is the policy of the Government to maintain present prices so long as the subsidy is payable? I do not know what the view of the Government is upon the whole question of food price subsidisation. I do know that some members of the British Government have on occasion spoken as if they regarded it as a permanent addition to their social services, something to be maintained even when abnormal trading conditions or war-time scarcities had ended. Is that the view of the Government here or are they aiming to get rid of these subsidies by the various devices to which they resorted during the year? The white flour scheme has been a flop; the allocation of additional tea at 5/- for harvesting or the release of additional sugar at the uneconomic price of 7½d. per lb. in order to help the Exchequer to meet the cost of the sugar subsidy.
Talking about wheat brings me to this question of the Argentine wheat. The Minister for Agriculture has been dealing with this matter again and dealing with it just as dishonestly as ever he did before. I have no hope that anything that I may say here will prevent him or any of his colleagues from misrepresenting the facts of that deal to the people of the country. I have no hope beyond putting the facts on record that I can prevent the possibility of confusion in the public mind but I am going to put the facts on record. I know that every official in the Department of Industry and Commerce and in the Department of Agriculture and every officer of Grain Importers, Limited, as well as every British or American official who was dealing with this matter at the time will know who is telling the truth— the Minister for Agriculture or myself. They will also be able to form their personal judgment between us upon the basis of that knowledge.
Let us get the facts right first. I apologise for using the word facts. Let me give the Dáil the information that was given to me by the Minister for Agriculture in reply to a Parliamentary Question. I apologise again for describing them as "facts". I asked the Minister for Agriculture what was the total consumption of wheat in this country between the 1st of March, 1948, and the 1st September, 1948, that is to say the wheat equivalent of the flour and bread consumed and I was told it was 220,000 tons. Now there was available, to meet that alleged consumption of 220,000 tons, the following quantities of wheat: from stocks 24,217 tons. The stocks on the 1st March were 64,984 tons and on the 1st September 40,281 tons. There was, therefore, brought into consumption from the available stocks 24,217 tons. The stocks left on the 1st September were much lower than would normally be regarded as the requirement of safety. The international wheat organisations used to assume that in order to maintain an uninterrupted supply of flour and bread a minimum of nine weeks' stock was required. In practice we found we could work upon a five or six weeks' supply. On the 1st September, 1948, there was just roughly a five weeks' supply so that we had reached the stage of minimum stocks. There was imported during the period, according to the Minister for Agriculture, from Australia, 83,000 tons; the Argentine, 73,658 tons, and the United States, 2,116 tons. If some Deputy takes the trouble of adding these imports to the 24,217 tons that we drew from stock I think he will find that he will get a total of 183,019 tons. With that total available by some miracle according to the Minister for Agriculture we consumed 220,000 tons. The propaganda department slipped up there. The Statistics Branch produced those figures and if the officers in the propaganda department had not slipped in adding up we would not have had this ridiculous reply given to a Parliamentary Question.
That reply shows that in six months of last year the people of this country consumed 37,000 tons of wheat which was not here at all. The Minister for Agriculture, when speaking in this debate last week, referred to the Argentine wheat as involving 50,000 tons. Whatever the present Minister for Agriculture may be, he is not such a fool as he sometimes tries to appear, and he knew that when he said that 50,000 tons of wheat were involved. I suggest that the reply that he gave me on the 16th February was distorted for the purpose of making the quantity of Argentine wheat purchased less significant than it really was in relation to our total requirements. When the Minister last week spoke about imports of Argentine wheat of 50,000 tons he was again taking the same line, also hoping to give some significance to a document which he quoted in the form of a memorandum from Grain Importers, Ltd., which suggested that it might have been possible in May or June of last year to purchase 50,000 tons in the United States of America.
The Minister for Agriculture did not make a mistake when he spoke about 50,000 tons of Argentine wheat instead of 75,000 tons. He had to get a figure which related to the figure which appeared in Grain Importers' memorandum, because if he admitted that even the quantity of wheat which Grain Importers thought they could be able to import from the United States would, nevertheless, leave our requirements unfilled, then he would have to admit some purchase of Argentine wheat was necessary in any case.
The Minister for Agriculture stated that the Fianna Fáil Government, in December, 1947, decided to leave this question of purchasing Argentine wheat to myself. He also stated that we got advice not to purchase it from the British Government, and he read a memo sent to the Department of Industry and Commerce from Grain Importers. Not one of these statements conveys the whole truth. Every one of them has been twisted or doctored or clipped in order to convey a false picture. The question which went to the Government was whether we should reduce the bread ration or buy Argentine wheat. The decision of the Government was that the bread ration should not be reduced. When that decision was taken, it was irrevocable.
Ministers opposite may play with the suggestion that this decision to purchase Argentine wheat was made a day or two before the change of Government. It became inevitable when the Government decided not to reduce the bread ration because, if we were to leave a reasonable ration available to the following September, a reduced bread ration would have to be brought into operation immediately. Every month's delay in making the reduction in the ration meant a severer cut. What the Government decided in December, 1947, was that the bread ration would not be reduced and they left to me the question of the manner in, and the time at which the purchase of Argentine wheat would be effected in order to supply the necessary quantities of wheat to maintain the ration.
The Minister for Agriculture stated that the British Minister of Food advised us not to buy Argentine wheat. Is he or any other Deputy opposite under the illusion that Britain gave us that advice in our interests? The British Minister of Food were thinking of the interests of the British Government. They were anxious that other countries would stay off from buying Argentine wheat and perhaps force a reduction in price so that they could buy cheaper. They did not care if our bread ration was reduced. At that time it was higher than theirs.
As regards this memo from Grain Importers I am not willing to discuss the motives that inspired it—its author is dead—but I will go on the fact that when they expressed the view that it might be possible in May or June to purchase some 50,000 tons of wheat in the United States of America, they were giving us information of no value. There is no responsible Government that would have taken the risk in January or February of 1947 that, if the hope expressed by Grain Importers was not realised and if by May or June wheat could not be purchased, there would then be no bread in the country. Can you imagine any sensible group of men deciding to gamble on the possibility that in some future month wheat might possibly be procured when, in fact, it could not be, and knowing that if the hope did not come off there would be a period of two months in which no bread would be available to the Irish people? In fact, the quantity of wheat imported from America during the six months' period was 2,200 tons—two weeks' supply. If the Government had taken the advice which Grain Importers gave them, do you think we would have been exempted from blame by our successors if they found themselves in May or June in the position that there was no wheat available in the country and no possibility of buying it anywhere?
This thing has been brought up here again in the hope that some political advantage will go to the Coalition Parties. I am prepared to face the Irish people on this issue, that the Government now in office, the Coalition Government, thought it would have been better policy to have reduced the bread ration last year than to have purchased this Argentine wheat, and I am prepared to defend my action, that by purchasing that Argentine wheat before the change of Government I put them in the position that they could not reduce the bread ration. If there is any question about the price of Argentine wheat I will tell them that at the time they were eating it the price of bread was lower in Dublin than it is now.
Could you not have waited 48 hours and given the new Government an opportunity of deciding for themselves?
No, sir.
Even if the technical people advised you against purchasing?
That statement is untrue. The officers in the Department who advised me as to the position are still there.
And the letter is there, too.
I will challenge any official to put his name to that declaration.
Is it in order for any Deputy to suggest that civil servants should enter upon a political matter?
The information given by these civil servants to the present Ministers is being distorted by these Ministers before it reaches the Dáil.
The Tánaiste has twisted certain statements.
The characteristic dishonesty of the Government's propaganda in this matter is to be found in almost every Department. We are used to that type of propaganda at home. What I want to inform the Minister for External Affairs is that I object strongly, and will always object, to the introduction of the same type of tendentious propaganda into documents intended for international circulation.
We have had some discussion here already concerning remarks made by me relative to this memorandum dealing with the European Recovery Programme and presented to both Houses of the Oireachtas by the Minister for External Affairs. I think I am as well fitted as any other Deputy to assess national interests. I think that anything I may have said in this regard was more likely to help national interests and national prestige abroad than the contrary. We have had the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Minister for Agriculture and other Coalition Deputies repeatedly boasting that during the year 1948 there was a recovery in agricultural production as compared with 1947 and, in particular, that the yield of wheat per acre was substantially higher in 1948 than in 1947, and they have endeavoured to suggest that that was due to some benign influence which they spread over the country. By their speeches they have tried to ensure that the maximum political advantage would redound to them by reason of that fact. They know that that is a false picture. That will not prevent them, nevertheless, continuing to present it here at home. They know that the year 1947 was a completely abnormal one because of weather conditions. That will not prevent them, I am sure, continuing to endeavour to take some undeserved credit from the fact that there was a recovery in agricultural output in the following year. When they do that at home I am prepared to meet them and answer them. I am prepared to show the Irish people the falsity of their propaganda and the baselessness of their claims to credit because of the 1948 figures. I am not going to be blackmailed into remaining silent in the face of such dishonest propaganda because the Minister for External Affairs chose to write the same propaganda into a document for international circulation. Every Deputy knows that the year 1947 was an abnormal year. Yet, the week before last the Minister for Agriculture was expanding his chest here when announcing that the quantity of wheat delivered to Irish mills from the Irish harvest last year was nearly double the quantity delivered in the previous year. The acreage had declined by 60,000 acres, but the wheat yield, because it was a good season, had enormously increased.
Almighty God was on our side.
That is exactly what the Minister for Agriculture said—a slightly blasphemous observation, I think. The Minister admitted, however, that the yield per acre in 1947 was 10.8 cwts. as compared with 14.4 cwts. in 1946. If there is to be any suggestion that the improvement in 1948 was due to the availability of fertilisers or other materials which were not procurable during the war years, I prefer to make a comparison between 1947 and 1946. 1946 was not a good year either. It was the year in which we mobilised the shop hands and factory workers and the people in the towns and villages to go out to help the farmers save the harvest. It was not a good year. It was not a year for which one would normally quote the statistics as indicative of the productive potentialities of Irish agriculture. But 1947 was worse. When we find, however, the Minister for External Affairs explaining or purporting to explain to O.E.E.C., or to their American advisers, that that decline in yield in 1947 was not due to any abnormal circumstances prevailing here in that year but to the effect of the war upon Irish agriculture, then we know that he is putting himself in a position in which he can be proved wrong. It is to that I object. I expect members of the Coalition Government at home to use that type of false propaganda, but when they are using it abroad they are using it in relation to people who know the facts. The Americans will not be deceived. O.E.E.C. and its advisers will not be deceived. They know. Every one of the Governments concerned has a legation here which supplies them with that type of information. They know that 1947 was an abnormal year. They know that in that year not merely did the wheat yield decline to the extent I have indicated, but they know also that the yield per acre of oats declined and the yield of barley per acre declined. In the case of oats, it declined from one metric ton per acre to .8 of a ton. In the case of barley, it declined from .95 of a metric ton to .61. The yield of turnips, mangolds and potatoes also declined. The yield of sheep and lambs was down by 36 per cent. as compared with pre-war. Egg production was down by 27 per cent. Milk production was down by 11 per cent. The number of cattle under one year was 17 per cent. less. There is no point in the Minister for External Affairs trying to suggest to the European Economic Co-operation Organisation, or the American authorities administering E.R.P., that the decline in yield in 1947 was attributable, as he said, to the effect of the fertiliser shortage. I am not going to deny that we cannot make a very strong case for an increased supply of fertilisers under the E.R.P. scheme. But let us make an honest case.
I do not want to interrupt but I have replied to questions and to statements made by the Deputy pointing out that it was decided by O.E.E.C., in conjunction with E.C.A., that the year for comparison was to be the year 1947. Now, can we ignore that direction?
No, Sir, but you could have put in this memorandum a statement to the effect that, while the comparison was based upon the figures for the year 1947, it was necessary at the same time to point out that the year 1947 was a completely abnormal year here and that, because it was a completely abnormal year, comparison was invalidated.
Everyone knew that.
Tell the Minister for Agriculture that and tell the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce that also. They have been making speeches throughout the country which were intended to convey that the increase in 1948 was due to their efforts and not to better weather conditions. Everybody knows that that document was prepared mainly for home propaganda purposes. It was so used by the Coalition newspapers and so presented over the Government-controlled radio. In case any Deputy on the Government Benches believes that any of us on this side of the House can be intimidated in this, or any other matter, from telling the people the truth by the suggestion that we are thereby in some way impairing the national interest, I assert that I shall do it on every occasion because I believe that our national interest and our national prestige depend upon scrupulous honesty in all dealings outside the country.
Hear, hear.
Set out in this memorandum, also, there is a list of national development projects. I hope the Deputies have read them. It is not a bad list. Every single project on it was a Fianna Fáil idea.
Including forestry?
Including forestry.
25,000 acres a year.
Perhaps the Minister will explain to me the further miracle of how 25,000 acres are going to be planted on the 3,000 acres purchased for that purpose last year. That would be a typical Coalition miracle. The point I want to make is, however, that every single one of these projects was devised by us——
Including forestry?
——because it was desirable in the national interest and a necessary development that we wanted to undertake and which we would have undertaken had there been no Marshall Plan. There is a list of projects presented as devised to meet the requirements of the Marshall Plan. It is a list of the projects taken over from Fianna Fáil which they intended to go on with in any event.
But you woke up too late.
I am quite prepared to agree, if the Minister for Justice wants to make the point, that in none of the development schemes we contemplated did we go as fast as we would like to have gone. Many of the impediments were unnecessary. Some of them were inevitable. Amongst the unnecessary was the opposition offered by the present Minister for Justice and his colleagues.
You are now copying us. Is that it? You are now taking the same line.
I do not know to what extent the Minister for Finance is prepared to tell the Dáil his scheme for financing these or any similar projects upon which they may decide in the future. There is a suggestion that the money put into the loan account — if that is the right name for it—under the Marshall Plan will be invested in Government stock and used for development purposes. If that is so, it is clear that some further information is required by the Dáil. We were certainly given to understand that the payment of sterling funds into that account corresponding to the dollar value of purchases made under the European Recovery Programme, was a device by which sterling would be accumulated to wipe out the dollar debt when sterling became convertible into dollars. If it is now going to be used as a capital fund for Government purposes here, at what stage and in what manner will it be replaced when the repayment of the debt becomes due? Will any of the funds be used to finance Electricity Supply Board development or Turf Board development? That presupposes investment on a long-term basis and, if so, can these organisations, or similar organisations, be required to repay at any time when the liquidation of liability under the Marshall Plan is being effected? There is no reason that I know of why the Minister for Finance cannot give, and should not give, the fullest possible information to the House on these matters.
