Committee on Finance. - Vote 3—Department of the Taoiseach—(Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (13th Dáil) – Thursday, 13 Jul 1950

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

The Taoiseach

In 1949, the contribution of industry to the national income was about 20 per cent., distribution and transport about 16 per cent. and all other activities (public authorities, professional and personal services, personal rent, net income from abroad, etc.) was about 36 per cent. With regard to the proportions borne by employees remuneration on the one hand and profits, rents, etc., on the other, it will be convenient to consider these items in relation to non-agricultural income produced at home, i.e. excluding net receipts from abroad. On this basis, wages and salaries represented about 67 per cent. of non-agricultural income produced at home in 1949, as compared with 67 per cent. in 1948, 64 per cent. in 1947 and 62 per cent. in 1938. Thus the share of employees remuneration in non-agricultural income has increased since before the war.

The provisional index for the year 1949 of the volume of production, (taking the base 1938 as equivalent to 100), of industries producing transportable goods was 142.9. The annual index for 1948 was 132.0 and 120.5 for 1947. These figures represent an increase in the volume of production of 18.6 per cent. between 1947 and 1949 and an increase of 8.3 per cent. between 1948 and 1949. This remarkable growth has since continued. In fact, the quarterly index for the first three months of 1950, which was 150.4 shows an increase of 14.6 per cent. over the figure of 131.2 for the corresponding period in 1949. It is a tribute to all concerned in industry in this country that, after the difficulties of the war period when there was a decline in volume of output of about 20 per cent. as compared with pre-war, there should have been such an extraordinary recovery.

The increase in the index of the volume of production have, of course, been accompanied by an increase in the total number of persons engaged in industries covered by the Census of Industrial Production from 166,000 in 1938 to an estimated total of 206,000 in 1949. All this growth has, in effect, taken place since 1946, when the total of 167,000 was almost at the pre-war level. In 1947 the volume of output per wage-earner was 7.4 per cent. above the pre-war level in the case of transportable goods industries and 5.7 per cent. up in the case of all industries. The 1948 figures show a further rise, the index for transportable goods industries being 12.6 per cent. and that for all industries and services 11.2 per cent. above pre-war. While great credit is due to Irish industrialists and Irish workers for such a considerable advance in so short a period, it is well to remember that these figures show that, in relation to the whole period since before the war, the increase represents a growth in industrial production of only about 1 per cent. per annum. In an expanding economy this is not, by international standards, an altogether impressive achievement and there should be no complacency among either employers or employees, particularly since an important contributory cause was improved equipment and improved availability of materials of suitable quality after the stringencies of the war years. A further great effort is needed in the industrial field, not only to increase production but to make it more efficient. Big improvements are called for in organisation of industry, in management skill, in improved standards of work by employees, all of which will contribute to improve industrial efficiency. In pursuit of these aims, we hope to secure some particularly useful help and advice from the Industrial Development Authority and from the Economic Co-operation Administration.

It must be emphasised that these figures for productivity which I have given are based on the data provided by the Census of Industrial Production returns and that these are far from ideal for such a purpose. They are useful as a rough measurement but special inquiries in the nature of costings for individual industries would be necessary to produce accurate measurements of this very difficult concept.

It is too often assumed that a growth in the physical output per worker will of necessity produce an equal increase in the amount available for distribution between the factors of production. In fact, however, there has been since pre-war a fairly considerable decrease in the net output of industry when expressed as a percentage of gross output. In 1938 in the industries producing transportable goods net output was 34.1 per cent. of gross output, in 1947 it was 31.1 per cent. and 30.7 per cent. in 1948. For all industries and services between 1938 and 1948, gross output increased in value by 136 per cent. while net output increased by 110 per cent. There is accordingly, as compared with pre-war, relatively less for everybody concerned in the gross output.

Net output represents the value added by processing to the materials of industries and is the sum available for distribution in wages, salaries, profits and other miscellaneous costs. While between 1938 and 1948 the total output increased by 110 per cent., wages and salaries increased by 116 per cent., profits and miscellaneous costs having increased by 102 per cent. The actual increased in wages was 120 per cent. and in salaries 98 per cent. Expressed otherwise, wages and salaries constituted a somewhat larger proportion of the net output in 1948 than in 1938, namely, about 61 per cent. as compared with 60 per cent.

Agriculture too, has shown a striking and encouraging improvement. From its very nature agricultural production is slow both in its rise and fall. Due to the efforts of our farmers, despits all the wartime shortages of fertilisers, equipment and so on, the volume of gross agricultural output never fell more than 7 per cent. below the 1938-39 level during the war years. Last year the gross volume of agricultural output was back to the pre-war level and the net output volume showed a gain of 2.2 per cent. over 1938-39.

While the increase in industrial production has been accompanied by an increase in the numbers engaged, the pre-war level of agricultural production has been attained despite a fairly considerable fall in the numbers of workers in agriculture. Much though this is to be regretted, it must not be forgotten that the implication is that a smaller number engaged in agriculture have had a larger share in the return. In this context it must be emphasised that before the war there was chronic underemployment on Irish farms.

If we are to succeed in stemming the tide of emigration, we must do so by providing work for our people at home. Not only must there be a further considerable increase in industrial employment but the output of agriculture must rise too. Our industries are unfortunately very largely dependent on the import of raw materials and these we must pay for. It is, of course, quite legitimate to use some of our accumulated sterling assets to purchase capital equipment and materials for capital development but it would be questionable policy deliberately to use them for the current purchases of other raw materials. We must, therefore, if our industry is to develop, expand our exports to buy the increased quantities of materials needed. Improved agricultural production and exports are therefore a fundamental need of our economy not only for the expansion of the home market but also to provide the wherewithal to enable our industry to continue to forge ahead as it has been doing in the recent past and continues to do.

The transfer from agriculture to non-agricultural employment within the State is proceeding at a strikingly rapid rate. In this connection I would like to indicate in a very general way the extent of the change in the distribution of the working population between 1936 and 1946 as shown by the Census of Population. Fairly detailed statistics of the distribution of the population at work will be published in the September issue of the Irish Trade Journal and Statistical Bulletin. The Census statistics show that between 1936 and 1946 the whole population at work declined slightly from 1,235,000 to 1,228,000, the number in agriculture falling from 609,000 to 572,000, the number in industry increased from 205,000 to 212,000, and the number in other employments (distribution, transport services, public services, etc.) increased from 421,000 to 444,000. These changes are highly significant but far less so than the changes which have been occurring during the last four years. Since 1946, the Census year, it is roughly estimated that the number at work in agriculture has fallen by a further 50,000 while the number in industry has increased by 40,000 and the number in other employments has increased by 20,000, the overall increase being 10,000. The percentage of the working population in agriculture is now but 42 per cent. of the total as compared with 49 per cent. in 1936, the proportions in industry 20 per cent. as compared with 17 per cent. in 1936 and the proportions in other employments 38 per cent. as compared with 34 per cent. in 1936. Though agricultural output has been increasing during the last four years, the decline in the agricultural population is to be deplored, but there it is. It would be far better if a much greater increase in agricultural output could be obtained, the workers remaining on the land. The endemic underemployment in agriculture before the war in now taking its toll. It is highly significant that between 1936 and 1946 the numbers of “relatives assisting farmers” declined by 41,000 accounting for the total decline in the agricultural section of the national economy. This is the class which was formerly underemployed, and which is now becoming absorbed in productive industrial employment.

A measure of the magnitude of the problem facing the country in trying to lessen, if not to stop, emigration is that, despite the fact that the agricultural population was never so prosperous as it is now and non-agricultural employment and earnings were higher than ever before, emigration continues. In the four years 1946 to 1949 and in the 12 months ended May of this year, the net passenger balances by sea (probably the best indication of the volume of net emigration) were as follows:—

Period	Number
Year 1946	3,000
,, 1947	10,000
,, 1948	27,000
,, 1949	17,000
Twelve months ended May, 1950	11,000

I do not wish to make political capital from the fact that net emigration has shown some tendency to decrease in 1949-1950. This problem is not only the responsibility of the Government but of the Oireachtas and the country. There is no guarantee that the recent decline will continue. One can only hope that potential emigrants in the future will consider their personal interest and the interest of their country, and that the favourable economic environment will have the desirable psychological effect of keeping them at home in well-paid employment. In this connection, however, I should like to repeat what I have already said, that since 1946 the number of persons engaged in non-agricultural employment has increased by the remarkable figure of 60,000.

A guiding rule in Government policy has been and continues to be the desirability of maintaining a satisfactory equilibrium in the balance of payments. This must not be taken to mean that all other considerations must be sacrificed to achieve a strict balance between the values of exports and imports. It does mean, however, that in formulating economic policy the Government gives careful consideration to the possible effects on that policy of both the balance of trade and the balance of payments. There are times when a temporary disequilibrium in the balance of payments is fully justified. There are times when the implementation of a particular economic policy requires the conscious creation of a deficit in the balance of payments. Such a deficit is inevitable, for instance, if a policy of repatriation of foreign assets is being undertaken. What is necessary, however, is to ensure that fluctuations in the balance of payments are not left to the blind arbitrament of chance.

In 1947 the deficit in the balance of trade was £91.8 millions; in 1948 the deficit in the balance of trade was £87 millions; in 1949 it had fallen to £69.3 millions. The substantial reductions achieved over these years in the unfavourable balance was in the main due to a very substantial increase in exports. The comparatively high level of imports in each of the years 1947-1948, inclusive, as compared with pre-war years, was due mainly to the general increase in prices. It was also partly due to the better availability of supplies which permitted considerable restocking in the home market to meet arrears of demands since the shortages of the war years.

One of the healthiest features of our economy since 1947 has, however, been the striking increase in exports. In 1947, the value of exports and reexports was £39.5 millions; in 1949, the figure had risen to £60.5 millions. The main items responsible for this great increase in the value of exports during 1949 were cattle and beef, eggs, poultry, raw wool, chocolate crumb, ropes, jams, marmalades, beer, whiskey, paper and cardboard.

In 1949, the volume of imports was 27 per cent. over the 1938 volume; the value of these imports was about three times the corresponding figure for 1938. The value of exports in 1949 was two and a half times the pre-war level, but the volume in 1949 was 90 per cent. of the pre-war level. The significance of this encouraging feature in our trade position is underlined by the fact that the volume of exports in 1949 increased by about 20 per cent. over 1948.

In 1948 the import price index was 259 as compared with 100 in 1938. In 1949, despite devaluation, it had fallen to 248. In 1948, the export price index was 273; in 1949, it rose to 279.

For the first five months of 1950 our imports have shown an increase in value of £9.9 millions (or of 18 per cent.) as compared with the corresponding period last year.

The increase in volume has been about 11 per cent. and the remainder of the rise is attributable to price increases. The total value of our exports for January-May, 1950 is £1.6 million greater than for January-May, 1949, an increase of about 7 per cent. In the case of exports the increase in volume was about 6 per cent. and the rise due to prices relatively small.

The question of the composition of our imports is just as important as that of their total value or volume. In 1938, out of a total of £41.4 million, we imported £2.9 million worth of producers' capital goods ready for use or 7.0 per cent. of all imports. In 1949 such capital imports totalled £13.5 million or 10.4 per cent. of all imports. It is very difficult to classify the materials imported for industry as to whether they are required for the production of capital or of consumers' goods. An attempt has, however, been made to do so and, using the same basis in 1938 and in 1949, it is estimated that the total value of the imports of capital goods ready for use and of materials for home produced capital goods was £9.1 million in 1938 and £33.5 million in 1949. Such imports constituted 22.0 per cent. of the total in 1938 and 25.8 per cent. in 1949. The corresponding percentages for imports in the first four months of 1949 and 1950 have been estimated as 25.8 and 25.5 respectively.

It is of the utmost importance to realise that in a year such as 1949 when we drew on our accumulated sterling balances to the extent of somewhat less than £10,000,000, we at the same time imported £13,500,000 worth of capital goods ready for use as well as about another £20,000,000 worth of material for the production of capital goods at home. Thus, by far the greater portion of these capital imports were financed by our earnings on current accounts.

The deficits in the balance of payments in 1947 and 1948 amounted respectively to £30,000,000 and £20,000,000. These were financed by drawing upon external assets and the aggregate drawing represented about one-third of the accumulation of sterling assets during the preceding seven years when current receipts could not be fully spent owing to the acute difficulty in obtaining supplies from abroad. Notwithstanding higher imports in 1948, the over-all deficit on current account declined by £10,000,000 as compared with 1947 as a result of higher invisible earnings as well as increased exports. In 1949 the balance of payments was brought considerably nearer full equilibrium, the provisional Estimate showing a deficit of approximately £10,000, probably less than £10,000 when final figures are available. This position has been achieved mainly through increased exports.

The problem of the deficit in the balance of payments with the dollar countries, which had continued since the war to overshadow all the other economic problems of the sterling area, was greatly aggravated during the early part of 1949 by a temporary falling-off in U.S. purchases of sterling area materials, at the very time that imports from North America by the members of the sterling group were increasing. Throughout the first eight months of 1949 the position of sterling continued to be critical. Certain sterling area countries curtailed imports from dollar sources. But the obvious inadequacy of that step alone, the withholding of foreign orders for British and other sterling goods in the expectation of an alteration in exchange rates, and, to a lesser extent, concern over the volume of indirect transactions financed in open markets through so-called "cheap sterling", all contributed to the announcement by the British Government in September, 1949, of a 30 per cent devaluation of the £ in terms of dollars. Britain's step in devaluing was promptly followed by similar action on the part of all the other countries of the sterling area except Pakistan, and by a 9 per cent. cut in the Canadian dollar. The great importance of this group of countries in world trade soon forced most of the countries of Western Europe and several overseas countries to devalue their currencies as well.

Following devaluation, the value of exports to countries that did not devalue required to be increased by 44 per cent. in terms of Irish currency, in order to earn the same amount of foreign exchange as before. The same was true, in a modified degree, in the case of exports to those countries which devalued only partially with reference to sterling. As Irish exports go mainly to Britain and other countries which also devalued their currencies, the effect on our export trade of the alteration in the exchange rate of the £ could not be appreciable. In the case of Britain, devaluation of the £ was calculated to stimulate larger sales to the Western Hemisphere through a reduction in the dollar prices of British goods. In Ireland's case, the prospect of developing exports to the United States is not likely to be influenced immediately to any substantial extent by devaluation because the types of products which Ireland has available for export are not, in general, such as to command a sizeable market in the United States. Similar considerations apply in the case of Canada, to which exports at present are small.

Belgium and Switzerland are such highly competitive markets by reason of their liberal import régimes, that they are unlikely to provide scope for any large expansion in our exports of manufactured goods, as we have to compete in these and other markets with the many countries which have devalued their currencies to the same extent as ourselves.

In view of the many unpredictable factors involved, it is extremely difficult to give a considered opinion on the probable long-term effects of devaluation on trade and prices. One of the immediate and automatic effects was, of course, that imports from dollar sources were rendered 44 per cent. dearer in terms of Irish currency than previously. However, apart from the mechanical adjustments in the relationship between the two price series, the ultimate effect of devaluation must inevitably be an increase in sterling prices and a decrease in dollar prices. Prices of various commodities in the U.S.A. have already shown reductions, by reason of a certain fall in demand and for other causes. The import prices of raw materials and food stuffs originating in the dollar area have risen by widely varying margins, ranging up to the full extent of 44 per cent.

Irish import prices have risen on average by 2 per cent and wholesale prices by 1 per cent. between January and May, 1950. The index number of retail prices at mid-May, 1950 (Base: mid-August, 1947 = 100) was 102. Agricultural prices dropped seasonally by 1 per cent. during that period. The terms of trade, that is, the ratio of the export price index to the import price index remains favourable to this country, on the 1938 basis of exchange.

The comparative stability of Irish prices since devaluation is probably due to the fact that supplies of many commodities have been obtained at pre-devaluation rates from producers' stocks, and, in particular, from forward purchases in Britain. The comparative steadiness of British export prices, which increased by about 5 per cent. between April, 1949, and April, 1950, is reflected in the relatively small increase in Irish import prices.

The increases in the British index numbers for import, wholesale and retail prices between April, 1949, and April, 1950, have been relatively much greater than in the corresponding Irish price index numbers. During this period, British import prices rose by 13 per cent., wholesale prices by 10 per cent. and retail prices by 4.6 per cent. Significantly, the rise in British import and wholesale prices represents mainly increases in costs of raw materials and of goods in which the passage of raw materials to the finished article is rapid. A second phase is now in process of completion, in which the substantial increase in the cost of raw materials since devaluation (prices of imports have risen on average by over 25 per cent.) is spreading its effect throughout the whole structure of industrial costs and prices. The effects of this second phase, in so far as this country is concerned, are likely to be reflected in an advance in Irish import prices in future months. Owing to the relatively high ratio which imports bear to the total supply of goods and services, an increase in import prices would undoubtedly be reflected in both wholesale and retail prices generally.

Heretofore Ireland's traditional products have not been such as to command a significant market in North America and even yet the contribution which commodity exports can make to increasing our dollar earnings is of very limited dimensions. The most valuable part which Ireland can play, and is playing towards closing the European dollar gap consists in exporting to the other member countries of the O.E.E.C. the commodities, mainly animal products, food and drink, which these countries would otherwise have to obtain from dollar sources. Energetic efforts are nevertheless being made to increase Ireland's direct exports of commodities and services to North America. The most anxious attention is being given to the tourist industry, our most important potential source of dollar income, and the recent establishment of the Dollar Exports Advisory Committee is evidence that the Government will spare no effort to devise the most effective means of expanding the volume of our commodity exports to dollar countries. During the past twelve months steps have been taken to exhibit samples of Irish goods in North America. There was an exhibition of Irish products in a large store in Boston in the early part of 1949, and a similar exhibition in New York towards the end of last year. The Government have decided to participate in an international trade fair to be held in Chicago in next month and are providing financial assistance to enable Irish firms to take part.

The Government have been giving very active attention to the development of an export trade generally in Irish manufactured goods. In negotiations which have led to the conclusion of trade agreements, not merely with Great Britain, but with France, Western Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, the greatest importance has been attached to the necessity for securing entry to the markets of these countries for the products of Irish industry. These trade agreements, by securing the right of entry for Irish goods, enable our industrialists to plan ahead with confidence in the knowledge that for a wide range of goods a market is available.

The 1948 Trade Agreement with France was renewed last year. So too was the agreement with Sweden. A very satisfactory trade agreement with Western Germany has been signed this week, which guarantees a considerable increase in the volume of trade between Ireland and Germany for the next 12 months. Preliminary arrangements are at present being made for the extension of other trade agreements or for the negotiation of new ones.

During the past 12 months unemployment has continued to decline. The percentage of persons insured under the Employment Insurance Acts who were registered as unemployed averaged 9.0 in the year 1949 as compared with 9.4 in 1948, 9.3 in 1947 and 15.0 in 1938. In the first six months of 1950 the figure averaged 8.7 per cent., substantially below the 10.3 per cent. in the corresponding period last year. Actually the 6.6 per cent. for June, 1950, is by far the lowest on record. These percentages cover the whole State. In cities and towns, where unemployment is usually more severe in its incidence than in rural districts, where it is sometimes mitigated by earnings in kind, the number in the period January to May averaged 28,000 in 1950, 32,000 in 1949 and 43,000 in 1938. The decline in actual numbers must be considered against the background of a substantial increase in the working population to which reference has already been made. The difference in trend as between skilled and unskilled reflects, of course, the present great demand for skilled industrial workers.

While, in general, this country cannot be regarded yet as enjoying a condition of full employment, there are serious shortages of skilled labour and, for this reason, the Government has been campaigning to induce skilled workers to return from Great Britain to assist in the industrial expansion of their homeland. On this point Deputies will be interested to know that between January, 1939, and January, 1950, while the number of unskilled industrial workers unemployed declined by 24 per cent., the number of skilled workers unemployed declined by much more, namely 52 per cent. Between January, 1949, and January, 1950, the percentage declines in unemployment were respectively seven and 19 for the unskilled and skilled unemployed.

Having presented the House with a brief and necessarily sketchy survey of the various sections of the country's economic activities, I should now like to refer in a general way to the economic policy of the Government. There has been an attempt in some quarters to suggest that the form of this year's Budget and the financial policy underlying it represented a radical departure from the financial policy enunciated by members of the Government during the first year of its existence. I think it is not merely my right but my responsibility to express a comment on these suggestions.

In my first public statement as Taoiseach in a broadcast on the 24th February, 1948, I summarised as follows the economic policy which the Government would pursue:—

"In existing circumstances efforts must be concentrated on measures to increase the national income so as to provide within the limits of our resources for adequate health and social services; so as, within the shortest possible time, to increase agricultural and industrial production and thereby provide some hope of easing the pressing burden of the high cost of living. Our export trade must be increased so as to lessen the serious gap between the volume of exports and imports which is causing disorder in our balance of payments. The real wealth of the nation must be increased."

It will, I think, be admitted from the statistical evidence I have given the House that many of these aims have been achieved.

Speaking in Dublin on the 26th May, 1948, in an address to the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, I said:—

"I have stressed the necessity for saving. But having done so it is necessary to give equal emphasis to the necessity for productive investment of savings. It will be generally agreed that this country has for many decades been suffering from chronic under-investment. . . . It can scarcely be questioned that our national income per head is far too low for a country so rich as ours which has the potential to be very much richer. Unless national capital is increased, there is no hope for any real increase in the national income. . . . There is no reason why this country, which is comparatively under-developed, should be satisfied with a normal rate of increase in national income. We should aim at a rate of increase much above the normal, and the Government is determined to use every effort to secure the acceptance of that which must be regarded as a fundamental truth of Irish economics."

These observations were made, I repeat over two years ago.

The Government have been using every effort during the past two and a half years to secure the acceptance of the truth contained in these observations by encouraging productive investment and by creating conditions favourable to productive investment.

Speaking in this House last July, in the course of introducing the Estimate for my Department—Dáil Debates. Vol. 117, No. 16, col. 1368—I repeated that the policy of providing productive work and thereby increasing the wealth of the nation was the underlying principle of all Government policy. I said:—

"That policy is indicated by the high level of capital expenditure which is provided in the Budget this year. Most people regard the annual Budget which is introduced to this House as something which either imposes taxation or which they hope will decrease taxation. That portion of the Budget which deals with taxation, with the housekeeping element in our country's affairs, in fact, only brings within its scope something like one-fourth of the country's economic activities. That portion of the Budget is important in itself. You might refer to it as the budget of expenses, the housekeeping portion. However, to get a comprehensive over-all picture of our national economy and activities, you must look at the really important portion of the Budget which deals with the employment of public moneys, the capital schemes and capital expenditure."