Amongst the projects upon which the Government is going to embark is industrial development, and, for the purpose of promoting this industrial development, we are going to have an industrial advisory authority. I hope that before the debate ends, we shall get some information concerning this industrial advisory authority. Up to the present we know nothing about it except the names of the members and the fact that they are going to get £2,000 a year each.
A Deputy
And something more.
There may be something additional to meet travelling expenses.
Do you think it is too much?
I have not expressed any opinion on the matter. I am merely complaining of the paucity of information.
Would you like to express the view that it is too much?
I did not say that. So much will depend on the work they will have to do.
Would you like to relate the salary to that paid to the chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann?
Is the Minister suggesting that the chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann is paid too much?
I am suggesting that he got three times as much as these men are getting.
The lawyers like crossexamining.
So far as I am concerned that is not so.
You know well he got over £6,000.
Perhaps these men are worth £10,000. All I am asking is what they are going to do, when they will start their operation and other information of that kind, and whether any declaration made by an appointee since the date this authority was constituted is to be taken as an authoritative pronouncement of the policy that is to be followed. We have had a declaration from one member of this authority since he was appointed, from Senator Luke Duffy. He is still a Senator I take it. In case there is any intention of leaving him in the Seanad let me say that I shall oppose every single project or proposal that comes to this House concerning this authority if a member of it is also a member of the Oireachtas, particularly a member who is secretary of a political party.
What was the date of his appointment?
I do not know. I am asking for information not giving it. The official announcement states that five people were appointed.
How do you know that was an official announcement?
I do not know when it was made but it was an announcement from the Government Information Bureau. Whether that organ is still fulfilling the purpose for which it was first created or is merely a propaganda agent for the Coalition Parties I do not know. The first pronouncement made by this man since his appointment was an attack of a political kind. He said that the Fianna Fáil Party, the Deputies on this side of the House, were
"bracketing themselves with the various Communist Parties in Europe who were trying to promote disaffection in the hope of bringing down existing Governments."
The existing Government about which he was worried is the Government over there. The man is an ass to start with. Is there any Deputy opposite who did not read that without a blush? That is one of the people you have chosen to be the architects of Irish industry. He then expressed his views as to how Irish industry should be planned. First of all we get a formal pronouncement from this member of the Irish Industrial Authority that flour milling is to be nationalised. Is it? Can we get some authoritative statement from some member of the Government that a policy of that kind is to be operated. There might be a case to be made for that——
You supported it at one time.
Next we were told that if the Government gives protection to any industry then there is to be a new job created. Sitting on the board of management of that industry there will be a Government representative. Is that part of Government policy? Let me quite seriously advise them on this matter. If the Government participates in the management of industry it must do so in a controlling capacity or not at all. It is an impossible situation for the Government to be represented by a minority of directors on the board of some industrial concern. The only consequences is that the Minister who appoints the representatives on the board can be questioned here in the Dáil concerning its administration while his representatives will have no effective power to direct its administration. If the Government is going into industry it will have to go completely into it. Any combination of Government and private interests in industrial management would be completely unworkable unless the Government is in the saddle.
I hope that Deputies opposite will discourage any intention on the part of the Government to adopt that particular suggestion by the brains of the national advisory authority. He also stated that there should be a representative of the workers on the board. That is a suggestion that has been made on other occasions, and maybe there is something in it. We can judge of that after we know what is meant by the term "representative of the workers." If it is intended that there should be upon these boards, whether State appointed or otherwise selected, men of experience of the trade union movement who have withdrawn from active participation in it for the purpose of doing work of this kind, then I have no objection whatever. But if the idea is that workers in a trade or industry should have on the board of management of that industry their representative acting as such, I think it is a completely wrong idea and that not merely will it put an end to trade unionism as we have known it, and to collective bargaining as heretofore practised, but it will mean that the board of the concern will be ineffective to do its main job, which is to direct and develop the industry. I do not know whether Senator Duffy knew what he was saying in using those words, but if there is any intention of moving along these lines there should be some elaboration of this policy, because I am quite convinced, if the idea is to put on the boards of management of State, semiState or privately-owned concerns, persons who are representatives of the workers employed by these concerns, not only will the interests of the workers themselves suffer, but the interests of the concerns will most certainly also suffer.
In any event there is going to be no new industry started because the policy of this new authority as announced by Senator Duffy is that those investing money in it are to have their margin of profit limited to the interest earned by an investment in gilt-edge securities.
What is the Deputy quoting from?
I am quoting from a memorandum prepared by Senator Luke Duffy and submitted to a Labour Party conference.
But what is the Deputy quoting from?
From the Irish Press of March 26th.
I thought so.
Is it denied that he prepared this memorandum?
It must be the whole truth if it is in the Irish Press.
Is there any serious intention on the part of this authority or of the Government of imposing on those who may engage in industry the limitation that they will not be allowed to draw more in dividends on their investments than they would get as interest on a gilt-edge security? Anybody can imagine himself winning a sweepstake and seeking a suitable means of investing that money. He could, according to Senator Duffy, invest in Irish industry, but, having risked his money in a speculative enterprise of that kind and taken all precautions to ensure that his investment will not depreciate, he can hope for no greater return, according to Senator Duffy, than if he had invested the money in Government bonds and sat back to enjoy the interest. If that is the idea that is to be operated by this authority it will mean the end of development of Irish industry by private enterprise.
I have no confidence in the intention of this Government to promote industry by State enterprise. I believe that if we are going to get industrial expansion it will come more quickly and more effectively and over a wider field if it is promoted by private enterprise and individual initiative. I have no objection, and Deputies who were in this House before know that I have never raised an objection, to State intervention where it was quite clear that private enterprise was ineffective, but I believe if the policy enunciated by this member reflects the policy of that board or the intention of the Government then we can give up any idea of industrial development by private enterprise so long as the board exists or the Government is in office.
Can the Deputy say if there was any official statement of that kind issued by that board?
My point is that the only information we have got from any source as to the policy of this authority and as to the powers it is going to use is that declaration of Senator Duffy. Let us have a more authoritative declaration if it can be made.
Let Deputies have no misunderstanding about it that, in the absence of any more authoritative pronouncement, business people are assuming that Senator Duffy is speaking the mind of the Government and that it is because he knows the mind of the Government that he was chosen for this position. I have based my speech on the contention that the Government in matters of public interest are often less than frank with the Dáil and, on occasion, fail to give the Dáil either adequate or reliable information upon which to form conclusions.
Does that apply to Córas Iompair Éireann?
Particularly to Córas Iompair Éireann. Was there one member of the Government with the moral courage to stand up and tell the public why Córas Iompair Éireann is losing money? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce—and all credit to him —did make some attempt to explain the position. The fact of the matter is that Córas Iompair Éireann, in 1948, was paying out £2,500,000 more in wages than in 1946. Every attempt has been made to suggest that the losses incurred by Córas Iompair Éireann were due to faulty management or direction and that the losses will disappear when the board of directors is changed. Do not Minister know that that is not true? Is it wise to tell the people that the employees of that concern can get wage increases amounting to £2,500,000 per year and that increases in charges for transport could, nevertheless, have been avoided? Is it not much wiser to be frank with the people and tell them that the increase of wages, the justifiable increases, that were sanctioned by the Labour Court or settled by negotiation have to be paid for by somebody and that there is no source from which the company can draw revenue to pay them except transport charges?
And a proposal to dismiss 2,000 men.
That again is a falsehood. I say that the clear meaning of the letter sent by the chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann to the Government was that, because of the increase in rates of wages, it was necessary to increase the charges and that the alternative to increasing the charges was to cut their costs, even if it meant disemploying men.
That is not true.
They made it quite clear in the letter that they did not approve of the policy of reducing maintenance.
I heard them; I was listening to them.
I read the letter which they sent and other Deputies could have read it.
I asked if these proposals were an alternative and I was told they were not.
I am prepared to take the clear meaning of the words contained in the letter which was sent by the company to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and which was published in the newspapers. Let us have no illusions with regard to this matter. Irish transport is in difficulties. Let us have no illusions that meeting these difficulties is not going to be easy. You will not solve them by dismissing the present board of directors and putting in a bunch of Government nominees. That is not going to solve them; that is only pretending to solve them. It is leaving the essential cause of the trouble untouched. This is not a matter which we can discuss now. My views will be given when it comes before the Dáil officially. I say that the Government were dishonest in every public declaration they made in the matter; that they are less than frank, and because they are less than frank, they are unwise, and particularly in concealing from the people the real cause of the increase in the operating charges of Córas Iompair Éireann which led to the losses of last year and at the present.
The same thing applies to a reply given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce last week concerning the generation programme of the Electricity Supply Board. There is to be a new steam station at Ringsend. In order to divert criticism, he endeavoured to convey that this was really a steam station of which I approved, with this difference: that I had approved of its establishment in Cork and it was merely being transferred to Dublin. I approved of the inclusion in the generation programme of the Electricity Supply Board of a small station at Cork which was intended, as I understood it, to be used to boost the supply into that part of the network and which would not have been required except for that purpose. To misrepresent the decision to establish that small station as being equivalent to setting up at Ringsend a steam station which I understood him to imply would be as large as the Pigeon House is thoroughly dishonest.
A Deputy
To replace the Pigeon House.
Would someone explain this business of replacing the Pigeon House which has been there for some years and which, I think, contains six generating units? From time to time as units wear out they are replaced. Some were replaced in the last ten years. There is no question of replacing the Pigeon House in the sense in which I understood the Minister to use that term. Each generating unit is replaced as required. This problem of planning the development of electricity generation can be considered under three headings. It can be considered solely in relation to the economic cost, and that is what the Electricity Supply Board is inclined to do. It can be considered in relation to the development of national resources, whether of water power or of peat. It can be considered in relation to national security in times of emergency. On any ground, the decision to establish a new steam station of the dimensions which the Minister suggested at Ringsend is wrong.
Let me admit that, earlier in the planning of the Electricity Supply Board development, I had tentatively agreed to the erection in Dublin—not at Ringsend, but at another site in Dublin—of a new large steam station using foreign fuel, because at that time it seemed to me there were practical difficulties of a real kind in developing turf-fired stations for standby purposes. It seemed to me, and I stated it in the Dáil when I brought the Bill here in 1944, that every turf-fired station would have to be a base-load station, because it was a station with a bog attached. You could not lay off men or take back men according as the station was brought into or put out of commission.
It is recognised that there must be in relation to a system which is based largely upon water power a great deal of standby plant. It is obviously much more convenient that a standby plant should use a fuel which can be imported or not imported, as suits ourselves. However, in the course of 1947 repeated conferences between the engineers of the Electricity Supply Board and Bord na Móna secured, as I understood, an agreement that the standby plant requirements of the Electricity Supply Board could be met by steam stations using turf and that that was made practicable by the decision to expand the programme of Bord na Móna. It is quite obvious that the absorption into the ordinary commercial market of the quantity of turf that might have been used in a steam station if the steam station was not brought into commission was less difficult when that market was enlarged than it was as originally planned. Again, I am merely bringing this matter in to illustrate the disreputable methods by which the Government are endeavouring to defend their decisions and to score points over their opponents. It is not honest to represent the establishment of a new steam station at Ringsend as the implementation of a decision taken by me. I did not decide on the inclusion in the programme of any steam station using imported fuel except, as I understood it, a small station in Cork intended merely to boost the supply. That station was of no significance in relation to the generation programme as required. A large station at Ringsend does inevitably mean the putting back to a further date the development of our peat resources. Furthermore, I should like to know if the military authorities were consulted before that decision was taken. It seems to me the height of folly in a world which might in three, five or more years be at war to concentrate in one area—an undefendable area of Dublin—such a significant proportion of our total generating capacity. It would be far wiser to space our generating stations in smaller units throughout the country than to concentrate them into one unit located at Ringsend merely because it is cheaper to import English coal into Ringsend than into any other part of the country.
I have, perhaps, spoken unduly long on this matter, but I do ask any Minister who proposes to participate in the debate to realise that the value of the work done in the Dáil—our debates are often acrimonious, but even acrimonious debates can be useful— depends upon the reliability of the information which the ordinary Deputy gets.
What about Aer Lingus?
Perhaps I had better leave that until the Estimate comes along. I have so much to say about it. The work we do here is of value only if we have the proper tools with which to do it. The tools we use are reliable information. Whether the statistics which are given in reply to questions are accurate or not, sufficient doubt has been created by the misuse of statistics in the past to make us accept them with doubt, and Ministers have got to break down that bad tradition by being frank and honest with the Dáil in future. If they are, they will get from these benches criticisms when they deserve them, but constructive proposals when they are in order.
I think there is a general opinion that Deputy Lemass, who has, I think, considerably more ability than most of his colleagues, seems to be intent on proving that he has a number of blind spots. He has allowed his intelligence and his ability to be minimised by bitterness and by dishonest suggestions. Probably the most damaging form of dishonesty or slander is that which is carried out by way of innuendo. I do not think that it is easy to deceive anybody, and I think it is a pity that Deputy Lemass, in particular, should indulge in it, because he has more ability than most of his colleagues and he would contribute more to the discussion if he did not resort to palpably dishonest statements.
In a great many respects I might share Deputy Lemass's views. A great many other people in the country might also share them in a great many respects. However, he antagonises people from even taking him seriously by reason of that bitterness and of the false innuendoes that he interjects in the course of his statements. I think it is a pity that we have so many acrimonious debates in the House. It reduces the standard of the discussions, and it precludes the House from making the contribution that it could to the various economic and political problems of the Continent. It would be a good thing if we could agree to avoid these acrimonious discussions, if we could agree to prevent over-statements and if we could agree not to slander each other, either directly or by way of innuendo. I do not think that the country wants behaviour of that kind; I think it prefers us to conduct constructive discussion in the House.
The last portion of Deputy Lemass's speech was concerned with trying to justify a completely irresponsible speech which he made in Fermoy and which was reported in his paper on the 7th of March. The speech was irresponsible because it was both untrue in its main facts and also calculated to be damaging to this country abroad, as the House knows. This country joined with a number of other European nations in the O.E.E.C. to formulate economic programmes and plans. It has to submit these to the O.E.E.C. and to the economic authorities now in Washington. They have to be approved and passed by them before this country can get any allocation of dollars. They are carefully screened both by the O.E.E.C. and by the American authorities in Washington. They are doubly screened. The statistics are checked and counterchecked not merely here, in Paris and in Washington but most of the other countries have also an interest in verifying the statistics and in ensuring that there is no over-statement. Finally, when the allocations are made the provision of the money which is required for this operation is discussed by the Congress of the United States. Speeches made, even by irresponsible members of Parliaments in their own countries, are often quoted in the discussions on the appropriations of different countries. Therefore, it is clearly damaging to the interests of the country that a Deputy of this House, and particularly one who is an ex-Minister, should make untrue allegations concerning his country's economic requirements or position. Deputy Lemass, in his Fermoy speech, which he sought to justify this afternoon and which is headed in his paper "Coalition Propaganda ‘Dishonest'," begins, first of all, by accusing the Government of falsifying national conditions and then proceeds to deal with the long-term programme put forward by this country:—
"The Report gave a definitely misleading picture, both of the effect of wartime shortages on Irish productive capacity, and on possible future increases in production."
I notice that to-day Deputy Lemass did not seek in any way to accuse the Government of having given a false estimate of wartime shortages on Irish production. I take it he could not do it, nor did he challenge the long-term report on the ground that future increases were also wrong. It is quite easy for the Deputy to make a speech and have it reported in his paper, but he did not try to justify these assertions to-day. He then went on to say:—
"The section dealing with agriculture set out to show the effect of the war on our agricultural production by comparing pre-war output with output in 1947. It also gave estimates of increased future production... based on 1947 figures. The selection of 1947 could not have been accidental."
I issued a statement immediately I saw that speech to try and minimise the damage that a speech of that kind might have on our programme which is at present going through the E.C.A. machine and the O.E.C. machine.
You mean the damage done to your political interests. That is all.
The damage done by the Deputy whose speech might well mean that this country's allocation of dollars in future might be prejudiced because of your erroneous statement.
Utter nonsense. It was far more likely to be prejudiced by your bogus report.
The Deputy says it is a bogus report. That is a lie, and you know it is a lie.
Is it in order to call a Deputy a liar?
It is not in order to call a Deputy a liar.
All right. I certainly withdraw that. I take it that the Chair will ask the Deputy to withdraw the allegation that the Minister put forward a bogus report.
That is a political matter. Deputy Lemass is quite entitled to say that any Deputy in the House put forward a bogus report. The Minister for External Affairs would be quite entitled to say that the Deputy put forward a bogus report. That is purely political. The statement that the Minister for External Affairs was a liar is a purely personal matter, or that Deputy Lemass was a liar is a purely personal matter.
In respect to the Chair I withdraw the expression. Deputy Lemass accused me of having made a bogus statement. I retorted that that was a lie. I am quite prepared to withdraw it if the Chair considers that it is an improper remark.
We cannot make the term "liar" the current language of the Dáil. That is obvious to anybody. To call Deputy Lemass a liar is a purely personal statement.
The Minister will issue another statement to-morrow.
The Deputy in his speech said that the selection of the year 1947 could not have been accidental. It was not accidental. The year 1947 was selected, not by us, but by E.C.A. and by O.E.C. as the year for comparison. The long-term programme was compiled at the end of 1948 and the comparisons were between pre-war figures, in most cases laid down by O.E.C. and E.C.A. as the year that had been directed.
The Deputy said to-day in the House that weather conditions in 1947 were bad. They were, but it was not only here they were bad; they were bad in the rest of Europe as the Deputy knows, and nobody could have been misled by the figures. The details and figures given were prepared by an inter-Departmental committee representing officials from the Departments of Industry and Commerce, Agriculture, Finance and External Affairs. Therefore, most of the burden of Deputy Lemass's speech was, in effect, an attack on the officials who prepared the report. I do not think it is proper to attack these officials because that is, in effect, what the Deputy did.
The Deputy destroyed his own criticism by saying that the Americans knew the facts; that they had their experts here to advise them. Other west European countries had the same experience as this country in 1947 and their production had been cut by nearly half. It is perfectly futile to suggest that the year 1947 was taken arbitrarily by this Government in order to mislead the United States authorities or the authorities of any other country. It was the year determined for comparison purposes.
May I, before I pass from that speech of Deputy Lemass—I dealt with some aspects of it before—refer to one typical sentence in it? He said:—
"Housing and health plans had been reduced in scope or delayed by incompetence."
Can Deputy Lemass seriously suggest that housing and health plans had been either reduced in scope or delayed by inefficiency? Before the change of Government Deputy Lemass and his colleagues, when on these benches, did, in fact, allow people to die year by year for want of treatment in sanatoria.
Not a brick has been put upon a brick.
775 beds were provided by the Minister for Health in the last year.
Not a brick has been put upon a brick.
Those 800 beds are now occupied by people who had been left without treatment and left to die in their own homes.
I know all about that.
The Deputy knows very little about it.
We know it in Cork.
Do you deny that these beds have been provided? Deputy Lemass, very unwisely for himself I think, proceeded to talk about Córas Iompair Éireann and asked why it was losing money. I can tell Deputy Lemass why Córas Iompair Éireann was losing money. The citizens of Dublin have only to look at the skyline over the Custom House at night to see why they have to pay increased fares——
Nonsense.
—— where £500,000 has been spent on the erection of a building which will be of no use and which will not add one penny to the revenue of the company.
Go down and look at the corrugated iron along the quays— something like a public lavatory— where people now have to wait for buses. Is that good enough for them?
That building was scheduled to cost approximately £500,000 and it is likely to cost £750,000 now. It is a sheer waste of money.
Nonsense.
It is a sheer waste at a time when the company is insolvent.
It is not insolvent yet.
You were paying its chairman £2,500, with £4,000 a year as an allowance—a total of £6,500. These are the reasons why that company is insolvent.
Is it in order for a Minister to attack a man who is not in a position to defend himself in this House—the ex-chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann?
I have not attacked the ex-chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann.
The Minister is not attacking the ex-chairman; he is dealing with money expended in connection with Córas Iompair Éireann.
I take it your ruling is that any reference to the chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann, past or present, is quite in order?
The Minister has been dealing with moneys expended in connection with Córas Iompair Éireann.
If we can discuss the past chairman of that company, we can discuss the present one, too.
I am not discussing any chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann, past or present. Deputy Lemass asked the question, why was Córas Iompair Éireann in such a bad position.
I did not.
I took a note of it— I have it here.
I asked why would not Ministers tell the truth to the public.
I am giving you the answer, and that answer is because Deputy Lemass sanctioned and encouraged the squandering of millions —literally millions—on unproductive schemes for Córas Iompair Éireann, of which that bus depôt near the Custom House is a typical example.
That represents a saving to Córas Iompair Éireann.
A saving? Spending £750,000 on a bus depôt represents a saving?
They will save money on it; ultimately it will mean a saving, because they will not have to continue paying so much in rent.
That is not true.
It is true, and the Minister will find that out in due course.
Will we be in order in discussing the management of Córas Iompair Éireann? The Minister is now discussing the management of Córas Iompair Éireann.
In so far as it relates to Industry and Commerce.
I put it to you that the Minister is discussing this matter, not in relation to Industry and Commerce, but in relation to the management of the concern.
He is relating it to the extent that the Government were responsible for certain things in connection with the management of Córas Iompair Éireann.
Deputy Lemass contemptuously referred to the Government appointing a group of Government nominees as directors of Córas Iompair Éireann. That remark comes ill from Deputy Lemass. Who were the directors of Córas Iompair Éireann and who was the chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann during Deputy Lemass's time, and who appointed him?
The Government appointed the chairman.
Very well. Then what is the use of referring to a bunch of Government nominees? Who appointed the last directors?
Deputy Lemass sought to take credit for the policy of the Government in reference to afforestation. It might have been well before he did so if he had read the speech made by his colleague, Deputy Moylan, a week or ten days ago in this House, where he admitted frankly that the Fianna Fáil policy had failed in respect of forestry, and where he stated that it was one of the faults of Fianna Fáil that they had done nothing about forestry.
That is an absurd statement.
I would like to bring members of the Dáil back to the time previous to the last election when a lot of people who voted for the present set-up thought they were going to enter the promised land. I think they realise by this that it was a land of promises they entered.
I am glad the Lord Mayor of Cork is listening to me because I want to speak about unemployment as it exists in Cork. In my opinion, the number of unemployed there was never greater than at the present time. Workers have been laid off in several factories within the past six months. Every Cork Deputy must admit that he has been repeatedly asked to try to get employment for young people and old people in the City of Cork. I am sure that Deputy Sheehan has been requested to do that as often as anybody else, and I am sure that he has to tell the people as often as any of us have to tell them that he does not know of any employment offering.
We have been told here about drainage schemes, river clearance schemes, for the country. That is no good to the unemployed in the City of Cork. What are the Government prepared to do for the unemployed in Cork City? The Minister for Defence is a Deputy for the city and I would like to know if he can offer any suggestion as to where we could put those people to work. Will he ask the Government to do anything so that those people can be employed and not have us forcing them out of the country? That is what they are doing every week.
I was in the American Consulate in Dublin last December, and I saw there a woman with six children who wanted to join her husband, who had gone to America 12 months before. She had been told she could not get away until February. There was an air of great activity over there, and when I saw the Consul he told me: "You can tell that lady that she may be able to get away by the middle of January, because we are stepping up production here." That is not a lie—that is the fact.
I put down a question a couple of weeks ago to the Minister for Defence about the repair of furniture in the Southern Command. I asked if it was a fact that it was being sent to Dublin for repair from all the stations in the Southern Command. The answer I got was that small repairs were done by a cabinet-maker in Cork but it was found more practicable to send major repairs to Dublin, where they had workshops equipped to cope with them.
That happened during your régime too.
Will you stop interrupting? You had to leave the House last week.
You do not know anything about the new Army.
The Minister told me that that had been going on for 25 years. We have a representative for Cork now as Minister for Defence. The people of Cork expect a little more from him. Irrespective of the fact that this practice was done over the last 25 years, the time has now come when the practice should be stopped. Surely, it should be possible to get the work done in a properly equipped workshop in Cork, instead of sending the stuff from Cork and Castletownbere all the way to Dublin. That is one of those small items which are helping in the aggregate to destroy the country.
It is irrelevant on this Vote on Account.
I want some information, too, on the recommendation made by Sir James Milne to remove the heavy workshops from Rocksavage. I hope that is not another effort to make a still bigger Dublin and a still smaller Cork and elsewhere. The sooner someone discovers a cure for the present epidemic of "Dublinitis" the better it will be for the country at large. We are completely unbalanced at the moment. It is all Dublin and nowhere else.
I am with you there anyhow.
A couple of weeks ago I was travelling up by train and I saw some members of the Emigration Commission coming up to Dublin on the same train. As far as I am aware it is not from Dublin the people are emigrating. I think it would be more appropriate if the commission sat in Kerry or Galway. I take it that the only reason why they sit in Dublin is in an endeavour to find out why the people are coming to Dublin.
Was there any Corkman coming up?
The unfortunate thing is that when you ship the work up here you must ship the men up likewise in order to do it for you. That is the trouble. I would like to draw attention to the increased cost of living because of the increased bus fares. These increases will cost an adult family of six members an extra £1 1s. per week. On to that must be added the 3/- per week that this family of six will have to pay in increased insurance contributions. The Government should do something in the matter. There has been a lot of criticism about one Minister saying one thing and another Minister saying something else. On the 9th of December I put down a question to the Minister for Defence with regard to a couple of clerks employed in Collins Barracks in Cork, and I pointed out that one of the men had neither Army nor Old I.R.A. service.
I allowed the Deputy to refer to the removal of repair work from Cork to Dublin even though that is a matter of purely Departmental administration and will arise on the Estimate for the Department concerned. What we are discussing now is general policy.
I want to point out, with your permission, that the answer I got was that the man in question had been a member of the L.D.F., and I was asked if I was going to treat the members of the L.D.F. as pariah dogs. I put down a question a couple of weeks ago with regard to a man employed in the Board of Works. He had offered himself for Army service but was rejected because of varicose veins. He spent seven years in the L.D.F. In his case the Minister very coolly told me that he had no Army service. Is it the case that a man need not have Army service if he is a supporter of Fine Gael?
I want to indicate to the Deputy that these are purely administrative matters and not for discussion on the question of policy.
It is a question of policy.
It is not a question of policy; it is a question of administration.
It is a question of policy in the filling of minor posts.
It is a question of administration and the Deputy will pass from it now. I have given him enough latitude.
I have said all I wanted to say.
You know the game.
I did not intend to speak about the Department of Health but I want to make a few comments because of the remarks made by the Minister for External Affairs. In the first six months of this Government we had nothing but plans and schemes with big headlines in the papers telling us what was going to be done by the Department of Health. I believe the Minister had the best intentions in the world when he started out. He visited Cork and we gave him a hospital in Mallow capable of accommodating 100 patients. But since that time nothing further has been done. Plans have been drawn up——
The Deputy must get it out of his head that everything connected with Cork comes under the heading of policy.
I am here representing Cork.
The Deputy will have his opportunity on the Estimates.
I have not done too badly. But we are being allowed to drift. Letters have been written to which we have got no replies.
The Deputy will pass from that. I will not have any more about it. The Deputy is not going to get past the Chair in that fashion.
I must say you have been lenient enough.
I think so.
I merely want to recall now the great promises that were made about the reduction in the cost of living, full employment and the building of hospitals. Deputy Lehane said on one occasion that the work would be done in two months. I think the people have had their eyes opened at last and I hope they will be given an opportunity, though not at our expense, of following the example set in Donegal.
I am in sympathy with the statement made by Deputy McGrath in relation to the unemployment problem in Cork. It is not to-day or yesterday, however, that this problem confronted this Government or any previous Government. If we all joined together for the working out of a better and happier economy we might go a long way towards solving this problem. I suggest to the Minister that the best help he could give in that direction would be to lower taxation. Taxation is a terrible drain on the industrialist as well as on the rank and file. If taxation is lowered more money will be available for capital expenditure and for industrial expansion. Those who pay income-tax will have more to spend on purchasing and will thereby bring about a better standard of living.