I think it will be agreed from these extracts and from other statements I have made on the Government's economic policy since I assumed office, that the principle of large-scale capital investment has been, from the beginning, a most important feature of Government policy. The recent Budget did not introduce that principle for the first time. The form of the recent Budget and the form of the Estimates for the current financial year merely presented that principle in a manner which made it perfectly clear to every member of the public that, in practice as well as in theory, the Government's economic policy was founded on the principle that, in a modern State which aims at providing productive employment for its citizens and for its national resources, budgetary policy must be based on the national income as a whole and not on the limited sector of that national income which enters into what might be called the ordinary current or housekeeping Budget.

The size of the national income is the only real indicator of economic development. Increases in productivity and increments in national income combine to provide a dividend of progress in an expanding economy. Only through an expanding economy can we provide the better living standards for our people which must be the ultimate aim of all Government policy. It will be generally agreed by people who accept this principle that the dual Budget system which we have now adopted is the best way of indicating clearly to our people the measures which are being devised to reap, through increases in national income, the dividend of progress to which I have referred. In this way alone can policy be framed so to achieve such a level of productive national activity that full employment may become a reality and avoidable emigration unnecessary. Emigration and under-employment have been endemic in this country for so long that the disease cannot be extirpated overnight. Laissez-faire methods will not provide a cure; only the deliberate creation of satisfactory social and economic conditions will eliminate it. Much has been achieved to reduce unemployment and the work is going on. Throughout the world, chronic unemployment has become in this century the greatest threat to free institutions. We are convinced that only by vigorously pursuing the policy of capital investment upon which we have embarked can Irish democracy survive the requirements of this century and serve the greatest good of a people whose traditional way of life has been built on thrifty enterprise and personal effort.

We want to encourage enterprise from employers and from workers, from local bodies, chambers of commerce, vocational groups and trade unions. We want to stimulate a spirit of local initiative and inculcate a greater sense of responsibility in our people. Our economic policy has been aimed at creating conditions in which this progress by the community may be possible. To maintain a high level of employment of men and national resources is more than a mere political expedient. It is an essential condition of democratic survival. Since introducing the Budgetary policy about which I have been speaking, members of the Government have invited constructive criticism from all sections of the people and from all sides of this House. We welcome constructive criticism which may have the effect of improving the plans we are putting into operation. I regret that very little constructive criticism has been offered by members of the Opposition, but such as has been offered suggests that, instead of pursuing an expansionist policy at present, the Government should restrain its borrowing for capital investment to the minimum, so that resources might be available to meet a cyclic depression which pessimistic prophets foresee. This attitude was summed up by the statement that we were "using resources that might be needed for use when depression and deflation came". The reference is to the Leader of the Opposition, Volume 121, No. 3, column 391, of the Official Reports. This attitude displays a misunderstanding of the economic policy which we are pursuing and ignores the economic realities of the external world. This country has not been affected to any extent by cyclic depressions. Our problem is one of continued under-unemployment of natural resources. We do not have to wait for a world depression before having to mobilise our resources by borrowing for the purpose of maintaining a high level of employment. Private investment alone is not sufficient to maintain in Ireland a high level of employment.

Ever since the formation of the State, throughout the terms of office of successive Governments there has been a high level of unemployment, a high volume of unemployment, a high volume of emigration and a great part of our land inadequately developed or left unfertile. In circumstances such as these, it is the sheerest mockery of economic theory to suggest that no drastic action should be taken to improve the conditions of our economy until such time as a chronic depression descends upon Europe. In circumstances such as exist in Ireland, with men and natural resources unemployed, the employment of these idle resources must be secured through investment which, if it cannot come from private effort, must be supplied by the State. This country is not materially affected by cyclic depressions after the manner of complex industrial societies where there are great fluctuations in demand. Our problem is not an acute depression but a constant, long-sustained level of undeveloped and unemployed resources. We do not have to import a chronic depression before taking action. The level of our unemployment and emigration during the past quarter of a century is ample testimony that in a very real sense some pernicious economic illness has in the past held the Irish economy in its paralysing grip.

It has been observed that the policy which we are pursuing involves a danger of inflation. The Minister for Finance has gone to great care to point out the risks of inflation which exist in the present situation. The fact, however, that the danger or the risk of inflation exists is quite a different thing from the actuality of inflation. As mortals, we all face the risk or danger of sudden death, but we do not have to act as if sudden death were already upon us and the risk and fear were actualities. To refuse to take a risk in a good cause is a sorry admission of feeble timidity, particularly when, as in the present context, there is so much more to justify the effort than the comforting thought that in the long run we will all be dead.

Nor is there any truth or any substance in the suggestion that the capital investment programme involves the use for the benefit of the community of more resources than it can afford. It is perfectly evident that there are resources of men and material available for productive use and I am sure most members of the House will agree that what is physically possible is financially possible. I do not say it is always desirable. The danger of inflation becomes imminent only when an attempt is made by financial means to achieve that which is physically impossible. We are a long way from that point in this country and I can assure you that that is an experiment which this Government will never undertake —in times of peace, at any rate.

It has become the fashion in some quarters to criticise in a sweeping way the general policy of the capital investment programme and to criticise vaguely the schemes covered by that policy. Such criticism is valueless. If critics can point to the undesirability of executing any specific scheme as a capital investment project they are being helpful. But if they condemn in mere general terms, without indicating which scheme they would reject, their criticism becomes merely irresponsible. In this House, this afternoon, the Minister for Finance repeated the challenge to the Opposition to give him details of any of the £12,000,000, of the projects for capital expenditure, which are specifically stated in the Book of Estimates, to which they object, and he will deal with their objections. As a feature of this irresponsible criticism I would refer to a statement made on one or two occasions to the effect that the national debt of this country has increased by 50 per cent. in the past few years. The real position is quite otherwise. In March, 1950, the gross liabilities of the State amounted to £157.3 millions of which over £21,000,000 represents the liquid proceeds of the Marshall Aid Fund, which are available for use and which are being used for the benefit of the community. The gross national assets of the State amounted to £43.9 millions in 1947. On the 31st March of this year they had increased by £45,000,000 to a figure of £88,000,000. In speaking of the national debt it is necessary to consider both sides of the national balance sheet; to take both national liabilities and national assets in conjunction to get a clear picture of the true national debt position. When this is done it is easy to appreciate the nonsense of the suggestion that the national debt of the State has increased by 50 per cent. in the past few years.

Speaking to Clonmel Chamber of Commerce on the 24th April of last year I made a reference to public debt which I think I should repeat here. It is as follows:—

"There is a close analogy between the national debt and the debt of a private corporation. A private corporation, like the nation, does not expect to die. A corporation debt is treated in the balance sheet as the counterpart to the plant and equipment and other assets that the debt represents. An increase in outstanding debt is regarded by the directors as the counterpart of expenses of equipment and plant undertaken to deal with an increased volume of business. That firm, therefore, is debt-free only when it is bankrupt. No accountant would be so absurd as to report to his directors a deficit of £9,000 in a year in which his business earned a profit of £1,000 and in which the firm was able to spend £10,000 on building a new factory. Yet that is precisely the mistake made when speaking of a national deficit resulting from capital investment by the State."

The aim of the Government's economic policy is to secure a more buoyant and expanding national income, which will, in real terms, increase substantially the standard of living of our people and solve the problems of emigration and unemployment. The up-to-date statistics which I have quoted indicate the progress which has been made and which is being made to that end. The Government will spare no effort to accelerate that progress. For far too long Ireland has been a country of unrealised social and economic potentialities.

Dealing with this Estimate last year, I stated that it gave an opportunity to Deputies to look at the over-all picture. In the course of the discussion on Estimates for individual Ministers, Deputies had an opportunity of dealing with the details of Government expenditure and Government policy. This Estimate gives an opportunity for dealing with over-all Government policy and of having a look at the over-all picture.

Although, this year, the picture must be looked at in the rather more sombre background of the present international scene, nevertheless, some of the tints in the picture to which I referred last year as being bright are brighter still this year. Some of the tints which were grey last year are brighter this year. There are still some dark spots but, looking at the picture as a whole, I think we have solid grounds for a reasonable satisfaction as to what has been achieved and have considerable justification for prudent confidence in the future.

Mr. de Valera

I move that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. When I was listening to the first portion of the Taoiseach's statement I made up my mind that I would begin by complimenting him on the refreshing change from the flamboyant statements to which we have become accustomed from the opposite benches to a sober statement of fact. We could not possibly digest all the figures and see the implications of the figures which he gave in the rather long statistical survey of the economic position of the country. I was about to suggest that on occasions like this it would be desirable, if he wished any properly informed discussion upon the figures, that he would supply them to us in bulletin form so that, before the debate, we could study them, see their implications and ask ourselves what is their real significance. I do not think anybody who listened to the reading of these figures could have grasped them so completely or even written them down, so as to use them properly in the debate. There was not, however, anything astonishing in the picture that was revealed by the figures in so far as we could grasp them from the mere listening to them. Most of us have been informed already in regard to the figure of the national income and the figure representing our external assets. We have learned from statements made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce of the progress in industrial production and in employment in industry, and so forth. Therefore, in so far as one can comprehend the statement in general, it did not reveal anything which, I think, was not already known to the members of this House. At the same time I do not say that a close study of the figures, which will be possible when we see them in printed form, will not reveal aspects which do not appear at first sight. Before I leave the question of statistics I should like to say that I am very glad that we got a survey of this sort from the Department and glad to note that that Department is acting independently. I presume that any time members of the Opposition want fundamental facts the information will be made available to them just as it would be made available to the Government Deputies. Perhaps the method would have to be by way of parliamentary question.

The Taoiseach

I desire to say that all the information in my Department will be available to Deputies any time they want it.

Mr. de Valera

That will be a great advantage. I do not know whether I could go a step further in suggesting a scheme such as that which they have developed in the Congress of the United States of America whereby there is a Department to facilitate private Congressmen and private Senators who may want to make investigations. I mention that matter so that it will be looked into in an effort to see whether any help can be made available to the Opposition on such lines. If our discussions here are to be of real value the information which is necessary to enable us to form proper judgments should be available to us. A great deal of our time here is very often wasted in arguing at cross-purposes.

I should like also to say, in connection with the Statistics Department, that if it is to be of real value two things are essential. The first of these is that we should have a sufficiently adequate staff to ensure that these statistics are available quickly. I would point out that statistics lose their value to the public and become useless from the point of view of trying to regulate Government or national policy if they come late. They become what almost could be described as of historical interest only. If they are to be of real present-day value it is necessary that they should come quickly. I hope that the Government, and the Taoiseach in particular, will see to it that a sufficient number of persons will compose the staff so that may be done.

One of the most valuable of our statistical publications is the Statistical Abstract. It is the book to which anybody will go in the first instance to get general information. Unfortunately, it has been late in its publication up to the present. I hope that that book will be produced every year immediately the statistical bases for it become available. It deals both with the calendar and with the financial year.

That brings me to another point which I should like to have considered by members of the Government, namely, the question of making the financial year coincide with the calendar year. From the point of view of the work that would be done in the House, and from the point of view of the staffs and the members of the House, it would be very much better if the summer season were largely free. In that way a great deal of the discussion could take place here on matters that only begin seriously to be considered after March. Though I ask that that should be considered I realise that there are some difficulties in the way. However, I was never completely satisfied that these difficulties were sufficiently great to prevent the idea of the two years corresponding from being adopted.