A good deal has been said about emigration. The people have always emigrated from this country to England, America, South Africa and all over the world. We are all proud of our emigrants. Even though they may be divided from us their heart is always in this country. Ours is a small island country. In rural Ireland, the children of farmers on small holdings who have families of six or eight must have an outlet somewhere. This country is too small to provide for all these people. They have been emigrating down the ages and they have made good in other countries. What can a farmer who owns 30 or 40 acres do for a family of nine or ten when they grow up? Some of them may come to Dublin, to enter the Civil Service, perhaps, but the majority of them have to go abroad, as there is room for only one on the farm. The same applies to families of labourers. I have listened to Deputies here advocating the division of large farms into smaller holdings of 20 or 30 acres. I think that is a policy that is altogether wrong, because a man can only get a bare existence on a farm of that size. The extension of agricultural production is, of course, a thing which appeals to many people. We were discussing it to-day coming up in the train and it was pointed out that if the Minister makes another 1,000,000 acres available, we shall have over-production. What then are we going to do with our surplus products? So far as the housing problem is concerned, I think the Minister for Local Government has done his share in trying to find a solution for that problem during the past 12 months. He has appealed to local authorities to do their utmost also and they are doing their best, but you cannot build houses overnight.
We have heard a lot of discussion about turf production, but I should like to point out that in Cork we have 50,000 tons of turf which have been lying there for the last two years and which are rapidly deteriorating. I suggest that it is madness for Deputies to say that we should have produced turf last year at the same rate as during the emergency. I am sure the Government has no objection to the people of rural districts producing as much turf as they want but, so far as I can see, the tendency in this, as in many other matters, is to look to the Government for everything. I think that the production of turf is largely a matter for private enterprise.
In conclusion, may I suggest that it would be much better for the country if, instead of bickering here across the floor, we pooled all our efforts to try to solve unemployment and to do some good for the country? I think it would be much better, too, if the membership of this House were reduced to 50 or 60 members. At present there are almost 150 members, each drawing a salary of over £600 with expenses. I think this House could do much more useful work if we had, say, two representatives for each county. That would mean a substantial reduction in the cost of Government and I think the country would be run much more efficiently.
The claim is made for the present Government that it has reduced the amount of the Estimates by £5,000,000 or £6,000,000. That represents, in comparison with last year's figures, a reduction of 1 in 14. The comment I have to make is that the services which were designed principally for the benefit of the poorest areas and the most depressed areas in the country, including my own constituency, had the figures reduced by 1 in 4. I think that is hardly fair. The Minister for Finance should have left the Estimates for services which benefited the people in those districts untouched and should have looked around in other directions for the economies which he thought it necessary to effect. The unexpected cessation of the production of turf hit those areas very seriously. I am not going to comment on that now further than to say that it was a very sudden blow and a very big blow and that it increased emigration almost immediately from these areas. I asked the Minister for Social Welfare for the figures in regard to the recipients of unemployment assistance in my own constituency last November and I was given the rather startling information— startling to me, in any event—that there were fewer people drawing unemployment assistance in my constituency last November than in November, 1947, and that a larger amount of unemployment assistance was being paid. To me, of course, the explanation was obvious because I knew that all the people who had no domestic ties, all the younger men, had left the area immediately employment on the turf scheme ceased, and that a larger number of small landholders came on the register. These people, having dependents, qualified for a larger amount of unemployment assistance. The amount paid was increased while the actual number receiving it had been reduced because there had been a big increase in emigration.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the contraction of the amount for the glass-house scheme, which, on the figures given recently by the Minister for Agriculture, was a very good scheme. If the public purse has to undertake certain expenses in connection with that scheme, I would put it to the Minister that it is much better to expend the money in that way than that we should pay it in unemployment assistance. It is a scheme which promises to become a paying one in a short time, even from the point of view of the national Exchequer.
Recently we had an announcement that another enterprise started by Fianna Fáil is to be terminated. I know the Minister will not agree when I say that it is going to be terminated. I refer to the sale of the Ballynahinch Hotel, which gives employment to about 50 people in that county. The people have benefited very considerably by the existence of that hotel. There is, I believe, nobody in the West who believes that a buyer who will run Ballynahinch Castle as a hotel will be found. I hope it will be possible to continue it as a hotel, but the prospects of people getting into the hotel business in the tourist areas, now that we are getting further away from the war, I am reliably informed, are very thin, indeed. I know of one tourist hotel in the West which is privately owned and which is already advertised for sale. There are rumours that another large hotel is also for sale. With that information in mind, it seems to me unlikely that the Government will be able to find a purchaser who will keep that hotel going and thereby guarantee employment to the people now employed. It is going to be a very serious loss to the district in which it is located. The majority of those employed are local people. They are married men and their condition is going to be so worsened that I cannot conceive of any public scheme which the Government can introduce which will put them in as good a position as they are in now.
The Deputy knows that the hotel lost money when the tourist trade was very big and the Deputy agrees that the tourist trade is going to go down. Is the suggestion that the hotel should be kept on, losses or not?
Here is the suggestion I want to make to the Minister. These hotels were designed for the purpose of getting foreign visitors and gaining foreign currency for the country. I understand that that means of getting foreign currency is adopted in other countries, notably Switzerland, and that, even if there is a loss, the national Exchequer believes it is well paid if the earnings of the hotels are in foreign currency.
Do you mean sterling.
Even in sterling.
We have far too much sterling.
Last year the Minister regretted that we had spent too heavily of our sterling assets in 1947. I think he complained in his Budget statement that we had overspent.
I do not like to get further assets at a very serious loss. I would not call that good business.
If the results of the last war are to be removed and the world is to get back to peace, surely it is reasonable to expect that whatever sterling assets we have will be convertible into the other currencies which we require.
But we lost money on that hotel—at least the board did and they did not get much in the way of dollars.
Did they get sterling?
Yes, but they spent more than they got.
What did they do before this hotel was established?
Why should we keep on a hotel which had losses at a time when every boarding-house in the country was making money?
Why should not the Deputy be allowed to speak without interruption?
A Deputy asked what did they do before this hotel was established. That is the cause of the complaint we are making.
The previous Government improved the lot of the people and now they are to revert to the bad condition in which they were before. The position was had before and it should now be made as bad as it was. That is the genesis of the complaint which we have on this side of the House in regard to this matter. Apparently that is the outlook so far as the West is concerned.
Would the Deputy approve of building another half a dozen hotels to be run at a loss?
The principle stated by the Minister for Industry and Commerce was that it is not the business of the Government to provide money for the tourist hotels.
That is sound.
That was going on for years without anybody taking any notice. These hotels were operated by a State-subsidised organisation.
And all of them lost money.
When money was lost on the operation by a transport concern nobody said anything about it, but because the Tourist Board operated hotels, objection is taken immediately to it. Deputy Sheehan made a great many statements to which I believe a great many people on that side of the House would take exception. It seems to me that if we had not the organisation of Parties in the country which we have had we would have a much different alignment of representation in this House from what we had even in the Fianna Fáil time. Anyone who read Deputy Commons' speech last week will find that, making due allowance for his artificial opposition to Fianna Fáil, the sentiments he expressed are the same as are expressed by other Western Deputies in this House. I want to congratulate Deputy Commons on his honesty in saying that he is not satisfied that his own side of the House has shown any earnest that they are going to make any more progress in solving the problems of the West than has been the case in the past. We want to find out, for instance, what the Government are going to do in the matter of providing money for land settlement. I know that complaint has been made that too much land is being divided, that it is a pity to divide any more, and that, in any event, if you give people 20 or 25 acres you are not going to give them an economic living. What Deputy Commons and myself and a lot of other people from the West put forward against that point of view is that, in any event, you give them the means of keeping body and soul together, of getting a sustenance from the land which they cannot get from the bogs and the rocks where they are huddled together at present. The people who have been migrated from the West and given small farms have, on the figures given by the Land Commission, increased enormously the production of the food that human beings require. Even if their families have to emigrate, they have had the advantage of having been well fed, well housed, and well clothed during their early years. If that consideration does not appeal to the average Deputy, I want to tell him that the Deputies from the West place a great deal of store by it.
I should like to find out from some Minister what the policy of the Government is going to be in relation to that matter. I am not asking this Government, any more than I asked the last Government, to take all the congests in the West and bring them up to the good lands. I do say, however, that the problem ought to be tackled and that relief ought to be given. I do ask that the worst places in the West should get more assistance. A whole lot of other schemes in relation to the congested areas—housing schemes, land reclamation, and various things of that sort—are of no use to people whose lands are to be rearranged. If there is a townland where the Land Commission has yet to carry out rearrangement work, the people living there cannot get a grant for a new house. These people are condemned to live on in hovels simply because the public authority, the Land Commission, will not do its work or will not say that it is not going to do this job at all. We asked the last Government and we want this Government to declare the extent to which this problem is going to be tackled, the number of people that the Land Commission intends to migrate and the places from which it is going to be done. I do not think it is beyond the powers of the Land Commission to give that information.
That would be a matter for the Estimate on Lands.
All I want to put to the Minister is that he ought to consider, if it is necessary to finance a large scheme of land settlement by floating a loan, raising the necessary finance for this matter in that way.
I do not like to refer on this Vote to anything that seems to be purely politics, but I cannot pass by a speech that I heard last week from a Deputy on that side. I think it was Deputy Cowan. He said that for the first time we now had peace and order in the country and that he, for one, although he had broken away from his own Party would not give his vote to put this Government out and the last Government in. He went on to say that if Fianna Fáil were returned to power there would again be in the country disorder and disturbance. That seems to me a very strange statement to make and, in view of the statement of the Taoiseach with regard to the difference between the position under Fianna Fáil before the External Relations Act came into operation and the position since the Republic of Ireland Act, it seems a very strange thing that any Deputy should prophesy that any Party would be justified in creating conditions of disorder and disturbance if Fianna Fáil were returned to power. Is it not being made the case that whatever disorder did exist in the past, whatever lack of peace there was, was due to the fact that the people kept Fianna Fáil there by their votes and that there would not be any peace or any order in the country until the people changed their minds and put them out?
If the people again in the next election decide that they are going to put back Fianna Fáil will these people feel justified again in creating these conditions of disorder and disruption for the purpose of bringing duress on the people to change the Government? Does the argument not boil down to the fact that the peace was established simply because the people put out Fianna Fáil? The Deputy who made that speech also seemed to take great exception to any criticisms being offered to the present Government. He particularly attacked the one organ of expression in the country—the Irish Press—which does criticise the Government. It seems to me that any man who objects to one newspaper out of the great number we have in the country, both daily and weekly, criticising the Government has a totalitarian attitude in that he wants a single Party in the country. I hope that we have departed from that outlook for a very long time. That type of attitude has brought enough destruction to the world and I hope that the satisfactory position in that regard which exists between the Opposition and the Government will be continued and that whatever criticism is offered by the Opposition and by Opposition organs will be lumped if it is not liked. I think it is best for the peace and order of the country that it should be so and that no Deputy of this House will succeed in introducing any type of totalitarianism here.
Tá an scéal níos measa i gConamara ná mar a bhí sé le fada an lá. Tá gné nua den imirce le tabhairt faoi deara, sé sin, go bhfuil muiríní ag díol a gcuid talún agus ag bailiú leo as an tír. At ndóigh ní tharlaíonn sé sin go dtí go mbí an dochas féin leáite.
I should like to say at the outset that I welcome very much the fact that the Minister, notwithstanding all the difficulties with which he has had to contend during the past year, has been in a position to reduce taxation so far as the coming year is concerned. That is a fact that should be welcomed by all Deputies of this House because I think it is fairly well agreed that high taxation is not good for industry or for increased production, especially as this is a very small country with limited resources. It cannot be compared with any of the other countries in the world. It is good to see that the Minister has thought fit to cut the cloth according to the measurement. On an occasion like this it would be well to take stock of the present position in the country, especially so far as the future is concerned. I think we should realise at once that Acts of Parliament or the making of speeches or criticising one another are not going to increase production in this country. That can only be done by hard work and efficiency and the sooner we recognise that fact the better. I can speak with a certain amount of contentment on this Vote for the simple reason that I think I cannot be charged with criticising the previous Government or accused of making rash promises during the previous election. I think we should forget all about that. Everybody makes certain promises during an election and hopes to fulfil them. He will do his best to fulfil them but if he cannot, that is that. It is about time that the present Government got a little consideration from the Deputies opposite. They have only been in office for 12 months and surely things cannot be that bad after 16 years of as successful a Government as Fianna Fáil was, according to themselves. They are unconsciously blowing sky high their own case by stating that the country is bankrupt. Deputy O'Reilly stated in the Dáil last week that in County Meath 40 per cent. of the farmers were leaving the land and on the verge of starvation.
I said that 40 per cent. of the grassland is not now set. That is a fact. I further said that there were people on the verge of starvation.
That, I said to myself, is nonsense. Deputy O'Reilly is hardly fair to his own Government after 16 years to say that the people of Meath after one short 12 months should be on the verge of starvation. Let us be a bit realistic on an occasion like this and not try to score one over the other. We are all pledged to do the best we can for the country. The outlook for this and other countries at the moment is not just as promising as it was ten or 11 years ago and the sooner we recognise that fact the better. During the last eight or ten years we have been, like a fly in the summer time, basking in the sunshine of prosperity, but an economic blizzard has come now, and that would be there, no matter what Government was in power. There is no use in the Deputies opposite trying to create consternation in the country by the mere fact that half a dozen men were dismissed from their employment. That will always happen. We have always had unemployment here, and I have said so many a time during the last 20 years in this House. No matter what Government is in power, you will always have a certain amount of unemployment.
As regards the various Ministers and their efforts during the past year, I do not intend to say much. The Minister for Industry and Commerce will, I am certain, do his best, just as his predecessor did, to foster existing industries and help in the creation of new ones. That is his job. He is the Minister not only of the Parties represented in this Government, but of the Irish people as a whole, including the Deputies on the far side. We have then that much abused Minister, the Minister for Agriculture. He, too, I think, is doing his best in the interests of the farmers, but his work, too, will take time.
The Fianna Fáil Deputies seem to think that the Minister for Agriculture is going out of his way to do things that militate against the best interests of the farmers. Now, I come from a county in which mixed farming is carried on very extensively. Like other members of the House, I meet many farmers from time to time, and I must say that in the County Louth I have heard no undue criticism either of the work of the Department of Agriculture or of the Government as a whole. I cannot understand where some Deputies get their information. They seem to meet people who are always complaining. It may be that those people are different from the people of the County Louth. I know that, as far as the farmers in Louth are concerned, and indeed farmers all over the country, the position is this, that while there may be certain things about which they are a bit annoyed at the moment, their income does not seem to have decreased to any appreciable extent last year as compared with previous years. I want to substantiate that statement by referring to the statements made by the various chairmen at the annual meetings of the joint stock banks. I am sure nobody will suggest that they are telling lies or making false reports. It will be seen from these annual reports that the deposits in the banks were greater last year than during any previous year. In view of the fact that agriculture is our chief industry, one must assume that a great part of those moneys put on deposit came from the farmers. We should be all proud of that fact and should not try to minimise it. Neither should we criticise the Minister because of the fact that a particular person happens to be in that position at the moment.
So far as I can see production seems to have increased considerably in many spheres of agriculture. Poultry is a case in point. That is an industry that has always yielded a considerable income the whole year round. The production of poultry has increased to such a large extent that I understand the L.M.S. have had to put on extra cargo boats to meet the demands of the export trade. That is so far as poultry is concerned.
And eggs.
The same is true of eggs. I am sure that a great many people who supported Fianna Fáil at the last election, and were entitled to do so, have benefited from this increased production of eggs and poultry because they knew it was good business. The Minister for Agriculture, realising his responsibilities, is, I think, doing his best. Deputies must agree that so far as he, personally, is concerned he is a hard worker. I do not think his labours are confined to eight hours a day, judging by the close attention he gives to the work of his Department. I think that if he and the other Ministers receive the co-operation which they are entitled to, especially in the case of many schemes which are contemplated and are calculated to increase the productivity of the country, much good can be done for the country. I hope that those schemes will, at least, get the tentative co-operation of the Party opposite and of their supporters in the country. If that is done, much more employment will be provided for the people. I think the Ministers are entitled to that co-operation.
Deputies should remember that we have millions of acres of land going to waste. If they help schemes for the reclamation of that land, so that it may be brought into production, then they will be doing the work they were sent here by the people to do. I think it is bad policy to be magnifying any little shortcomings that there may be in this or in any other Government.
Take housing. I think there has been undue criticism of the policy pursued by the present Minister. In my opinion he is doing his best. I ask Deputies to remember that, even if the country were full of money, we could not build one extra house. We have first to wait for the skilled labour required to do so. That is true, no matter what Minister or what Government is in power. I think Deputy T. Brennan would bear me out on that. It is not a question of money but of getting men to erect the houses. There is only one factor that will solve the housing problem, and that factor is time. It is important to remember that Fianna Fáil, during the greater part of its régime, was engaged in building houses for people who had houses that were not fit to live in. In other words, for every house they built they knocked down one. That is the explanation of the fact that despite all the houses that have been built there still is a scarcity.
The housing problem, as I say, will be solved in time no matter what Government is in power—in one, two, or three years. I do not think it is good policy, because you have a boom in a particular industry for one or two years, that you should take thousands and thousands of people into it, and then at the end have a slump. We had an example of that in the case of the turf industry. As regards housing, we all know that we are not complete masters of the situation here. There are many things required for houses that we have to import. We had shortages during late years.
As regards the position we occupy internationally, I think that our Minister for External Affairs did excellent work during the past year, as did his predecessor. I think we can congratulate ourselves on the position in which the country finds itself at the moment. I do not intend to say much about unemployment. I have expressed my views on it on many occasions in this House. I think that problem will be solved to a certain extent when all, including the workers, recognise that this is a small, poor country, and that it can give a certain standard of living to the majority of its people. We may then be on the road to the solution of the unemployment problem. It will be very difficult, almost impossible, without general co-operation.
The Leader of Fianna Fáil said in this House that he saw no reason why this country would not support 9,000,000 people. I shook my head, because I knew that after a bit he would more or less have to amend that statement. He did so, and all credit to him. It will require the co-operation of everyone in this country to solve unemployment. There is no use in magnifying small aspects, such as a few men being dismissed here and a few being dismissed there. In the building trade we did not wait to be sacked and we did not go to a Minister or a Deputy to complain. We set our chins and took the road to look for another job.
I deplore the tendency in this country lately of people sending word to the Minister to know what he will do because so many men have been dismissed in a particular job. The less a Government interferes with the ordinary affairs of our people the better. Let the people use their own initiative and enterprise and you will find this country will be much better off in the course of a few years. We have to sink or swim together, and make no mistake about that. It does not matter what Government is in power; we have to help one another. This Government in the main will make progress in accordance with the assistance it gets, not alone from those who support it but from Deputies on the opposite benches and above all from the people generally throughout the country.
I listened carefully to Deputy Coburn. He suggested that Deputies on this side of the House should not talk about unemployment and emigration, should not magnify the evils that exist in the country to-day. It is a great pity that Government Deputies did not take up that attitude during the last general election when they attacked Fianna Fáil and tried to persuade the people that the Fianna Fáil Government was responsible for unemployment and emigration and other attendant evils. It now appears, since there has been a change of Government, that we cannot talk about these things at all. The fact of the matter is that there never was such unemployment and never such emigration.
The Deputy should study the 1938 figures. They would be more apt.
The Deputy should permit me to speak; he is very good at interruptions. There was talk about the twin evils of unemployment and emigration. I think it is right to bring to the notice of the Government that these twin evils are greater to-day than they were at any time and the Government apparently has no solution for them.
I have risen particularly to point out to the House that there is a reduction of £20,000 in the Gaeltacht Estimate for Seirbhísí na Gaeltachta. I cannot understand why that is the case, why there is such a reduction in the Gaeltacht Estimate and an increase of £20,000 in the Estimate for the External Affairs Department. I know that it is necessary for this country to follow the trend of external affairs and to play its part in any deliberations and activities that take place between the nations, but I believe that it is much more important for us to look after the interests of the weakest section of our community before we expand our provision for the Estimate for External Affairs.
The people living in the Gaeltacht are the weakest section of the community and any Government in power here should see to it that there is provision made to assist those people. There was a time when there was a Parliamentary Secretary in charge of Seirbhísí na Gaeltachta. I still believe that there should be a Parliamentary Secretary, if not a Minister, in charge of that service.
When was it changed?
That is another matter. Whether there is a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary in charge of Seirbhísí na Gaeltachta I do not see any justification for a reduction of £20,000. But that is not the whole story. There are other reductions in the Book of Estimates which I hold are completely unjustifiable. They affect the people of the Gaeltacht and the welfare of the Irish language. We have, for instance, a reduction of no less than £64,000 for the glass-house scheme.
We know all about that.
We do not know all about it, because the Minister for Agriculture has given us no information, and neither has the Minister for Finance.
Your own Minister said it was only nonsense.
When a question was put to the Minister for Agriculture as to whether the glass-house scheme, as it is called, was a success, he said the time had not yet arrived to make a comment. "It is too soon," he said, "to make any comment on the glass-house scheme in the Gaeltacht." It is a pity the Minister did not take up that attitude earlier; at the time when he said that the scheme was a flop and when he called it an exotic scheme. We are still without information as to whether the Government propose to continue the scheme. I am afraid we are inclined to be sceptical when we see that the Estimate has been reduced by no less than £64,000.
There is also in that Book of Estimates a reduction of £3,000 in the scheme which provides grants for Irish-speaking families in the Gaeltacht. There is a reduction of £4,000 in the amount to be made available for Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge. If we add these reductions together—the reduction of £20,000 in the Estimate itself, the reduction of £64,000 for the erection of glass-houses in the Gaeltacht, the reduction of £3,000 for Irishspeaking families and £1,000 for Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge—we get a grand total of £91,000. It seems to me that the policy of the present Government is to forget about the Gaeltacht and to reduce the Estimates relating both to the Gaeltacht and the Irish language. The moneys so saved may be used for other purposes, but if so, I think that is a bad policy. We all acknowledge that the problem of the Gaeltacht is one that should be tackled. We all believe, or profess to believe, that the people of the Gaeltacht have first claim on our consideration. But we are now reducing the Estimate for that particular service which deals with the Gaeltacht. I think that is an indefensible step.
I cannot understand why the Estimate for the Department of External Affairs should be increased by £20,000. When the Minister is replying, I would like him to give some justification for that increase. I think it would be better for us to keep our eyes on the problems affecting us here at home before we concern ourselves too much with problems abroad.
There are a few other matters to which I would like to advert in connection with this Vote on Account. Reference has been made to unemployment in rural Ireland. The problem of emigration has been mentioned. Lest anybody might think that we refer to these things for political motives, I would like to quote from an independent paper to show the magnitude of the problem and give the House some idea of what the position is in certain parts of rural Ireland. So great has been the increase in unemployment along the western seaboard and especially in the county that I have the honour to represent that The Kerryman thought it advisable to send one of their staff reporters to find out for himself what conditions are. I have here a report published on the 11th December, only a couple of months ago. As far as my knowledge goes, the position is even worse to-day. Yet, the present Government seems to ignore the position. Here is an extract from the report.
What area does it deal with?
Kerry, and Killorglin especially. Here is what the staff reporter found. He found that practically every family in a district adjacent to Killorglin town and extending roughly over five square miles is dependent for existence on remittances sent by relatives in England.
How long are they in England?
The Deputy will ignore interruptions.
I did not hear the interruption, and I do not know what it was.
Cad is ainm do'n phaipéar?
"An Chiarraíoch." It can hardly be said that The Kerryman is prejudiced against the present Government. Yet this is what the staff reporter found: “In a district adjacent to Killorglin town and extending roughly to five square miles a Kerryman staff reporter this week investigated the conditions under which approximately 10,000 people live and was appalled by the conditions he found existing. He found that practically every family in the area is dependent for existence on remittances sent by relatives from England; that the people were fatalistically accepting the fact that when the youngsters at present at school grow up they too will emigrate and that meanwhile many mouths have to be filled and are being filled with limited rations of bread, tea and potatoes. Meat is a luxury here among these people who during the war years worked on turf schemes estimated to be worth £120,000. We went into cottages at random. The cottages in every case are clean and neatly kept. The children, and they are many, bright and intelligent. There was no complaining here—just a longing that something might be done to provide them with employment at home. A 20-year-old boy who, like every other boy and girl I spoke to, said he was going to England, told me ‘If I could get a job at home I would stay.‘” That is the condition of affairs.
What is true of County Kerry, which I represent, is equally true of many other counties along the western seaboard. There is no work for the people there and they have to emigrate. Emigration is more rife in these counties now than it has ever been. When is the present Government going to bring its plan for stopping emigration into operation? That is the plan we were told about in the last general election. It is about time we heard something more about it. This is not my own statement; therefore, it cannot be said that I am doing this for political purposes. I am giving the House what an independent reporter found for himself. I am giving the House a description of the conditions as he found them. The sooner the Government turns its attention to the people living in these areas the better. I do not know whether any reference has been made so far—if there has I did not hear it— to the question of the price of milk delivered to creameries. I am sure Deputy Madden takes a very keen interest in this question.
Deputy McGrath is glad to hear about this too.
I remember when the last Budget was introduced by the present Minister, Deputy Madden advocated an increase in the price of milk but, so far as I know, the Minister for Finance turned a deaf ear to it. Deputies have been approaching the Minister for Agriculture since and, so far as I can recollect, one deputation made such an impression on the Minister that the Minister was forced to admit that they had a very good case but still there appears to be——
May I point out that that is not quite accurate? The Minister did not express any opinion whatever on the case but he said that he would represent the case as it was put to him to the Executive Council. He expressed no opinion himself. Another Deputy spoke here this afternoon in regard to this matter but I was not in the House to contradict him. The Minister gave no specific promise but said that he would put the case as represented to him to the Executive Council for consideration.
I am thankful to the Deputy for the correction. If I do not mistake, the Deputy was a member of the deputation.
I would suggest that both Deputy madden and Deputy Kissane will have their opportunity to debate this matter on the Estimate for Agriculture, much more relevantly than now.
I agree and I am not going to pursue the matter except to say that the time has come when the milk position should be reviewed.
I thought the Deputy had no more to say on that matter.
I am not going to labour the point. I have said, and I say again, that it appears to me that the present Government are not taking an interest in Gaeltacht problems. Instead of finding a reduction of £20,000 in the Estimate for the Gaeltacht and a reduction of £64,000 for other schemes in connection with the Gaeltacht, we should find an increase if we want to help the people there to exist. I hope that other Deputies who have been listening to my remarks on this question will voice their opinions, because I believe they will say with me, that it is not right to make the weakest section of the community suffer because of this drive for economy.
There is no decrease in employment arising out of the Estimate.
There is a decrease in the Estimate for the Gaeltacht.
Because the stuff that is being bought is cheaper.
If the Department was lucky enough to buy stuff cheaper, it should not, because of that, reduce the Estimate.
What does the Deputy suggest I should do?
I am saying that anyone going into the figures for the Gaeltacht must come to the conclusion that the Estimate is being reduced.
If you buy the same quantity of material at a lower price, you are not reducing the Estimate by cutting down the price.
Does that apply to everything in the Gaeltacht—to the glass-houses, for instance?
The glass-houses are only a cod.
Does the Minister tell us that?
Your own Minister said it.
He never said any such thing.
He did. He said that it was all nonsense.
I repeat that he never said any such thing. That is all I have to say in the matter.
As Deputy Kissane began by referring to the Gaeltacht, I think that perhaps I had better deal with the same question because I represent a Gaeltacht area too. I wonder what his Party did for the Gaeltacht during their period of office. The principal industry in the Gaeltacht would be fishing, and it is the one industry that should have been developed in order to give the people full employment. Yet during all that time, it cannot be contradicted that the fishing industry was entirely neglected. In fact, when this Government took over, it found that the fishermen had no proper gear, scarcely any boats of value and everything was in a deplorable state. Had it not been for the war years, when whatever fish they were able to catch carried a good price, the fishermen in that area would have been drawing unemployment benefit. As a matter of fact, owing to some regulation of the Fianna Fáil Government, they could not even do that. However, that matter has been rectified.
Since the present Minister for Agriculture has taken over control of fisheries, he has made wonderful improvements and has enabled fishermen to get boats and gear on a 20 per cent. deposit whereas under the Fianna Fáil Government, they had to make a 50 per cent. deposit. In fact, the Minister has been so good to the fishermen in the various areas that any fisherman who had proved himself industrious and paid up all his loans in previous years, will not be left without a boat or gear even though at present he may not be able to make any deposit. I think that is a wonderful advantage.
It can be shown by statistics supplied by the Sea Fisheries Asociation that during the past year fishermen have made more money out of their catches and have been more successful than they have been for many years past.