In addition, having a sufficiently numerous staff, it is necessary that they be of first-class quality. You will not get a staff of first-class quality unless you pay salaries which will attract men of the highest ability. It was a complaint of mine, when we were in charge of the Government of this country, that the technicians in every Department were not paid sufficiently well in comparison with the administrative staffs. I realise the importance of the work being done by the administrative staffs but, as a rule, when civil servants enter an administrative Department they have chances of promotion. The trouble is that when you get into a specialised or technical section, such as a statistics section, it is composed, as a rule, of only a small group of persons and the possibilities of promotion are not great. That helps also to deter people of the quality that should be available for services of this kind from pursuing their studies to enable them to qualify, and they go on to other lines of activity.

It is customary in the debate on the Taoiseach's Estimate to deal with some of the major points of policy to which the Opposition want to direct attention. The increase in Government expenditure is obviously one, particularly having regard to the statements made by the members of the various Parties who support the Government. If democracy is to be a reality, if there is to be real confidence in it, the statements made at election time ought to be of such a kind that the public can put some confidence in them. If people are elected to office, and if when they get to office, the policies which they pursue are directly at variance with the policies which they professed when they were looking for election, it is quite clear that that strikes at the root of any confidence in democratic Government. I think it is right, therefore, in the interests of democracy generally, that when statements are made at election times, those who make those statements should constantly be reminded of what they have promised.

I ask to be allowed to develop my points. Anyone who wants to speak later will have plenty of room and ample opportunity to do so. As I pointed out on the Vote on Account, we have not been against the use of national resources for national development and the use of national capital that is employed elsewhere being employed here, provided we are satisfied that it will be productive. If you have capital producing an income of £100 at the present time and you employ the capital in such a way that you will only get back half of that, it might happen that the half will be more satisfactory for certain reasons. Surely it is the duty of people to examine and satisfy themselves that the investment will be profitable? We say to the Government that they have not been doing that; that they have not been applying any test. They simply say: "We will be able possibly to get more out of the land," but they have not estimated how much more.

If we are to deal with these economic and financial questions, we ought to deal with them on some basis of that sort. What is the use of the figures the Taoiseach is presenting if, when we begin to apply them, we throw them completely aside. That has not been our attitude; our whole history when we were the Government proves the contrary. Before we left office we had a large scheme of development. Part of the attack upon us was that it was an extravagant scheme. It was a scheme for construction of various kinds in which the building of houses played a most important part, because it was and still remains the most important and urgent public need. I have said these things because I think that, when we are dealing seriously with matters of this kind, it is not right to try to make petty debating points by picking out a sentence out of a long speech divorced from its context and using it to build up a picture of an attitude of mind which is not ours at all.

Another matter that naturally comes up for consideration is the question of the cost of living. People on the opposite benches went before the country with all sorts of ideas and promises as to how they were going to reduce the cost of living and blamed us for being chiefly responsible for it. The cost of living was going to be reduced at any cost, huge subsidies were to be given in order to diminish it. We know now that the cost of living has gone up, again exposing the fact that those who are in office at present went to the electorate and were elected on a programme which they have failed to carry out.

Mr. O'Leary

What did you tell them?

Mr. de Valera

I did not get elected on that basis.

Mr. Beegan

On a point of order. When the Taoiseach was speaking, there was not a single interruption from this side of the House. If they want to turn it into an uproar, two can play at that.

Dr. O'Higgins

Is that a point of order?

Mr. O'Grady

Is the Leader of the Opposition not entitled to make his speech without interruption from the members of the Government? We have listened attentively to the Taoiseach.

Dr. O'Higgins

Speak to your own Deputies.

Mr. de Valera

The next matter of importance which you will naturally like to consider at considerable length is the question of emigration. When I was listening to the Taoiseach's statement on the question of employment, I was wondering how his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, was taking it. When they were on these benches the attitude of the present Ministers on this question was that it was only necessary to have the will to do these things and they could be done overnight. Deputy Morrissey, as he then was, said that anybody who wanted work in this country could have been provided with work within 24 hours. We are now informed by the Taoiseach that the matter has not been solved yet.

The Taoiseach

What matter?

Mr. de Valera

The question of full employment. You mentioned full employment, at least I think so.

The Taoiseach

I will deal with it.

Mr. de Valera

When the present Ministers were on this side of the House they spoke as if the questions of full employment and emigration were things that could be dealt with if the Government had the will to do it. There is very little difference between members of this House with regard to general aims. Every one of us would like to see a number of things done in this country if there were means available by which they could be done. There is nothing for the Taoiseach to boast about in saying "we want to do these things and we want to increase production". Of course, we want to increase production. We know that the more production there is the more will be available in one way or another for our people. It is not a question of wishing to do these things; it is the method we ought to be dealing with.

Everybody would wish to increase production. Everybody would wish that our people would be able to find a livelihood at home instead of having to leave the country. Perhaps it would not be right to say that everybody would wish that more of our rural population would be able to remain on the land, because some people might not. I have met some people who think that the ideal society would be to have the people congregated in the cities where all sorts of amenities could be easily provided, and then have a rural blank space worked with tractors and all the rest of it—huge ranches with very few individuals on them. It certainly would not be my idea for a social system in this country. We might not then, perhaps, agree as to how exactly the people should be distributed.

I should like to see the greatest possible part of our population remaining on the land. I discussed that on previous occasions from the opposite benches. It was from a speech in which I was discussing that particular problem that the Minister for Finance chose to take out certain sentences and string them together irrespective of what the whole argument was about.

So far as the position on the land is concerned, I pointed out that the first thing was to divide it as quickly as we could into as large a number of economic holdings as would be reasonably possible. There were certain limits to the extent to which that could be done. The next thing I pointed out was that, when you had people placed on the land, having formed a rough estimate of what would be an economic holding, you would find that the present number on the land would not be greatly increased. At any rate, when you had it done, you then had the problem that out of a family of four or five people only two on an average could remain on the land. Therefore, if you want to keep them in the country, you have to find occupations for them in pursuits other than farming. Let us take a family of five. Three of these will have to get an occupation away from the land. They would naturally go into commerce or industry or into the professions.

We have always held that the real way to set about solving that problem is to build up our industries as quickly as possible. If there is a big increase to-day in industrial production, it is an increase that naturally arises from the foundations laid before this Government came into office. I remember the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr. Lemass, pointing out in the early part of the year that in the year 1947 all the industries were hopeful. From the point of view of industrial development, everything pointed to rapid recovery and rapid extension, the moment the raw materials and capital equipment became available. What has happened is what was anticipated by Deputy Lemass at that time. The development is due to the fact that the foundations were properly laid. It is not surprising or astonishing to us that there should be this industrial advance, as we expected it. Whether it has been more than we expected or not in certain details, I am not able to judge, or whether some of the increase was due to special activities of the Government at the present time. The real truth is that, in so far as there have been successes in several lines of development, those successes are mainly due to the fact that you are building on foundations and plans which were already made. When we were originally in opposition, we believed that our policy, this policy, was a lasting policy, not a policy for a day but one which would continue because, seeing the advantages which were accuring from it, the people would insist upon it, just as in the political sphere, we knew that the changes we were trying to establish would last because of their soundness and the same insistence. We knew that these changes corresponded with the natural aims and ideals of the Irish people. We knew that any Government coming after us, whatever they might do about going ahead from that base, could not reverse from that advance. We are happy to see that that is so.

The only thing that we resent is that the suggestion should be made that these policies are now the exclusive property of the Government and that we should be put in the position as if we were opponents of the policies for which we have been standing all our lives.

Emigration is a problem which we all recognise as serious and dangerous. It has to be solved by definite steps. The keeping of people on the land must be solved by providing some of the amenities for country people which the city people have and which make city life attractive. The distribution of electric light and power in our rural areas is one of those amenities. Another inducement is good country roads, which would enable a man and his family going to Mass on Sunday to avoid having to plough through mud. The supply of running water is another thing. These would help to make country life more attractive for some of those people who are at present disposed to leave it. If you wish to keep people in the rural areas, you must develop the industries in those areas also. When we were in office, we tried to bring about decentralisation of industry, to bring it into the smaller towns. Under voluntary systems we found it very hard to induce some of the manufacturers to do that, but we did our best. When leaving office, some of us had come to the conclusion that one of the most effective ways to begin that process would be to try to develop the smaller cities. This city is growing in many ways—much will always have more. For the manufacturer there is an attraction in the large centre of population. One must try to combat that by building up some of the secondary cities in size. There is Cork, Limerick, Galway, Sligo, Kilkenny and Waterford. I have named them without any special care in selecting size and may have omitted some I would ordinarily mention, but I am giving these only as examples. It should be our object to send industries as far as we can to those areas. As a first step, that is the nearest we can get in regard to any large industry. If we can get smaller industries to go into the smaller areas, all the better. Methods like that, pursued steadily, will achieve certain results.

These are the type of remarks which were distorted by the Minister for Finance. Noting the general tendency of people in every part of the world to go away from the land, you cannot be sure at the start whether these things will or will not be successful. I never suggested, however, that it was a thing we should throw up our hands at in surrender, saying that we could do nothing about it. We ought to try to do these things and try to get over the difficulties that present themselves. I do not think many in this House would disagree with that as an objective, but there is no use in having statements and aims of that sort alone. It is the method by which we achieve the aims that is the important thing for us to discuss.

The next question naturally coming up here is one which we have discussed already on the Vote for the Department of External Affairs, the question of Partition and the methods we should use. Everyone is agreed that we want to bring about an end to Partition as quickly as we can. What I have objected to always is statements such as those made frequently by members of the Government as to its nature and the ease with which it can be dealt with. It is doing infinite harm to the morale of our people generally to state that it is a problem which could be solved overnight and that if Fianna Fáil had the will to solve it it could have been done. The truth is that it is an extremely difficult problem. One of the main aims of our general strategy, as far as Fianna Fáil was concerned, was to clear the ground in order that we might achieve a certain unity in other things which were disturbing our national economy so that it would be possible ultimately to tackle this most difficult of all our problems as a united people. We wanted to achieve a situation in which these lesser problems could be put aside, as it were, so that we might all combine to bring about a solution to this problem by whatever means seemed to us to be the best means of achieving our objective. Now, in order to solve this problem, the most obvious step is to inform right-minded opinion, first of all. Naturally that is a matter that we would have to discuss here under other circumstances. As I have already said, I do not propose to discuss it now nor do I want to add anything to what I said yesterday in the debate on the Estimate for the Department of External Affairs.

There is another fundamental problem in which there would probably be agreement, too, as to aim; at least, I hope there would be agreement on it, though I have never had evidence of any real test of opinion on it. I know that an odd Deputy here and there might not agree, but I believe that the vast majority of the members on both sides would agree that every effort should be made to restore the native language in order to make it once more the spoken language of our people. Just as in the case of Partition, it is no use shouting at the Government, whether it be the present Government, our Government or any other Government; it is no use shouting at the Government and expecting that the Government can itself restore the language. Naturally, the Government can do a great deal to help in moulding public opinion in coping with difficultes that may arise and, above all, by leadership. I can assure the Government that in anything they will do towards the restoration of the language as the spoken language of our people we, on this side of the House, will do everything in our power to help. I understand that the Government had a deputation recently from Comdháil Naisiúnta na Gaedhilge. I was approached. I understand that certain proposals were made to the Government by that body. In the discussions with me certain suggestions were made. I hope the Government will examine very carefully the suggestions that were made. One of the suggestions made was that a special board should be set up to deal with the Irish-speaking areas in particular and that a certain sum of money should be made available to that board for that purpose. The primary aim of that board would be to assist in keeping the language alive as a spoken language in those areas. In order to achieve that, it would, of course, be essential to provide employment for the people in those Irish-speaking districts, so that they might be able to make their living there and thereby ensure that neither the language nor the Gaeltacht would be endangered. In order to restore our language as the spoken language of our people it is essential that that area in which it is the traditional language should be preserved.

If the Government comes forward with any policy designed to achieve that object they can be assured of the support of this side of the House. I think that here, again, our aims would be the same. I do not believe the Government would be niggardly in providing money for this purpose any more than our Government would have been niggardly in that regard. Naturally, that money would have to be spent in such a way as to bear fruit satisfactorily.

There was a further suggestion made with regard to An Gúm. That might have been more appropriately discussed, perhaps, on another occasion, but, as I am speaking in particular now to the head of the Government, it is not out of place to suggest certain steps to him. One proposal put forward is that An Gúm should be organised outside Civil Service control altogether. I think that would be desirable. I think very valuable service can be given towards the restoration of the language by An Gúm through the encouragement they give to authors by the publication of their books. I think a good deal could be done if An Gúm were given more freedom than they have at the moment as civil servants.

I merely put forward these suggestions so that the Government may know that there are a number of matters in which we have a common aim and, in so far as the Government tries to solve any of these fundamental national problems, they can be assured of our support provided always, of course, that we are satisfied with the methods adopted and that we think the methods will be effective. There was also the question of the use of the cinema.

But it was not, however, upon these matters that I mainly intended to address the House. I am drawn to speak principally because of the nature of the concluding portions of the Taoiseach's address.

I want to deal primarily with the problem of our national defence. We have been urging the Government to appreciate that there is a dangerous situation ahead. That danger has been threatening for a considerable time. I do not know whether the Taoiseach has changed the complacent attitude he adopted in this matter in the past or whether he still thinks that the situation is not a serious one. I do not know whether he still regards us as being unduly alarmist. I do not know whether he does not consider the matter a serious and an urgent one and whether he still believes that he can go on legislating for peace just as if there were no dangers threatening. Most householders hope that their premises will not be burned down and, in case their efforts to safeguard their premises should not be successful, they insure in some measure against complete loss. Since U.N.O. started and since the attitude of some of the Great Powers in it has been revealed, it is quite obvious that we are not approaching real peace. We are in a completely different situation now from that which obtained after hostilities ceased at the end of the first world war. The moment it became obvious that these two groups of States were splitting apart and that one group deliberately, as it seemed, was setting itself out not to co-operate and to frustrate all the efforts of the other group at co-operation, it became equally obvious that we were, unless some miracle took place, moving from bad to worse. What will be our position then in circumstances that one does not find it very difficult to envisage as ultimately likely to arise. The fact that one looks at these dangers realistically does not mean that one is unduly alarmed. If one does everything in one's power, one can then face a crisis just as bravely as the person who pretends that the situation is one to which attention need not be paid. I do not know whether the Government has been shaken out of its complacency as a result of what has taken place in recent times in the Far East.

One has only to look at the map to see what possibilities can lie within it. You can see there the Western States —I am speaking of one group—engaged now in a conflict some thousands of miles away from their natural bases. You see in the rear of the United Nations forces, mainly the United States forces, some 70,000,000 to 100,000,000 Japanese people who have been recently defeated and people that one would naturally expect to be resentful. You see in front, not merely the Northern Koreans, but you see behind them a country that has become Communist with some hundreds of millions of a population. Behind them again you see Russia with its manpower and industrial power to provide equipment for all. One can easily see that this is not a war—unless by some miracle or for the reason that one side might feel that they were not quite ready for the conflict—that is likely to end quickly. If this conflict should go on for a certain period of time it is quite obvious that one side or the other will lose patience about it and will say: "It is much better for us to try and bring it to a speedy end by using every method and every weapon we have got."

You have, therefore, facing you the prospect of a conflict far more terrible than the conflict through which we have recently passed. Are we just to sit down and depend absolutely on God's providence and do nothing more about it? We know that we cannot stop the conflict. The only question that can concern us is to try and see what measures we can take ourselves, so that we can survive as a nation through it. I do not think the Government is taking any steps at all. The first step that would naturally be taken is to see that the standing Army, which was necessary to develop and to be the core of the manpower of this nation, was brought up to the limit that was thought to be essential. I have many times repeated that, having gone into it with great care, a force of, I think, 12,500 was regarded as the minimum standing Army which could expand, take control, train and organise and take charge generally of what might be regarded as the available manpower. From the figures that we have got I do not think there has been any effort to bring the Army up to that strength.

That ought to be one of the first steps that should be taken. The Minister for Finance, or somebody else, will say "look at the expense." But when you insure yourself you naturally ask yourself the question, "Well, what is the premium, what is the expense?" when there is a serious danger, and you have something that you regard as of great value. What could be regarded as of greater value than the maintenance and integrity of this State, the maintaining of our independence here and our way of life, what could be more important than that? If we really believe that that is important, nobody should say that the one, two or three million pounds which might be involved was too big a price to pay for security. It will be argued, of course, that the expenditure of that sum of money would not guarantee security. I agree that it would not guarantee security. Neither in the last war, nor any other period of time anywhere, can a small nation be sure that by the expenditure of its own resources, it will itself be able to ensure absolutely its continued existence. I never felt, for instance, in the last war that if certain forces were brought against us that they could not defeat us militarily. What I believed was, that if defeated militarily and having done our best to preserve our independence, that that would not be the end of it. We had existed for seven centuries with the sovereignty of the people taken from them. While we should do everything in our power to see that similar conditions would not exist again, I felt that even these would not mean the end of our nation. But we must face the necessary expense.

The first thing which, in my opinion, the Government should do to meet the present situation is to bring up recruitment as quickly as they can, and to bring up the standing Army, in the first instance, to the number which we would regard as the minimum which could handle the manpower of the country.

Captain Cowan

Was that a peace minimum?

Mr. de Valera

It was the minimum that was required to organise and to officer an army that could be made available on the occasion of dangers such as the present.

We urge on the Government, in the first place, to deal with that and to set that right. I speak with some knowledge about this because, at the beginning of the last war, I found that we had not at all anticipated the tremendous difficulties that were going to be involved in building up an effective force rapidly.

The next thing is to see what is the extent of our reserves, to what extent we have reserves that are to a certain degree trained, and then behind them we ought to build up our F.C.A. forces so that they will be available for further training in case of necessity. We should give them the best training we can so that they will be available as they were in the last emergency for defence. The defence problem now is not of facing one line of troops with another. At any time now you can have troops landed from the air, and part of the general policy of defence ought to be to provide for a situation of that sort.

Next there is the organisation of civilian defence. A good deal of work is being done elsewhere in making provision for a possible new war. We have something that we can learn from that. What is the type of defence that is regarded as being most effective? I do not think that anything is being done. We have no indication, anyhow, that anything is being done, and I do not see that the existing forces are sufficient to enable any work of that sort to be undertaken. We do not know that there is anything being done in that regard, or that organisations are being set up which would be able to instruct the civilian population in the methods of defence and the methods of security which would be the best to take in case of attack.

Over and above these military measures, we have the question of the provision of supplies of various kinds. I know there is an argument that can be used, particularly by the Minister for Defence, against the suggestions I have made as being altogether ineffective to meet the danger. I shall deal with that before I conclude, but for the moment let me pass to the other question of seeing that we have food. In the last war we were very fortunate. Our people were on the up-grade so far as increasing cultivation and growing the cereals we required were concerned. We want to get back that mentality and the people will not get it overnight, particularly if we have suggestions from the Government that this is unnecessary. Even those who think that the next war will necessarily involve co-operation with other people, should remember that even though we should be co-operating with other people, these other people will not be as interested in seeing after our people as we ourselves would be. If we want ships, for example, for some reason or other they may not make them available. The important thing for this country is to see after our food supplies, particularly bread. I saw a stupid leading article in a newspaper some time ago, with regard to this matter, suggesting that we had plenty of cattle and plenty of potatoes. You know perfectly well that bread forms a very important part of the ordinary diet of our people and while we possibly could exist on potatoes and meat, it would so upset our whole economy and mean such sweeping changes in various ways that it is a thing that should be only thought of as a last resort. If by some chance we were deprived of bread, we would revert to a very primitive existence. So long as we can provide bread ourselves we ought to see to it that it is provided. I do not see that the Government are giving any leadership in informing the people as to the policy of this country with regard to the growing of certain cereals but now, at any rate, so long as this serious danger is there, we ought to see to it that we maintain supplies such as were maintained during the last war and we should try to work up again to the 600,000 acres of wheat we had before.

Next to food, there is the question of fuel. We had to improvise in the last war. The late Mr. Hugo Flinn—go ndeana Dia trocaire ar a anam—who was then in charge of that Department, tried to organise supplies of fuel for the city.

Why cannot we now think of that possibility and see to the arrangement we should make—how we can improve methods and equipment, in other words, have some plan for providing fuel in the case of necessity? Talking about plans, I do not know whether the Taoiseach is aware that during the last war one of the most valuable sources of information for us was a book indicating what another country, which had experience of war, would do at the outbreak of an emergency. There were certain indications of certain steps of every type that had to be taken. That was studied by our officers during the emergency. When the war was coming to an end, one of the things that I urged should be done—I do not know whether it has been done because we are inclined to go on to the work of the next year rather than look back upon the work that was done a few years ago—was that our experience during the time of the emergency should be crystallised in the form of a book which would be ready should ever the occasion arise again as a source of instruction in the vital steps that should be taken for the safeguarding of our people. I do not know whether that work has proceeded to any great extent, but that was the direction I gave. If it has not been completed, I would urge upon the Government very strongly that one or two of the officers of the Government Departments in charge of that should bring it up to date, so that the various steps that will have to be taken in case of the recurrence of an emergency will be taken and in the order in which they should be taken. I say that that is a work which would be of lasting value because I suppose we have not come to the age of universal peace yet and, so long as we have emergencies of this sort, there are certain steps that will require to be taken to meet such emergencies. Returning from the digression, food and fuel are the two most essential things to have.

There is also the question of shipping. We did develop our shipping reserves to some extent during the emergency. We were looking abroad for ships from various places. I do not know that I could say exactly that we found stony hearts, but we found people, anyway, who were preoccupied with other problems which were more important in their view than any question of what would happen to us. I should like to urge strongly that measures should be taken to bring necessary supplies from outside—not food, because I think we could make ourselves relatively safe as regards food—but I think we should have the necessary shipping to bring us other essential supplies.

These are the sort of steps which I should like to think were having the attention of the Government, but I see no indication of that. In fact, it seems to me that the Government are more or less gambling as to whether their view is right or ours is right. It would be some satisfaction—I assure him he would be welcome to it—if there was no war for the Taoiseach to say: "Well, these are the people opposite who were telling us there would be war and see now, there is none." That would be a splendid position if there is no war; but if there is a war, the Taoiseach and his colleagues will be held responsible by the Irish people for failure to take the reasonable steps which should be taken and which we at any rate are urging them to take. If it does involve expense or extreme measures, we shall back them. There is no fear that they will find an Opposition which will oppose them in these things. We know only too well the need there will be for them if a crisis should come upon us.

I have said that I know there would be some arguments that would be used against the suggestions I have been making about building up, first of all, the central core of the Regular Army and then seeing that our reserves are made as efficient as possible. We shall be told that we have very few arms. That is too true but, even to-day, the rifle, if all comes to all, is a useful weapon. We ought to see that every rifle and every round of ammunition that is in this country is capable of being used in case of necessity and if we have to defend ourselves.