As regards unemployment in the Gaeltacht, there is always a certain amount of unemployment everywhere, and it is no new thing to hear of unemployment in these congested areas. The problem goes back, I suppose, to the time of Cromwell when he pushed the people from the rich lands back amoung the mountains of Kerry and Connaught. The only way they can ever be made prosperous is by removing as many as possible and giving them land where land is available. Emigration has been going on in these areas since the famine years. That is supposed to be the first cause of emigration and we find that down through the years it continued. But, statistics will show that in the year in which the Fianna Fáil Government took office 11,000 more people came into this country than left it. It was only when the so-called economic war started and people could not get a living at home, especially on the land, that emigration started again. Once anything like that starts, when people go away they entice other people at home to follow them. I suppose they paint bright pictures of entertainments and so on in foreign countries. They have a certain amount of money and, for the time being, until perhaps they settle down in life, everything looks bright and prosperous and so others follow them. I know some people in my area, even in Gaeltacht sections of it, who had a good living wage at home and decent employment and yet they gave it up and actually used every means to get released by the labour exchange so that they could go to England or to the United States. Emigration is a rather difficult problem and it will be very difficult to solve and to entice people to turn their minds from foreign countries and settle down at home.
Deputy Kissane read an extract from The Kerryman of 11th December. A staff reporter was reported to have visited that area. As a matter of fact, he was not a staff reporter attached to The Kerryman. He was taken there deliberately by a Fianna Fáil county councillor to write that article. If Deputy Kissane had referred to an article in The Kerryman of the 19th March by a real staff reporter, he would find a very different account of the conditions in that particular area and the whole of South Kerry. I shall not delay the House by giving quotations from it. It is remarkable that Deputy Kissane should pick on that article and not refer to the other.
When the previous Government increased the ordinary housing grants, they forgot to increase the grants for the building of houses in the Gaeltacht. The Minister for Lands recently introduced a Bill which increases these grants for housing in the Gaeltacht not only up to the maximum for ordinary housing, but £25 beyond it. Therefore, I think that, on the whole, ample provision is being made for the people of the Gaeltacht. I understand, of course, that they cannot be made as prosperous as those living on the rich land throughout the country, but, as time goes on and the fishing industry is further developed, I am confident that the people in the Gaeltacht will have cause to be grateful to the present Government.
Anybody listening to the doleful tales of Deputies opposite would think that because they are not in office this country is heading for doom. Deputy Lemass spoke of the distortion by Ministers of information issued by officials of their Departments. In a speech recently in Fermoy he deliberately charged the Minister for External Affairs with submitting wrong information to the United States Government which may be the means of getting for this country greater help under the European Recovery Programme than that to which it would otherwise be entitled. An ex-Minister making a statement like that is really guilty of blackmailing the Government and, to a certain extent, the people of the country.
Deputy Aiken's mind appears to be centred on oats, flax and potatoes. If he had ordinary intelligence it would help him to understand matters of a political and economic nature. The estimate given to him by Ministers regarding agricultural products should satisfy him, as it has satisfied the people of the country. The Deputy manages to forget those agricultural products and the manner of their disposal. He is filled with the fantastic idea that we have illegal organisations in this country. He forgets the time when he himself was connected with these and perhaps he should be the very last man in this House to refer to them.
No matter what Deputies on the opposite side say, the people are perfectly satisfied with practically everything that has been done by the present Government since they came into office. It is a matter of comfort to the taxpayers to find that, for the first time since the establishment of the State, there has been a reduction of taxation. Ever since 1922 it has been mounting up gradually year after year and especially during the period of office of Fianna Fáil. Last year the Minister for Finance managed to reduce it by something between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000. This year, in spite of the increased social services and various other commitments which were handed down to him by the previous Government, it must be a massive satisfaction to the Government's supporters and the people of the country that he was able to bring about that reduction in taxation. I would suggest that if the Fianna Fáil Party had been in power this year the carrying-out of these schemes—land settlement, shortwave stations, turf schemes, the producing of turf for which there was no market—would have increased the taxation of the unfortunate people of this country to about £100,000,000. Notwithstanding all that the opposite Deputies say, the people of this country have an entirely new outlook since the change of Government. I think it is, perhaps, because of that and because of the improvement in the people's condition that the Fianna Fáil Party knows it is losing power in the country, that they have become so soured and are making statements which are anything but the truth. They have a habit recently of starting whispering campaigns, knowing that the people in their innocence may believe them. You can understand the people of this country do not always read the daily papers and the weekly papers and, therefore, it is very easy to make them believe things that are not true. However, they know that they need no longer have any fear of expressing their views, no matter what they are, and that there will be no victimisation of any kind. That was not the case formerly, I am sorry to say. I have had good experience of it. If a man in employment—a postman, ganger or road worker—at any time said anything in opposition to the Government he was a marked man and very soon his position was filled by somebody more sympathetic to the views of Fianna Fáil.
If I may refer to some statements made about Government policy I should like to mention the policy of members of the Opposition and in particular Opposition leaders, in making statements either in this country or in foreign countries during their visits which may be in conflict with Government policy. For instance, Deputy de Valera, as was reported in an American paper, stated in Los Angeles, when he was asked if Partition were abolished would he be willing that the Government in Belfast be allowed to function, that he would, provided that the powers of the English Government were transferred to the Irish Government.
I do not think that Partition arises on this.
I should like to say that, on the whole, people are quite pleased with the present Government and I think their hope is that it will be many years to come before Fianna Fáil will come back into office. After all, they can now look out into a free clear atmosphere where they can feel sure of having perfect freedom of speech, freedom from want and freedom from fear.
I congratulate the Minister for Agriculture in making his one conversion in this House in the person of the Lord Mayor of Cork. I think he is about the only Deputy in this House who subscribes to the rancher outlook of the present Minister for Agriculture. The Lord Mayor of Cork stated there were too many people on the land. A typical city outlook. I hope that the day will not come when we have a Dáil in this country, as outlined by the Lord Mayor of Cork here to-night, of 65 Deputies with the same views and outlook as the present Minister for Agriculture and himself. In any event, I think it would be an impossibility. I do not believe that if you searched all the zoos in the world you would get 65 of the species.
The present Minister for Agriculture has set out deliberately to turn this country into a cattle ranch for Britain. He has set out deliberately to discourage tillage, to grow more grass, to produce cheaper and more meat for the British market. It was not sufficient to warn the Minister at the time that he negotiated the trade agreement that the British always buy in the cheapest market and that if there is an alternative market cheaper than ours the British will avail of it. That has always been their policy and that is their present-day policy. If the cattle population in other countries which used to compete with us in the British market were up to standard to-day and they could buy there more cheaply, they certainly would not buy from us. The present Minister missed the greatest opportunity of any Minister of any Government in this country of providing employment here and of providing a permanent market for the export of beef from this country. For the first time in the history of this State he had the opportunity of having our live stock slaughtered here, thereby giving the employment that is now given in Birkenhead and elsewhere. He was in the position that he represented a State that had an exportable surplus of meat when the whole of Europe was looking for meat. This matter could not be tackled before because we were dependent more or less on the British market due to our long economic history with Britain, and if they closed down on us as they did during the economic war they could penalise us to a certain degree. However, the present Minister for Agriculture was in the position that he had ample markets for his product. If the British did not want our cattle dead there were various other countries that would take our meat and he let that opportunity slip.
He then came into the House a couple of nights ago and attempted to perpetrate one of the greatest political frauds that were ever attempted in this House. He tried to put over on the Irish housewife that 2/6 a dozen for eggs is better than 3/-. We have been listening to the Minister for Agriculture throughout the last 12 months asking the people to produce more eggs and saying that the more eggs produced the greater the price that would be available. We listened to him when he invited himself to a meeting of the Mayo County Committee of Agriculture recently when he assured the people there, publicly, that the more eggs produced the more money they could get. Can anybody explain why the Minister for Agriculture has accepted this reduction of 6d. a dozen in the price of eggs?
What about next year's price?
Is there any logical reason why the Minister should accept that price? A price of 3/- a dozen was guaranteed under the previous régime. The Minister attempted in the House the other night, in order to cover up his own failure, to put over the idea that a firm bargain was made whereby, at the expiration of a two years' period or on exhaustion of the money supplied for this egg and poultry scheme, we were committed to sell our eggs to Britain at 20/- per great 100. That is an absolute untruth and the Minister knows that quite well. He said here last week:—
"However in 1950 a new price would have to be negotiated and the only assurance we have for that year is that it will not be less than 20/-per long 100 which is about the equivalent of 1/6 a dozen."
What it means to the producer is not material. The fact is that the Minister tried to twist the position under the previous trade agreement in this way that we were committed to sell our eggs after a period of two years at 20/- per long 100. The fact is that we have other markets than Britain. There is Spain for example. When the Minister went over recently he should have known that he was not tied to the British market. Under the agreement negotiated by his predecessor this country was not committed to sell to the British at all after the two year period, or as soon as the amount of money provided by way of subsidisation for this scheme was exhausted. I think I know the real reason why the price of eggs has been reduced by the Minister under the recent trade agreement. The British put up £1,350,000 for this scheme and our Government had to put up a similar amount. Is it because the Minister for Finance has refused to give the Minister for Agriculture the proportionate amount of money to subsidise the scheme on this side that the price has been reduced? I believe that is the true reason why the Minister for Agriculture was forced to go over and accept 2/6 per dozen for Irish eggs after guaranteeing publicly in written articles and notably in the article published in P.E.P. last May, that the more eggs the Irish housewife produced the more money would be available for her. Our egg producers have got a rude awakening in this matter as well as in many others from the present Minister for Agriculture.
A few nights ago, when complaints were made here about the price of milk and the condition of the dairying industry, the Minister for Agriculture tried to flood us with statistics to prove something that everybody knows to be untrue. I am not concerned with the dairying industry because we have no creameries in our part of the country, but there is a problem there that is prevalent in every town in the West of Ireland. The position there is that it is impossible to get milk. Milk is rationed in virtually every town in the County Mayo that I am familiar with. I can tell the Minister that, during the last month, there were several prosecutions for black marketing milk in Westport. Does he think that we live in the moon, or that the consumers of milk in those towns are going to pay more than the fixed price for it if there is milk available for them to buy, or if there is competition between milk producers? The fact is that the Minister's policy is driving dairy farmers out of production in the West of Ireland. These farmers have to meet increased costings and increased wages. All costs in connection with the milk industry have been increased, and yet the Minister has refused to do anything about the matter.
The position is that the unfortunate people in the towns there have to take a pint of milk where they expected to get a quart because the dairy farmers have been driven out of production and are not in a position to meet the demand. I do not know what the Minister proposes to do about that. If he thinks that by coming into the House and by waving his arms, as he did the other night, he can put over the statement that there is no such thing as a scarcity of milk in the country he is just fooling.
He also told us that there was an increase in pig production. In 1947, before ever he became Minister for Agriculture, every curing company in the country knew that, once feeding stuffs became available, the pig population was going to increase and was, in fact, on the increase. Everybody connected with the bacon industry and with the production of pigs knows that the production of pigs in any one year is based on the sow service of the previous year. The margin of error in regard to that is never more than 10 per cent. The Pigs and Bacon Commission could have told the Minister that, and I am sure they did. The sow service of the previous year indicated that we were going to have more pigs, and, goodness knows that was needed, since under the Minister's policy the bottom had fallen out of the market for oats and potatoes. The pigs are there and there will be more of them. The Minister was informed over 12 months ago by the people in the industry that the bacon requirements of the country would be met and that the chances were that we would have an exportable surplus even by the end of this year. He quoted figures the other night to show that once Deputy James Dillon walked into the seat of the Minister for Agriculture pigs would suddenly multiply at the wave of his wand, and that suddenly we would have the pigs producing bonhams and bacon porkers. One, of course, knows that is all codology. All that one has to do is to point out the falsity of those figures, especially to city Deputies who may not understand the position as well as those of us who come from the country.
I would like to point out that the first great fraud perpetrated by the present Government on the people of this country was the promise that was made on the abolition of the turf scheme. In the area that I represent, when that scheme was in operation, the people were getting as much as £200,000 a year for hand-won turf, and we had over 5,000 people employed. When those people were thrown out of employment we were told that work would be provided for them on the roads. The Minister for Local Government said that he would employ all the people who were employed at turf work on work that would be met by special grants. In the County Mayo we were gravely affected by the discontinuance of the turf scheme. It meant as I have said the earning of £200,000 a year on the turf that was produced by the Mayo County Council, irrespective of what was earned by private producers. There were over 5,000 employed. They were thrown on the dole. In substitution of that work on turf production, we were offered the magnificent grant of £17,000 by the Minister for Local Government, provided the ratepayers in the county put up another £6,000 or £8,000. Even if the ratepayers in the county blistered themselves to put up that amount of money, in addition to the sum promised by the Minister for Local Government, the result would be that it would not mean three days' work in the week for the 5,000 people displaced. The Mayo County Council, irrespective of Party or politics, told the Minister in no uncertain terms that he might as well try to empty the ocean as to try and replace the £200,000 that was being earned by the people heretofore on the turf schemes by his grant of over £17,000. At all events, the promise then was— it was the first great fraudulent promise to those unfortunate people—that they would be all absorbed, through these grants, by the work on the roads. No work came their way and the result was that they emigrated in thousands.
We reached the unfortunate position that during the past 12 months, under the present Government's rule, the emigration figure in County Mayo hit the new high level of 4,430, an increase of virtually 1,000 on the figure for the previous year. That does not represent the true figure, because any Deputy familiar with the people going out knows—and the figure that I have given does not cover it—that quite a lot of them go on what are termed holiday passports. They get a travel permit purporting to go out on a holiday in order to get out quicker and not be stultified, when they go over, by being tied to any particular job. The 4,430 emigrants who left Mayo do not represent the total number who emigrated from that county.
It is a pity you did not take the £18,000 you were offered; it would have saved some of them from emigrating.
I could refer the Parliamentary Secretary to his colleague, Deputy Commons, one of his backbenchers, or to his ex-friend, Mr. Dominick Cafferky, a former member of this House, and various other members of the Mayo County Council who were just as adamant as I was in refusing the paltry few pounds the Minister sent as a bluff on the turf workers.
The £18,000 offer was not bad at all and you were foolish not to take it.
You have to take the responsibility of driving out of employment in Mayo the 5,000 who were employed on schemes there. You are endeavouring to insult the intelligence of the representatives of all parties on the Mayo County Council who informed the Government of the position there.
The next great fraud perpetrated on the people by the Government was the cut in the road grants. In my constituency the amount we lose is something over £47,000.
When will the expenditure of that money begin?