When I am urging that, the Minister will say: "Do you not see the immense powers that are arrayed against you and what chance have you, a small Power, against these?" I say that if either of them were concentrated to attack us that would be true, but that is not exactly going to be the position. There will be two mightly Powers fighting each other. The side that matters to us will be very glad to see that there will be no gap in the defence in this country. People will say: "We have no chance of defending ourselves." I remember how Bernard Shaw mocked at our idea of trying to be neutral in the last war. There will be people who will say that we are attempting an impossible task. One of the things that made it possible was that during the earlier parts of the last war Britain was afraid of attack upon herself. This country could have been attacked at that time and they were very glad that we were prepared to defend ourselves. They would have given us arms at that time very gladly, I think, if they had arms to spare.

Another occasion may come when a similar set of circumstances may arise and when the fact that we are prepared to defend ourselves and to prevent this island from being used as a basis of attack against other countries will make these other countries glad to give us arms for that defence. But there is no use in putting arms in men's hands if they have no training and experience. If we can get even samples of these weapons we should do so, so that our people could be trained to use them and continue their training and so that, in case of necessity, if arms did come our way, we would be able to use them properly in defending ourselves.

The Minister for Defence pointed out very rightly here on some previous occasion that if we here were not distracted with the problem of Partition it might be very easy for a Government to prepare a line of national defence policy. Even though it might not get agreement from everybody, they would be able to put forward a definite line of national policy which they, as representing the majority here, would put through. I can understand that. He is quite right in saying that if we had not this problem of Partition, which is a paralysing problem under present circumstances, paralysing practically for everybody who is thinking in terms of national defence, then it is quite possible that, although there might be a division of opinion in this House, a policy could be put forward by which this country would take the line of action which is taken by other small countries of combining with other people for defence. But that is out of the question for us now. Still, there is no use in throwing up our hands completely at the situation or in saying that we can do nothing. I think we can.

If common sense should prevail, if some of these people who are talking as if our problem were a petty problem were really to regard it as a petty problem for themselves—it is not so for us—then the paralysing situation would end as far as we are concerned. If we had a united Ireland, obviously the Parliament of a united Ireland would have to decide how the people of this united island could best be defended in the circumstances, and if there was a question of choice what course our people should take; but that cannot arise under present circumstances. What I am complaining of is that the situation being what is is, we appear to be completely giving up and making no attempt at all. I think that is bad national policy and I would urge with any powers of persuasion I have to bring to bear that the Government should go all out in preparation. If it does mean expenditure of certain money you will have to regard that money simply as you would regard an insurance premium. I have explained my point of view sufficiently to make it possible for me to pass on to another point, but I am dissatisfied with the Government because it is not dealing with that situation as I think it should be dealt with and as I think the national interest demands that it should be dealt with.

There is another matter which I raised by way of question with the Taoiseach a short while ago and I regard it in principle as being of fundamental importance. There are people in this country who are misreading Irish history. It is true that when we had an English Government here it was possible to pursue at the same time two lines of policy. You had one line in which parliamentary representatives were trying to fight, as Parnell said, "within the Constitution". It was the only thing they had. You had, side by side with that, a number of people who were using other methods. That was fundamentally possible as long as you had no native Government here, as long as you had a Government which was a foreign Government against which all action was being directed. They were all being directed in the same way against it, but even at the time there were complaints by those who were called constitutionalists that those who were adopting physical force methods were interfering with their progress and that they were frequently embarrassing them when success seemed in sight, when it was very awkward for them to be embarrassed. You had, on the other hand, those who stood for physical force saying: "What is the use of all this talk? There has been talk and talk and talk in this country for so long and we are getting nowhere with it."

Captain Cowan

It is the greatest industry in this country.

Mr. de Valera

There is a lot of truth in that, but if you accept it as an industry it does not yield very much by way of profit.

Mr. de Valera

I am justifying the fact that we have here a sovereign Parliament in this part of the country, and under its authority must remain the forces of this country. Otherwise, we are going to have chaos here, because, if Deputy Cowan can organise a military organisation for one purpose, I do not see why half-a-dozen other Deputies could not organise half-a-dozen military organisations for other purposes. My point is that the Government ought to make it quite clear that there will be no organisation for a military purpose and no military force in this country, except the organisation which is under the direct control of the Government.

Mr. Cosgrave

That was always our policy.

Mr. de Valera

Your position was a very different one and do not bring us back to it. The position to-day is that you have a Constitution framed by the Irish people and you have that Constitution accepted.

Captain Cowan

By less than half the people.

Mr. de Valera

By practically the whole of the people in this part of the country and, if the Deputy wants to deal with that elsewhere, he can do so.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Cowan must cease interrupting.

Mr. de Valera

It is in times of crisis that we have these difficulties, and the fact that such appeals can be made to our people is one of the serious dangers of the whole position. Appeals can be made on account of this wrong of Partition persisting, appeals which will lead young people, who can be induced by various devices, and led into organisations of that sort. It is at times of crisis that these activities naturally show themselves, so I ask the Government to make it clear that it is a matter of principle and that it is something which could not possibly be tolerated by this State.

I have dealt with the two matters with which I intended to deal: the question of defence and the question of the authority of this Assembly. Other matters may be dealt with by other speakers, but, in view of the fact that the Government does not seem to be alive to these two very important responsibilities, I am moving that the Vote be referred back.

Minister for Defence (Dr. O'Higgins)

I am sometimes puzzled by the statements of the Leader of the Opposition. From his speeches sometimes we appear to be going the same road and sometimes we appear to be going completely different roads. When it comes to a question of national security, even though we might be very incompatible companions and very unhappy comrades, so long as we are going the same road in a common interest, that interest being the safety of the country and the security of its people, I will put up with that incompatibility and try to iron out the unhappiness and go as a good comrade along the same road. But the Deputy at the present moment happens to be in a position of comparative political irresponsibility and we over here happen to be in a position of grave responsibility. From that position of grave responsibility, we have, of necessity, to balance up in an unsettled and turbulent world the advisability of keeping our country and the minds of our people calm and concentrated on their job of work, on production of food, production of goods.

Even facing the possibility that the time may come when goods will be in short supply and when man-power will be demanded not in hundreds but in thousands, for the Defence Forces of the country, we have got to balance up in that way and time our stroke as to when it is advisable to lock up the man-power of the country, not to occupy them in knocking sparks out of a barrack square, and to the greatest length of time that is possible, to occupy them in the field and in the factory, producing the goods to which the Deputy refers that may at any moment be in short supply. That is a matter of balancing and that is a matter of acting according to the advices and the information you can get.

No Government in the whole world to-day, not to speak of any individual Deputy or member of Parliament, can claim to be able to look into the future. That is reserved for the Almighty. It may be said that one man's guess is as good as the next, but the opinion of a Government that has representatives scattered throughout the globe is at least of as much value and as much weight as the opinion of an individual Deputy or an individual member of any Parliament in the world.

We know there are dangers. We know we are living in an unsettled world. We know that the future is doubtful. But we were not brought up in the breed of pessimists. We still believe there is a Providence up above, and we still believe that the best injection to instil into our people is the injection of hope and confidence and of looking to Providence. At the same time, when Providence is looking down upon the whole lot of us, we are quite aware of the fact that Providence expects each one of us to do his job and to face up to his responsibility.

The Leader of the Opposition was only two months out of Government when he started preaching war at home here and from far-away America. For two months before that he had been blasting down air raid shelters and disbanding the Army and cutting down his Army Estimate and providing for the same Army as I have to-day. He probably sent those messages from America and made those speeches at home in good faith and in honest conviction but, thanks be to God, so far, he has been wrong, and, with the help of God, he will be wrong for the next few years, at least as wrong or as right as he has been for the last few years.

He and his lieutenants frequently compare and attempt to contrast the position of the Defence Forces to-day with the position of the Defence Forces at the outbreak of war in 1939. Even within the last 20 minutes, he referred to the use of the rifle and to the fact that the rifle is still a valuable weapon. So it is, and even if there were no heavier arms than a rifle, it is a defence weapon and a formidable weapon in the way of protection.

The position in this country is very, very dissimilar to-day from what it was in 1939. In 1939 you had a tiny Army and you had a fairly adequate First Line Defence Force, and you had nothing else. Your manpower capacity for putting arms into the hands of people trained in arms was confined within those two bodies—the Army and the First Line Defence Force. What happened since? It is a thing that Deputies opposite ignore. We mobilised during the emergency an Army that swung between 35,000 and 50,000 men. We were never engaged in war. We never had a casualty in war. We never fired a bullet in anger. They were all demobilised and we have at the present moment up to 40,000 of the best young men that this country ever produced, soldiers by inclination, soldiers by their very blood and upbringing, who sprang into the Defence Forces during the emergency years, who served for those five years, who are completely accomplished and trained soldiers. We have every one of these in the country still. We have 2,000 odd officers of the same calibre, completely trained. There is no necessity to pull these men back into barracks, as was the case in 1939. They are in the field; they are in the factory; they are in their offices; they are in their shops, they are in their professions; but they are all standing by as trained men. It would be nearly bankrupting the manpower of the country in the days in advance of war if we were to be piling training on training on top of those men, teaching them what they learned years ago, how to form fours, to brighten their buttons and to salute an officer. Every one of these is a trained soldier. Every one of these ex-soldiers is a trained and potential officer.

We have that immense army of men out there as reserves, not paper reserves but human reserves. On top of that again, we have the vast numbers of young men in this country who, during the war, were trained, trained not only in the theory of war but in the practice of war, in other armies during the late war. They have come back to their motherland and every one of them is as Irish as any of us. If war crashed on us to-morrow we have that immense reserve of our own, trained by ourselves, and we have the big reserve that were trained elsewhere.

I shall not go into that. They had been in office for 16 years. During eight of these 16 years arms and armaments were in ready supply. Half the countries of the world were selling and it was a case of looking for buyers. There was an unlimited world market there in the way of arms and armaments. That Government was in a position to buy them. They bought a certain quantity year after year. A very great quantity of the supplies coming in from year to year were still there and are still there. To the maximum extent that the supply was available—not to the maximum extent that money was available but to the maximum extent procurable—since I took responsibility for the Minister for Defence, I have increased the supplies there. Has the Deputy any fault to find with that policy? We have never been at war. We are not bragging or blowing as to what equipment we have, but we have a considerable amount accumulated through the years, expanded in the last three years, and none of it wasted in war. The equipment is there; the man-power I have dealt with.

The Deputy comes on, then, to refer to the whole question of civil defence and the inadequacy of our efforts in that direction. There again much, very much, has been done. It has been done, however, without disturbing the mental ease of the population, without agitating them, without making them nervous. We were only two months in office when a sub-committee of Ministers was appointed to view all this situation of the possibility of war. The compilation of books from the different Departments, based on their experiences during the last war, the compilation of legislation in the event of its being required—all that is being done and has been done. But it is being done unostentatiously, quietly and without disturbing the mind of the woman of the house, of the man in the field or of the man in the factory. Is that not much better than being noisy about it and turning our people into a population of jittery persons—not knowing whether to lay down the foundations or to postpone the whole building because war might come? We believe that, if war is to come, the maximum amount of building we get done before war comes the better for our people.

Mr. de Valera

That is so in every country. Everybody believes that.

Dr. O'Higgins

That is the line we are taking and which we have taken not recently but since 1948. We have not been blowing bugles or parading or strutting the stage but the work has been going on quietly and steadily. It is with reluctance that we state these facts even now and we do so only because of the provocation from the other side and because of the deliberate campaign of the past three months to try and put this country weak in the knees through fright.

You have a Government at the moment, a people's Government, a broad representative cross-section of the people. Does the Deputy think that Government is in any way either unnational or anti-national? Does not the Deputy know that, in the complements that go to make up this Government, you have as broad and complete a cross-section of the Irish people as it would be possible to get, a Government conscious of its responsibility, a Government careful of the people, a Government fearless with regard to an outsider and a Government determined to leave behind it a better State than it took over, if it is possible to do it? That is our attitude.

We do not work all the time in the limelight. Most of the hard work is done in the dark. Most of the real work is done behind doors, but the hard work and the real work has been going on all the time. It is nonsense to be showing men into uniform before they are required.

Captain Cowan

Deputy de Valera is clutching at this straw.

Dr. O'Higgins

The Deputy referred to auxiliary services. I have a point of view with regard to auxiliary services. A skeleton of those auxiliary services has been kept there all the time. We know we are a little island here, that we are remote from the great world and, thanks be to God, to an extent removed from the warring world; but we have got continuously, over the past three years, all the information, all the instruction, all the intelligence and all the guidance that we can get from that greater world across the sea. We have all the time been sending people for courses of instruction, for informative courses across the sea.

We know what others are doing. We are getting weekly the material, the instruction, the advice of people who are closer to war than we are. We have been saying nothing about it, and it would not be in the national interest if we had been bleating all that kind of stuff for the past few years when we wanted people to get back to work and to work all the harder. Does it serve any national purpose to have the kind of speech that we heard to-day, to have people mentally disturbed, agitated, uneasy and perhaps fearsome with regard to the future?

Do you think that kind of speech brings solace to any woman in her home? Do you think that kind of speech is likely to make any man bend his back harder to the task he is supposed to be doing? It is unsettling everybody, male and female. It is bad for the adult and unhealthy for the child and the responsibility that is on the Government is to stand as a shield and a barrier not only between the people and danger, but between the people and anybody who wants to upset or unsettle them.

We are doing our duty and we have been doing it in the past. If war comes we will do our duty even better in war than ever we did it in peace. The fact that we have left the people alone in their occupations, peacefully employed, will ensure that if war comes, please God the response of the nation will be a response of gratitude that we have left them undisturbed so long that when we want soldiers we will get them in greater numbers than ever they were got before.

Captain Cowan

I have no intention of following some of the hares that were introduced into this debate by Deputy de Valera. I want to deal, as I intended to deal, with the Estimate presented by the Taoiseach. I want to compliment him on his excellent review of our economic position, as contained in the very informative statement he made to the House.

This Estimate each year gives us an opportunity of taking a broad view of our national affairs and of seeing where there should be acceleration, where there should be a marking of time and where, if necessary, there should or ought to be a change of direction. The Taoiseach has asked us to look at the over-all picture. I think every Deputy who is honest must admit that the overall picture is a satisfactory one.

This Government has been in office for a period of two and a half years.

That is a very short period, and we must realise that those Ministers who form the Government had, first of all, to familiarise themselves with their Departments, with their responsibilities, statutory duties and ordinary everyday administration, and they had to get to know their higher officers, the civil servants on whom so much of the successful running of a Department and of the country depends.

Notwithstanding those difficulties, which are considerable difficulties and which take some time to overcome, if we look at the volume of legislation that has been passed and the work that has been done in those two and a half years, I think it will be agreed that we have reason and grounds for congratulating ourselves.

We have a Housing Bill before the Dáil which fills a very necessary need and which has been welcomed by every Party in the House and by the leaders of public opinion outside. The Local Authorities (Works) Act is operating in every county in the State, giving, as it was intended to give, necessary employment and doing very valuable work for the people generally. Our arterial drainage programme is being pressed on with vigour. To-day, in reply to a parliamentary question, we have been told the amount of work that has been done and the numbers employed on the biggest of these schemes at present in operation. The land reclamation scheme has been launched, again giving valuable employment and, what is more important, giving heart to the land and rehabilitating the land so that it will be able to provide the food we would need in an emergency. Deputy de Valera talked about providing food in an emergency and taking steps to ensure that it would be available. What better preparation could have been made than by the land reclamation scheme?

Through the Department of Social Welfare we have made it possible for the old age pensioners, for the blind, for widows, for that very large section of the people, to improve their conditions of existence. Salaries have been increased for all State servants and pensions have been provided. In the Department of Education, a matter which has been before this country for a considerable time and which helped in a way to bring down the last Government, namely, the grievances of the teachers, has been faced and very substantial increases in pay have been given, and very important improvements in conditions of service have been made. The health of our people has not been neglected. A magnificent hospitals programme has been carried out with energy, enthusiasm and efficiency.

That is the picture which I want this House to see, a picture of work which has been done in the short period of two and a half years by a Government composed, in the main, of Ministers who had no previous experience of departmental or ministerial responsibility. If we look at that picture, I think we are entitled to congratulate ourselves and are bound to congratulate the Taoiseach on the magnificent work done by the Administration of which he is the Head during that period. A Social Welfare Bill has been introduced which will revolutionise the social services in this State and, before this Vote comes up for discussion again in less than a year's time, that Social Welfare Bill will be in operation.

Notwithstanding what Deputy de Valera may say, we have a condition of internal peace which we have not known in this country for many years, due to the wise and judicious way in which the Department of Justice has been administered by the Minister for Justice (General MacEoin). In the sphere of industry, the Minister for Industry and Commerce stated recently that 60 new industries have been established. I asked the Minister to give me particulars of these industries, the number of people employed, and where they are located and, in a reply a couple of days ago, the minister stated that that information would be furnished to me within a very short period as soon as it is available.

Another matter of considerable importance in connection with which due credit must be given to the Government, and one which is vital if our industrial programme is to be carried out, is that there should be unity in what is known as the Labour movement. The first steps to bring about that unity have been taken by Ministers of the Government. I think every patriotic citizen was delighted that these steps were being taken. All of us would, I think, regret the statement we read in to-day's newspapers in which a Fianna Fáil Senator sets out to sabotage the efforts which are being made to bring about that unity. Those are the things that are important. Yet we have had from the other side of the House sabotage by individuals, sabotage by the Party as a whole, obstruction, delaying tactics, filibustering, a six-hours' speech on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture which leaves us in the position now that we have to hurry very vital business in order to get it done in a couple of days at the end of the session. We had a Land Bill introduced which does the Minister for Lands great credit and which is very important from the point of view of the division of land and the abolition of slum tenements of land in the seaboard areas of this country. That Bill was held up as long as it possibly could be held up by an obstructive and malicious opposition.

Mr. Davin

Nearly seven months.

Captain Cowan

Those are the things which ought to be dwelt upon in this House, but we have Deputy de Valera in this House and in the country talking about the Defence Forces, their state of preparedness and everything else. That comes very well from the Head of a former Administration which, the moment the emergency was over, dismissed out of the Army some of the finest officers that ever served this State. Men who had given their services for many years, who were competent and efficient, were forced to go out under an artificial age limit and were deprived of the opportunity of further serving this State. Why did he do that? While he was Taoiseach and Head of the Administration, why did he allow conditions in the Army to be such that every soldier was anxious to get out of it? Why would he not listen to the rumours that must have reached into the fastnesses of his mind about the conditions in the Army, that there was a state of dissatisfaction and discontent right through the Defence Forces during that period?

The Minister for Defence has not refused any recruit. Recruiting for the Army is open and has been open all the time. Every person who presents himself for enlistment and is within the age limits and complies with the requirements as to physical standards is recruited. But our Defence Forces are not up to the strength because those soldiers who served during the emergency were treated very badly by the Administration in which Deputy de Valera was the Taoiseach. These are important matters which must be considered by this House. During this year, 1,250 small holdings have been raised to economic level by the Land Commission. Is not that something of which the Government must be proud? Seven tons of seeds have been sown in the State nurseries for our forestry programme. Let the tally of constructive work done be put against the obstruction and the people of the country will have regard and appreciation for those who are endeavouring to work.

Let me say this about the team of Ministers as a whole. No one will suggest that any one Minister in the Cabinet is neglecting his work, that he is not devoting every minute of his time, day and night, to the work of his own Department. Any Deputy can walk down the corridor and go in and see any Minister and discuss any problem that he thinks he ought to discuss in the interests of his constituents. Not only is that permitted, but it is encouraged. That is a very big change from the days of a couple of years ago, when the Fianna Fáil Administration was here and when a private Deputy dare not go down to see a Minister unless he had an appointment made a fortnight in advance.

Mr. Killilea

That is not so, but the Deputy did not know anything about it, as he was not here. He had not made up his mind to come in at that time.

Captain Cowan

We meet our Ministers as man to man, but even yet, in regard to the people on the Fianna Fáil Benches, they shrink and slink away when they see their Leader come along the corridor. They are afraid to talk, even to some of their own ex-Ministers. There has been a change brought about in this country that Deputy de Valera and the Fianna Fáil Party do not yet understand. There is real democracy in action now.

Mr. Killilea

If that is the imagination that will build up the Deputy's army, it will go a long way.

Captain Cowan

There is real democracy, where the people, acting through their representatives, can influence and control the Government and can ensure that the things they want done by the Government will be done. That is democracy in action.

The Constitution we have to-day is a Constitution enacted as a face saver. The Minister for External Affairs has written a pamphlet on liberties, in which he has shown that, in the old Constitution, which was overthrown by the new, there were greater safeguards for individual liberties than there are in this Constitution. It is because there are not adequate safeguards for personal liberties, in this Constitution that Deputy de Valera talks about, that these ghosts stand up in front of him in this House.

I hope that Deputy de Valera will give an opportunity to young, energetic people to do the things he did not do during the long period he was a Minister of State and Taoiseach. Instead of the speech he made here this evening, he should have stood up in that seat and congratulated Deputy Costello, the present Taoiseach, on the marvellous work that has been done during the past two and a half years, by an untried Government but by a Government that set out to honour their promises and do their best for the Irish people.

Mr. C. Lehane

I would like to get back to the temper of the debate and to the frame of mind that was in the House when the Taoiseach introduced this Estimate, and I would like to make particular reference to the remarks of the Taoiseach. He gave a very detailed and valuable analysis of present economic trends and of the future developments that we might expect in those trends. My only purpose in rising is to address to the Taoiseach a few questions and to make a few references to matters which the Taoiseach did not cover in his opening statement. I would have been glad to have had from the Taoiseach some indication that consideration was being given to remedying the position which exists at the moment whereunder our currency is tied to and must fluctuate with the £ sterling. On the 18th September last when Britain decided to devalue, as I understand the existing state of the law, we had no option other than to follow suit. If I am wrong in that, perhaps the Taoiseach will deal with it when replying. But that is the position, as I see it. I would suggest that that is an undesirable position for this State. It is undesirable that we, having the means to achieve complete economic freedom, are not availing of those means.

The Taoiseach made reference to the export position and to the necessity for stepping up production and exports to Britain and the United States of America. I would be glad if the Taoiseach could—perhaps it is unfair to put it to him, but it was not dealt with specifically on the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce—deal with the question of the setting up of an export authority charged with the responsibility of underwriting normal export risks and with the responsibility of making available to our manufactures information as to market trends and the data necessary to them if they are to compete effectively with the manufacturers and industrialists of other countries.

The Taoiseach referred to the fact that 38 per cent. of those in employment are engaged neither in industry nor agriculture. In other words, there are 38 per cent of our people engaged in distribution, administration, transport and the professions. I would suggest that is a figure which should give the Government some food for thought. In my opinion, that percentage of people employed, engaged in what one might describe as non-productive work, is an unduly high percentage.

The Taoiseach did not make any reference to afforestation. I would be glad if, when he is concluding, he would give some indication of the Government's attitude. I hope I am not doing an injustice to the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach

Not at all, but I am just looking at our very competent and comfortable Minister for Forestry sitting beneath you, whose job it is to look after forestry.