I cannot hear the Deputy. The official interrupter of Fine Gael had better get his throat looked after.
There are none so deaf as those who will not hear.
This year in County Mayo we lost approximately £47,000, due to the cut in the road grant by the Minister for Local Government. I wonder is that a reflection of Government policy? Will the Government continue to take away from the congested areas one of the few sources of employment that the people there have? In Mayo and in the West generally our roads were not restored to the condition they were in before the war. We were not in a position to avail fully of the grants available from the present Ministers' predecessors. The result is that many of our roads are in a bad way. Our unemployment and congestion problem being what it is, one would imagine that the Western representatives in the Government parties would press particularly for the grants to be left as they were.
Surely, if Mayo could not avail of the grants during that period it is the fault of the last Government?
No, sir. The money was provided for us in County Mayo the same as for every other county, but during that period there was a shortage of certain types of road material and that was one of the reasons why we could not complete our programme under the previous grants. Again, during part of that time we were engaged in major turf production. At that time a certain amount of labour was not available. There were various reasons why we were not able to spend the full amount available to us under the previous grants and we were not in a position to bring our roads up to the condition that we could have brought them to had we been able to avail of the same grants this year as we had in other years. There was no indication by the previous Government that there would be a reduction in these grants.
The suggestion that this is only a temporary measure will not wash. It was never indicated by the previous Minister that councils would be sent back to 40 per cent; it was never indicated to any county council that we could not look forward this year to the very same grants as we got in other years. So much was opinion to the contrary that in our county we prepared the estimates on the same basis as they were prepared last year. No one had any idea of a change and then we got this extraordinary circular from the Minister for Local Government, presumably dictated by the Minister for Finance, telling us that he was not allowed to spend the same money on roads as was spent by Fianna Fáil. The result is that we will have greater emigration from the west and more unemployment, the twin hall-marks that the Coalition are leaving on the congested areas.
Some of the Government's supporters, particularly Deputies from my own county, decided, when a motion was put down here a couple of weeks ago, that they would have to support the Government on this issue. They went against the express instructions of their own council. They went into the Division Lobby and voted to deprive County Mayo of this £47,000. The excuse they gave when they went back to Mayo County Council was, in the case of Deputy Commons, that he could not catch the Speaker's eye, but he could enter the Division Lobby on the side of the Government. Deputy Browne told the council that he had fallen for the Minister for Agriculture's new scheme, that everybody will be employed under the £40,000,000 drainage scheme.
First we had the promise bluffing the turf workers that there would be work for them on the roads, and, secondly, we had the position that the road work is being wiped out. The people are now being asked to swallow a new pill, that everybody will be employed on this £40,000,000 drainage scheme. It is difficult to know much about this drainage scheme beyond the fact that the Minister says the money will be expended over ten years. I want to put it on record for the benefit of the Deputies on the Government Benches who voted for the cutting of the grant for Mayo County Council that Mayo is not one of the counties in which this scheme is going to be put into operation. According to the Minister's statement, not even the Minister himself appears to know when this scheme will commence in the west of Ireland. I wonder what our unemployed are going to do? I wonder what the people will do who used to work on the roads and on the bogs while the Minister for Agriculture is making up his mind as whether it is in 1952, 1953 or 1958 that this scheme will come into operation in the west of Ireland.
Does the Deputy admit we will be here in 1958?
I have been here longer than Deputy Collins has been. I am very much afraid for the future. I think it was Deputy Collins who described the present Minister for Finance the other night as a wizard.
You must be getting hard of hearing.
I do not know what particular type of wizard he is. The 4,430 people he has driven out of County Mayo and the 18,000 on the bread line would hardly regard the present Minister for Finance as a wizard. They certainly could not regard him as the Wizard of Oz. He will certainly be a wizard if he succeeds in getting the Deputy and some of the other boys behind him into this House again in 12 months' time if the Irish people get a chance of doing anything about it.
And keep you over there.
I want now to refer to that colossal monument of Irish efficiency—the Irish Land Commission— with its present Minister for Lands. Prior to the election Deputy Blowick, as he then was, gave an interview to the Sunday Independent in which he set out his policy. That policy can be summarised under four main points. He wanted new legislation to deal with congestion; he was going to give cheap fertilisers and plenty of them; he was going to derate the first £20 on agricultural land; and he was going to make the town tenants the owners of their own homes. I want to know what has the Minister for Lands done in connection with this new legislation, if new legislation is necessary to deal with the problem of congestion. Prior to the election the Minister for Lands said that the problem of congestion in the West of Ireland could be solved in 12 months, and that what was wrong then was that the Fianna Fáil Ministers were lazy and sufficient money was not provided for the Land Commission. The Minister has been in office now for 12 months and, to use Deputy Commons' own words the other night, he has done nothing and the Land Commission has done nothing. If new legislation was necessary why has the Minister not introduced it in the past 15 months? This Government will certainly not go down in history as one that flooded Dáil Eireann with legislation.
The Deputy cannot advocate legislation on this Vote on Account.
I am merely saying that the Minister for Lands held that some legislation was necessary and I am pointing out that no legislation has been introduced even though there was ample time in which to do so. He told the electors that he was going to provide cheap fertilisers. Instead of that the subsidy has been reduced by £329,000. That is the way in which the Minister for Lands has implemented his promise to make cheap fertilisers available to the farmers in order to restore fertility to the soil. He was going to derate agricultural land up to the first £20. He has been, to use the Minister for Agriculture's expression, as mute as mice on that question since he took office. I have heard nothing about any legislation where town tenants are concerned.
On the 6th May, 1947, at column 2182 of the Official Report, Deputy Blowick, as he then was, said:
"Are we to leave 23,400 people in Mayo, not to speak of people in other parts of the country, to eke out an existence on holdings with such low valuations? They are to exist there, get married and rear their children for export. Is that the Government policy?"
He then goes on to ask:
"Is the export of human beings to go on because no attempt will be made to solve the land problem?"
To what is he referring?
I am quoting from a speech made here by the present Minister for Lands on 6th May, 1947.
To what is he referring?
He was referring to congestion in the West of Ireland. I am referring to it now.
So those conditions did exist under Fianna Fáil?
"Is the export of human beings to go on because no attempt will be made to solve the land problem? Instead of asking for £1,140,000 it would be far better business if the Minister asked for £7,000,000 and kept doing so for the next eight or ten years. Then an end of the problem might be in sight." Further on he said:
"It strikes me very forcibly that the Minister for Lands is not as forceful in making his demands as the Minister for Lands each year at the appropriate time, as the Minister for Defence or the Minister for Industry and Commerce in putting forward demands for their Departments. I wonder is the failure to deal with this question with sufficient speed due to that inactivity of the Minister for Lands? I wonder is he taking his office in a too lackadaisical fashion, in not demanding sufficient money for his Department? At the present rate of progress, the Land Commission would not have the land question settled for the next 120 years. That is a very glaring state of affairs for a responsible Government Department. They seem to be in the position of a person with his hands tied behind his back."
Not alone has the present Minister got his hands tied behind his back but the Minister has been tied hand and foot since he took office. What has he done to relieve congestion? According to the Minister himself during his 15 months in office he has removed only two families out of the congested areas. Those families went to farms which were prepared by the Minister's predecessor. The Minister has moved two families out of approximately 23,500 in County Mayo. If that is the Minister's rate of progress it will take him 2,400 years to do the job which he accused his predecessor of taking 120 years to do. Possibly that may solve the Minister's problem because there will be no people to take out then. The Minister is quite aware of that. We have listened in the past to the Minister ranting from public platforms and in this House about the operations of the Land Commission in bygone years. The Minister may suggest now that there is no land. Let me quote for him from the new republican issue of the Irish Independent of January 15th, 1949. This is not that terrible paper, the Irish Press. In that issue of January 15th there are farms advertised in Leinster over the name of one auctioneer alone comprising 1,487 acres. In the same issue, there are farms advertised by other auctioneers in Leinster to the extent of 1,893 acres while there are lands advertised to be let for grazing to the extent of 664 acres.
What has the Minister to do with that?
I am pointing out to the Minister that there are lands available there and I want to find out what is Government policy on this question of land settlement.
Clearly it is not the business of the Minister to prevent people offering their land for sale.
I am suggesting that it is the duty of the Minister to find out if lands are available.
It clearly is not the duty of the Minister to prevent any individual from offering his land for sale. The Deputy will pass from that.
May I make this point on the question of relevancy? Surely, if the Minister says that land is not available, am I not entitled to point out where land is available?
We are discussing major policy and not matters of detailed administration.
I suggest that I am entitled on this Vote to deal with the question of congestion in the West and the question of the acquisition of land for the migration of tenants.
That does not arise on this Vote. It is not the duty of any Minister to prevent anybody from advertising land for sale. Does the Deputy suggest that he should read the advertisements in all the papers of the country in which land is offered for sale?
No. I am merely pointing out that there was a total of over 4,000 acres available for the Minister and you see——
Having said that the Deputy must now pass from the matter.
Very good. I can point out this, that on one particular date in the Province of Leinster there were 4,044 acres of land offered for sale and they are available to the Minister for Lands if he wants to acquire them for the relief of congestion. I want to point out that that amount of land would be sufficient to give 25 acres to each of the 160 Clann na Talmhan Secretaries in South Mayo, if they were migrated to it.
The Deputy will pass from that aspect of it now.
Very good. In passing from that aspect, I can point this out to the Minister for Lands. If the Minister for Lands is sending his minions round the West of Ireland taking two acres, three acres and four acres, here and there, principally from his political opponents, even if all these two, three and four acres were acquired by the Land Commission, it could not affect the problem of congestion in South Mayo.
On a point of order, I put it to you, Sir, that you should not allow the suggestion contained in the Deputy's last remark to pass—that I am sending inspectors deliberately to my political opponents. That is a very serious charge and, whether you view it or not in that way, I take a very serious view of it.
I take it that it is the statutory duty of the Land Commission to distribute land and it is the Land Commission that is responsible for sending around inspectors so that the reference to the Minister is totally outside the scope of the debate.
May I say, that I am not satisfied with that? I ask for an unqualified withdrawal of the statement or else that the Deputy should be asked to prove the charge. I respectfully suggest, Sir, that the Deputy should be asked to make an unqualified withdrawal of the statement.
A Deputy
It is a slander.
The Deputy can press for an inquiry if he wishes to prove that statement. If that charge be true, I am not fit to retain office for one minute more.
The Minister has no responsibility in this matter.
I respectfully submit that that does not arise. What I am pointing out is that the Deputy made a very serious charge and I am afraid that I shall have to press you to ask him for an unqualified withdrawal or else that the Deputy take steps to prove his charge.
I want to get this point cleared first: Is it the Land Commission which sends round inspectors?
The inspectors are sent out at the discretion of the commissioners. The Minister or no representative man has, or should have, any authority in that matter.
I wanted that made clear. The Land Commission is responsible in that matter.
It is time some of the Deputies over there realised that.
The Land Commission is the only authority to send out inspectors——
On certain work.
The Deputy has stated that the Minister has sent round his inspectors to people who differ from him in politics. The Deputy knows that is not so and I must ask him to withdraw that statement.
If the Chair says so, I must withdraw it but I may point out——
The Deputy will point out nothing. He will either withdraw the statement or sit down.
Surely the Minister is responsible for the acts of his officials?
For the last time, the Deputy will withdraw the statement.
I have withdrawn it. I do not want to infringe on the ruling of the Chair but is the Minister not responsible to the House for his Department and for his officials?
The Minister is responsible to the House for the administration of the Department of Lands.
On the question of Government policy, if it is Government policy, we have officials going round County Mayo inspecting plots of three acres and four acres and small back stripes as they are called. If everyone of these little patches were acquired that is not going to make any impression on the problem of congestion.
I have allowed the Deputy a good deal of latitude but he has travelled far from the subjects that may be discussed on the Vote of Account. He knows perfectly well that a detailed discussion of that kind properly arises on the Estimate for the Land Commission. He will pass from that now to matters of major policy.
I want to point out, on the question of major policy, and I hope that I am not infringing the ruling of the Chair on this occasion, that I quoted what the Minister stated when he said that there should be at least £7,000,000 paid by the Exchequer for expenditure on this particular Department. Yet the figures this year are exactly the same as last year, with the exception of £100,000 and the major portion of that is not money expended on Land Commission schemes. It is represented by the increase in the cost of labour or the increase in Civil Service salaries. Therefore the Minister who now occupies the position of Minister for Lands, the very man who demanded £7,000,000 for the Irish Land Commission some years ago, is quite content now to sit back when the very same figure, a reduced figure, is provided for the Land Commission. There was reason for a reduced figure as the Minister well knows for the Land Commission during the emergency, because the Land Commission staff was sent off to the Department of Supplies and other Departments and the normal functions of the Land Commission could not be proceeded with. The Minister has not that excuse. The Minister has got back his staff and still we are dealing with this comparatively small amount being expended on the most vital of our Departments, namely, the Land Commission, when, on the Minister's own statement, it requires at least £7,000,000 to make any headway with the problems confronting him. I think it is obvious that, either before he became Minister he was speaking with his tongue in his cheek, or now, as he said about his predecessor, he is not sufficiently energetic in pressing the claims of the Land Commission and the other sections catered for by the Land Commission, particularly in the congested districts.
I know that the Minister is quite well able to get round this matter. Prior to the last election, he told us that not alone should a certain amount of money be spent by the Land Commission, but that the annuities collected for the land should be devoted to the work of the Land Commission. He has travelled a very long way since then. I am also convinced, and I think every Deputy irrespective of Party who comes from the west is convinced, that if you wanted to have a picture painted of Irish inefficiency and you imported one of the French Surrealists and he painted 26 Upper Merrion Street, there is not a backward farmer in Ireland who would not recognise it for what it is—a monument to Irish inefficiency. Unless the Minister bestirs himself, and I press on his colleagues to put some pressure on him, we shall still be talking our heads off about this problem for the next 20 years or, at the Minister's rate of progress of two people a year from the West of Ireland, it will take another 2,400 years.
I did not intend to say anything about the Government's policy in the matter of health and hospitalisation until I listened to the Minister for External Affairs to-day. Here again we come back to the spider-like figure of the present Minister for Finance floating over the national treasury and refusing money for these vital services. Deputies on the opposite side of the House are also aware that the Minister for Health, presumably speaking on behalf of the Government—if any Minister does—declared war on the county homes in this country. He came down to the west of Ireland and attacked the county homes and some hospitals we had there. My council decided to try and do something about our county homes in Mayo and went to the trouble of getting an architect to prepare plans. We came along to the Minister for Health, with all his high-sounding remarks which appear to signify nothing, looking for money, and he told us that if we wanted to do anything the ratepayers should provide the money. He pressed us to turn the county hospital into a training school for nurses. He knows just as well as any of us in Mayo that the hospital is overcrowded and that an extension of the nurses' home is required, which would cost approximately £30,000. When we came as an all-Party deputation to the Minister for Health, he blandly informed us that if we want to do this vital work we have got to find the money.
Is not that health administration?
No. With respect, I submit that this is Government policy in refusing to provide the finance for these vital services.
The Deputy is speaking on the administration of the Department of Health. That would arise ordinarily on the Estimate for the Department of Health.
Very good.
After 16 years the Deputy found out.
I do not know if that is the Labour Deputy, or if it is his colleague, who has provided a new excuse for the migration of the people he is supposed to represent—the Irish wild geese. He might direct his attention to bringing some pressure to bear on the people whom he is keeping in office, because only for the Deputy and some other stupid fools of his calibre behind him, sitting there as mute as mice, this Government would not be inflicted on this State.
On a point of order. Is the Deputy in order in referring to those who sit behind Ministers on the Government side as fools? The point I am interested in is whether the Chair sees fit to allow that word to become an ordinary word in Parliamentary usage.
It is entirely undesirable.
If the level of language used is to descend that low, the House will soon earn for itself the name of a tinker's camp.
I would prefer the Deputy should develop the question of the county homes.
It is not in order.
The Parliamentary Secretary was saying something. I am being continually interrupted.
The Deputy is not being continually interrupted. The Deputy ought to proceed with his statement and avoid words which do not bring credit to this Dáil.
Very good. If I did use any words to which exception is taken, I can only plead that it has been due to interruptions from the gentlemen opposite. I warn the Minister for Finance that, if he continues with his present policy, if all State expenditure is to be curtailed irrespective of the effect it is having on the employment of our people, if schemes inaugurated by the previous Government are being done away with simply because they were inaugurated by them and for no other reason, if he continues on that path and if he is left long enough there, he will do the State irreparable damage. When we get an opportunity of dealing with the Estimates we will be in a position then to point out some of the things, particularly with regard to the congested areas, that evidently I am precluded from dealing with on this Vote.
Listening to some of the Deputies on the opposite side, it seems to me perfectly clear that they are more interested in Party politics than the welfare of the people in rural Ireland. The previous speaker drew attention to various points in connection with agriculture. So much has been said on that matter that I do not intend to go into it very deeply. I should like, however, to refer to two points. He spoke about the prices of eggs in his own area. He maintained that there should be a bigger price given. Yet his fellow Deputies representing various towns and cities are complaining about the cost of living. With regard to local government, I notice that the Deputy did not say very much about housing. Deputy Burke spoke about it the other night. Naturally each one of us is interested in his own constituency and in his own county. I want to say that we in South Cork, at any rate, are very pleased at the way housing is going on at the present time.
The previous speaker again laid emphasis on the question of the turf scheme. Must it be for ever in this House a question of Party politics? Twelve months ago this question was dragged out again and at that time we clearly pointed out the fact that it was the previous Government who brought the hand-won turf scheme to an end through the circulars issued from the Department to the various local county councils in this country. If Deputy Moran is unable to recall such a thing —I presume he is on the local council —it is just too bad for him. I can say, at any rate, that the people in County Cork are fully aware of it. In connection with the hand-won turf scheme naturally we are interested to see work going on as far as possible. One thing which strikes me very clearly is that during the emergency the price was enormous and the people found it very difficult to get turf at the price, yet at the present time under the present regime in Cork City turf can be brought in at 32/- per ton delivered.
The Deputy mentioned, also, the question of road grants and so forth. Again I should like to draw attention to the fact that no matter what Government is in power in this country in all local matters including roads, a great responsibility must, of necessity, rest with the local council. No matter what Government is in power, if Parties through the local county councils are trying to obstruct and to offer criticism which is of a destructive nature no one in this country will fail to realise what is behind it. Perhaps it may be indifferent to members of this house, but if the people in the country could but realise the waste of time by Deputies talking about things time by Deputies talking about things outside the country which they must know in their hearts is false from the start, they would have a vastly different opinion from the one they have.
With regard to the question of the road grants, at the present time it is not very clear what is going to be lost. In fact, we do not yet know whether there will be a loss or not. However, I should like to remind the Opposition again when they speak of the grants that we do know that they were not going to continue giving the grants on the same scale themselves. I should like to draw attention to the fact that two years ago, or a little over, we were told in the council by a circular from the Department of Local Government and, furthermore, were threatened afterwards, that if we did not spend £18,000 to £20,000 in mapping the main roads for the improved carriageways for tourists that even the grants we were getting then would be stopped. That has not been the case with the present regime at any rate. Even on this side of the House we realise it is our duty to offer criticism when it is necessary, provided it is of a constructive nature. If, however, any Party or any member believes that the constituencies they represent are going to gain anything by Party quibbling in this House in years to come a poor view will be taken of their attitude at the present time.
Considering that this debate has dragged on for so many days already and at enormous expense any other remarks I wish to make I shall make on the Estimates dealing with the Departments when I shall criticise if I feel I am entitled to. However, I assure the House that such criticism will definitely be of a constructive nature.
The debate on the Vote on Account this year has been carried on in a bad spirit, a spirit for which there was no need at all. I am satisfied that if Fianna Fáil put in as much energy during the last sixteen years in solving the problems of this country as they have during this debate they would have had the same success as the inter-Party Government has. Fianna Fáil should get away from the idea of attacking the inter-Party Government. They should realise that the people rejected them and not the inter-Party Government. I must congratulate the Government for the very peaceful state of the country. For about 25 or 30 years we have generally had some class of political turmoil every other year but all this year we have had perfect peace in all parts of the country, thanks to the spirit and the good-will that the Government has shown to all the different political parties. The inter-Party Government is, as we all know only on a try-out. Fianna Fáil strongly object to it but I suggest that as the first inter-Party Government it should get a fair trial. As far as I have seen during the last twelve months it has worked very well and smoothly and produced good results. I think it is entitled to the respect of the people and of Fianna Fáil. The inter-Party Government is new to Irish politics. It may be of immense benefit to this country and it is only right that it should get its trial. Fianna Fáil are attacking the present Government all over the country for not having solved all the problems in front of them. They are attacking them over emigration, employment, afforestation and all those vast schemes which they themselves spent sixteen years trying to tackle and never solved. It is unfair of the Opposition to do that. They know that no Government, can solve in 12 months the problems that have confronted the country for the past 200 years. Emigration is the major problem. It is the canker that has taken the life out of this country. It will take superhuman efforts on the part of any Government and it will also test the resources of this nation to stop it. I am satisfied that the schemes initiated by the present Government are laying the foundations of the stamping out of emigration. I would ask the Deputies to realise that when a change of Government takes place it also means a change of policy. The policy of Fianna Fáil was very grandiose and high-falutin. They were up in the air, up in the clouds. Big things were all they wanted but they did not realise that the plain man out of the bogs and hills and out of the country towns counted more than the big men at the top. That is how they lost control of Irish affairs. Thanks to their foresight the present Government is starting at the bottom and is trying to give a fair chance to the underdog and that is what should happen. It has brought immense benefits to the aged, sick and blind and resources are being spent to alleviate the sufferings of those people.
Fianna Fáil must realise that they left some bad legacies to the present Government, such as the legacy of the bankrupt Córas Iompair Éireann. In that case the present Government has to find millions of pounds in order to put our transport system in a proper working order and no thanks to the past Government. They should also realise that £8,000 or £10,000 of the people's money has to be spent on the fuel dumps in the park. That is more waste of public money and bad foresight by the past Government. Fianna Fáil should realise that these are the headaches which they left behind them. It will take big money and resources to solve those problems. During the last 12 months there have been greater achievements in this country. We have brought perfect peace to our people; we have brought freedom and there is no quibbling about votes and so forth. We have brought about what I think is of more benefit to the country than anything else and that is the freedom of the farmers from the shackles which Fianna Fáil put on them.
The farmer to-day is a free man and he can now work with a free will. In addition to that the Minister for Agriculture has brought about a four years' stable market so that the farmer can see four years ahead with a reasonable chance of good prices in that four years. He can lay down his policy and know that at the end of four years he will know where he stands. We had not that in the past. In addition, we have a housing programme in progress of which any Government can be proud. In the towns and villages vast schemes of house building are going ahead and are being intensified every day. The more contractors we can get the more houses we can build. The Minister for Finance is prepared to spend money on housing. It is a thing which will bring great benefit to the people.
The Estimates this year are being reduced by over £6,000,000. The Minister for Finance reduced them by a similar sum last year when he was only a month in office. That is what we want instead of the squandermania that went on before. The people are very thankful that there was a change of Government. They do not want the high-falutin nonsense that had been going on, the "Constellation" aeroplanes, the high and mighty spending, the big dinners and great speeches about things all over the world. What the people down the country want to talk about is their way of life. That was all forgotten by Fianna Fáil. In regard to the major problems before the country, there is not so much dividing Fianna Fáil from this side of the House except that they want to pretend that there is. Afforestation, drainage and the stemming of emigration are three major problems. If we are all Irishmen and brothers we should try to tackle these problems. There may be a difference as to the best way of doing so, but surely we can agree to differ.
There is no use in Fianna Fáil bawling and ranting that the country is doomed, and that emigration is on the increase. I am not going to say that this Government has stemmed emigration. We could not do it in one year, but I believe the back will be broken in it within, say, five years. I do not believe you can have any such thing as the complete stemming of emigration. There should not be that either. People in the past emigrated to Australia, Canada, America and Britain. They were quite entitled to do so. Many of my own people, and many of my neighbours in the County Meath did so, and all of them did well in America, Canada and other countries. If freedom is freedom, then people are free to go away if they like. One thing is certain and it is that the vast schemes initiated by the present Government are well calculated to stem emigration. It is proposed to spend over £40,000,000 on vast schemes of land reclamation, field drainage, afforestation, bog developments, etc. These will afford employment for our people, so much that I think many of those who went across to Britain will be required to come back and give a hand. I believe they will be glad to engage on work in their native land.
The problems that are to be undertaken are certainly of vast magnitude. They are being pressed forward by men of vigour and experience. Some of the members of the present Government held office in a previous Government and have learned from their successes and their failures. Some of the chief men in Government to-day were in Government more than 17 or 18 years ago. They have learned from their own mistakes in the past and from the mistakes of Fianna Fáil and are in the position to build on a good foundation. I believe they are doing that. The policy that is being initiated by the Minister for Agriculture is one that holds out great hopes for the farmers and farm labourers. He has stepped up production in the case of pigs, poultry, butter and milk. The farmers are quite content. They are happy under the Government and they are not worried or trembling as Fianna Fáil has suggested. They know what the policy of the Government is for the next four years. They have their coats off and they are working hard laying down their economy in their own way without interference from the Government or from anybody else.
One of the Deputies for whom I have great respect is Deputy M. O'Reilly, who comes from my own county. He is a man that I seldom differ from because I believe he is a decent gentleman. But I certainly found it hard to believe that it was Deputy O'Reilly who was talking when he made the speech that he made on this Vote. He made a nonsensical speech, coming as he did from the County Meath. He said that 40 per cent. of the land there that used to be set on the 11 months' system could not be set this year, and that there was starvation in many homes in that county. I say that is a falsehood. As regards the land that is let there on the 11 months' system, I know that quite a number of people who used to take it held back this year because they thought that the price asked for it, compared with last year, was a bit too high. The Deputy forgot to tell us why the land was not being set. It was because of the good prices for store cattle that people were afraid to pay the high prices asked for letting. For that reason they were hesitant in taking the land. I want to tell him that 99 per cent. of that land is let to-day at reasonably good prices, and that it is well stocked. I do not think the Minister for Lands was in the House when that statement was made. But what would he think if he were? He would think that we were driving the Meath men out of Meath, and that it would be necessary to have another drive of migrants from the west. He might think that Deputy O'Reilly was not a Meath man. I would ask the Deputy to restrain himself a bit in future and not make such an opening for the Minister for Lands. We certainly had enough migration in the last 16 years, but if the Minister were to accept Deputy O'Reilly's statement it might be that the drive would be doubled in the future.
We have been told that under the present Government a certain amount of money has been set aside to build a memorial to the memory of Griffith and Collins. Who could object to that? Why should we not do that—put up a memorial to two of the greatest patriots that this country ever produced? They gave their lives that we might live in freedom. I am not worried about stone memorials. I am more concerned to see Ireland built up on a basis that will give us peace, contentment and prosperity, that will help to increase the population, that will give our people a better living than they had in the past and that will enable large families to be well reared, educated and properly disciplined. That is the kind of memorial we want here. The present Government are laying the foundations of peace and prosperity. If they follow the policy they have pursued during the last 12 months, then at the end of five years we will have a memorial that will be worthy of our patriots.
A Government's duty is to hold the balance evenly between all classes of the people. I am satisfied this Government is doing that. It is helping the farmer; it is cutting down waste; it is cutting down unnecessary Estimates and, on the other hand, increasing the Estimates where that is required. In the past this country was run for politics and for politics solely. Politics has been the curse of this country. It has left us with a dead-weight debt of £120,000,000. Emigration was not being stemmed and, as Deputy O'Reilly has said, there were men hungry in the country. We are now getting away from all that and are facing realities. The more we work the more we will have. This country is initiating schemes of national progress, schemes which will develop our national resources, that will build up our industrial life and strengthen our agricultural arm.
Let us get all the industries we can started on the basis that agriculture is the key, the pivot, of our whole life. The present Government are working on that basis. If we can attain that, I am satisfied that Fianna Fáil, instead of attacking us as they did during the past year, will have to change their tactics. If the present Government keep building in the same way as they are building now, and if Fianna Fáil continue their present tactics, then Fianna Fáil will be a small Party in this country five years from now.
I will say to the former Taoiseach, Deputy de Valera, that he speaks in a reasonable way in debate. He may be able to use words with four or five meanings—he is a terrible man at that —but he is very reasoned in debate. I hope he will ask some of his front and back benchers to modify their conduct, to behave themselves and to realise that they are living in a country that needs the help of every man so that we may raise it to a standard it never reached before. The chance has come our way now and if we do not take it we may not, perhaps, ever get such a chance again.
I move to report progress.