Mr. C. Lehane

I suppose I will not be believed if I say I did not see him. I would be glad if the Taoiseach, when concluding, would underline the fact that this Government is determined to pursue a vigorous policy of afforestation.

Deputy Cowan, in the course of his speech, touched on the question of trade union unity. It is with a good deal of apprehension and a certain timorousness that I make the suggestion to the Government that consideration should be given to the establishment of a fund which would make it possible to assure to those who were formely members of non-Irish controlled unions that they would suffer no loss by reason of their adhesion to completely Irish controlled unions; in other words, that they would not be at the loss of such services and benefits as they had expected to secure unto themselves by contributions made to the funds of foreign unions. As far as I can recollect, this matter was examined by the previous Administration, and I understand that a tentative figure as to the probable cost was arrived at. If we could achieve unity in the trade union movement and if we could get rid of the foreign control in the trade union movement by such a step, then I think the money would be money well spent.

Finally, I would endorse what Deputy de Valera said with regard to the Irish language. I believe there should be the same approach to the question of the language as there is to the question of Partition. I believe that one of the most effective steps that could be taken would be to give a lead from this House and, as in the case of Partition, to set up an all-Party committee charged with the responsibility of seeing that the drive to restore Irish as the vernacular of our people is not allowed to slow up, charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the Gaeltacht areas are served and charged with the responsibility of ensuring that we will build a nation which will not be free, merely, but Gaelic as well.

Mr. Corry

In the Taoiseach's Estimate we have, more or less, a survey of different matters that have occurred during the past 12 months.

The Taoiseach

With great respect, you have not. You have general Government policy.

Mr. Corry

I take, first of all, Government policy in regard to industry. Like Deputy Cowan, I am wondering where these factories are that have been established during the past two and a half years. I am sure that my constituents down in the towns of Fermoy, Youghal, Midleton and Cobh are also anxious to know where the new factories established by this Government are situated and why a single one of these factories did not come down to the towns I have mentioned. I have been urging in this House on the Minister for Industry and Commerce during the past one and a half years to finish, or at least to go another step in regard to that splendid industry in Cobh which was set up by his predecessor, Deputy Seán Lemass. I allude to Irish Steel, a factory which was only barely pulled out of the fire——

The Taoiseach

I submit that questions of detail cannot be raised on the Taoiseach's Estimate, the debate on which is confined to general Government policy.

Mr. McMenamin

On a point of order. Was not all this discussed by the Deputy on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture, and is there not a Standing Order to the effect that a subject cannot be rediscussed within a period of six months?

Acting-Chairman

The Deputy is entitled to make general observations on agriculture so long as he does not go into details.

Mr. Corry

That is just what I am doing. The policy of the Government, so far as agriculture is concerned, is to send out dollars, which have been borrowed or got otherwise, to foreign countries to bring in what our own agricultural community should be producing. The refusal of the Government to give a guaranteed price to the agricultural community for their produce or for what they were producing, has put the Government in this position that it is in the hands of every foreign extortionist that can sell it muck. I have seen what this Government was compelled to bring into this country. I have seen the dockers in Cork refuse to go into the ships and unload that muck for which £500,000 of our money was paid to the foreigner.

The Taoiseach

Is that the Canadian oatmeal that was bought by Deputy Lemass?

Mr. Corry

It is the Iraq barley that was purchased by Deputy James Dillon, our Minister for Agriculture, for which we paid £320,000. I saw it in Cork and 50 per cent. of it was sand, and the other 50 per cent. muck.

Acting-Chairman

The Deputy is now going into details, and he has been warned that he cannot do that.

Mr. Corry

I was answering the Taoiseach. Does he consider it wise policy for this country to send £1,250,000, in dollars, to Formosa or to Cuba for sugar at £12 a ton more than the Irish people are growing and manufacturing it here for.

Acting-Chairman

I told the Deputy before that he must not go into details, and he must abide by the ruling of the Chair.

It is a very vigorous ghost to-day.

Mr. Corry

A very vigorous ghost all right, a ghost supplied by the nigger, supplied by the Formosans, by the Argentine, by the Cubans and the Department of Agriculture in this State remains inactive. If that is the lifeline on which we are to depend for our food supplies in a period of crisis, I can well understand the attitude and the mentality of the people who were sitting on these benches in 1939 who said: "Why produce wheat when we can get plenty of it in the American market to feed our people during the war?" I can quite understand that attitude and the frame of mind here to-day as one who had to sit over there and listen to them in former days. I can quite understand the reason why one of those who advocated that policy loudly during those days is put in charge of agriculture to-day. I can quite understand that, but where is it going to lead us? Where are we going to find food for our people facing that condition of affairs to-day?

There was nothing. 46/- a barrel was paid for it and the poor unfortunate old farmer was begging the Minister to get him 20/- a barrel in 1948. As a result, the agricultural community is no longer foolish enough to go on producing stuff when they have no guarantee as to what they are going to do with it. That is why I am here making what I consider to be a last appeal to this Government, and if there is an emergency within the next 12 months or two years in this country, Deputies will have reason to remember that appeal of mine, and sore and bitter reason, because when the condition of affairs which has brought about that position is made known to the people of this country it will take more than Deputy Cowan's army to save the boys. That is a fair warning.

I do not wish to delay the House. I have been prevented from dealing with the subjects that, in my opinion, should be the first and most important subjects to be discussed by a House of Representatives in this country who, after all, must consider the main industry of the country, agriculture. I am sorry that I could not enlarge on that matter, but I must obey the ruling of the Chair on that. You can talk about armies and you can talk about defence, but there is an old saying of Napoleon's that an army marches on its stomach and if you have hungry bellies among the army of the future you will have very little use in asking that army to fight. They will have very little humour when their backbones are tied to their bellies and they get a feed of Iraq barley instead of decent Irish wheat. I am telling you that it is not fighting they will be thinking of.

That is the position that is being created, and I regret that we have not got an opportunity of discussing the matter more fully. I wonder if the Minister for Industry and Commerce could tell us the amount of oatenmeal got by the ordinary process from a ton of Irish oats and the amount got from a ton of imported foreign produce of the Argentine brand. These would be rather interesting figures for the Irish people. I have got samples of both and have sent them to the millers for test in that respect. I hope that, when we reassemble in October, I will be able to give the House the results of my explorations in that line. I am sure they will interest the Minister as well. It is time some effort was made —and I have offered the Government full co-operation, as, I am sure, they will have the full co-operation of every Deputy, regardless of Party—to get produced in this country the food that the Irish nation will require and not have this drain on our people in peace-time involved in our having to rush abroad for foreign produce, and being in the position, in time of emergency, that there is no food to feed the people, unless it is paid for, as the Minister for Agriculture hoped it would be paid for from 1939 to 1946, with the lives and blood of our young people.

Mr. Derrig

It is unfortunate if Deputy Corry or any other representative of the agricultural community feels that the Taoiseach's Estimate should not afford him a full opportunity of dealing in general terms with what has been universally described as the main industry of the country. We got a great number of statistics from the Taoiseach, but it was impossible to note even the most important ones with the accuracy that would be required, but I think he mentioned that there were 50,000 fewer persons in employment on the land during the past four years than formerly and that a larger number than 50,000 had found employment in industry and other spheres; but it is not merely a question of finding employment assuming—which the emigration figures seem to contradict—that the whole of the 50,000 who left the land found employment at home. From our knowledge of what has been happening in the rural areas and from the exodus that took place after the hand-won turf scheme was closed down, it must be clear that a considerable population has left the country.

The fact that the Taoiseach's statement seemed to regard the national economy more from the industrial and from the Dublin point of view than from the point of view of the man who must view our economy as a whole and place the agriculturist in the premier position is, in itself, a very significant fact. He pointed to the striking improvement in the position of the farmers and it may be true that, as compared with pre-war, the farmers are in receipt of larger incomes, but, as was pointed out recently, if we have regard to the fact that the £ of 1939, in relation to present retail prices, is the equivalent of only 10/9, we have to ask ourselves whether the £100,000,000, which the Taoiseach says the agricultural community is receiving now by way of income, is, in fact, going to purchase for them the same amount of goods which they have to purchase outside their own economy as in 1939.

If there is any truth—and I suppose it is a truth that is generally accepted —in the statement that the land of this country must have suffered severely in the matter of fertility through over-cropping during the war period and that the primary purpose of Government ought to be to restore that fertility, and even to give the land a higher level of fertility than it had previously reached, there is surely a strong case that the opportunities which the Government now has at its disposal of making the moneys available through Marshall Aid available to the farming community generally and not merely to the owners of marginal land, or land which, in a time of scarcity of food and comparatively good prices, it may be profitable to cultivate, but which later on may go back to its original state. It is a matter for the Taoiseach as much as, and more than, it is for the Minister for Agriculture to make at least some reasoned reply to the case frequently made from these benches and from his own benches, and to which no reply has been forthcoming, except the usual scornful epithets from the Minister for Agriculture and that there should be a concerted drive on the Government's part to make fertilisers available to farmers at reasonable rates, since it was due to their efforts that this community was able to carry on without the aid, which, even in the first world war, was available to us from outside and the aid which, in another crisis, if it should occur, may be even more urgently necessary.

The Taoiseach referred to under-production and under-employment on the land. We regard this matter of our agricultural economy as a social question and it does not matter what strides are made in industrial development or technical efficiency, the man on the land has the safeguard in a world crisis that he will always have enough food for himself and his family and will be able to supply his neighbours. The only good book I ever read on unemployment, the only book that made any impression on me, was a book in which the author said that the best form of economy, in the long run, was the economy of the food producer who had some other craft or employment of a part-time character to help him out. There is no use in blinding ourselves to the fact that the economy and mass production methods of the United States of America, which are now being forced upon countries which have an entirely different economy, will not succeed here. We prefer to approach this question from the point of view of having the largest number of families on the land. The provision of whatever is necessary in the way of guaranteed prices or State assistance to enable those food producers to meet costs of production and have a decent margin should be the primary object of Government policy. Any policy of investment, of repatriation of assets, or other, that does not have that in the forefront and that does not regard that as the primary objective in national policy, is not likely to succeed.

We cannot apply the prairie methods of the United States of America to the small farms of this country. We have to accept, as most countries have, the particular characteristics and the particular economy that we have. It would take a very long time for us to adapt ourselves and to inure ourselves to the changes that would be necessary if we were to attempt to move in step with prairie countries.

I suggest that it should be the policy and duty of the Government to have regard to the needs of the small farmer. The surplus from his land when he has maintained his family and himself will be limited assuredly. The Commission of Inquiry into Agriculture that we set up agreed that improved education was the fundamental and most necessary improvement of all in regard to agriculture. They did not say, but I think they might have said, that no other improvement is worth while or that there can, in fact, be no other improvement until education is brought up to date and modern technical methods applied.

The Taoiseach spoke of the country towns. Our opinion is that the country towns are not thriving, are not prospering. Everything is being sucked up into this octopus of 500,000 people. At the rate the population of Dublin is increasing, it may in our time reach 700,000 or 800,000. That is not a very good position. It is a very difficult problem. Surely it would be better for the Government to try to decentralise industry to the maximum extent even if the assistance which has had to be given elsewhere must be given, in the way of providing free sites, certain relief from rates and even grants. Under another Government not very far away, grants are being given to people to establish industries and the Government is actually building the factories.

The terms of trade are undoubtedly favourable to agriculture at the present time. I am in thorough agreement with the advice that farmers are getting to make the very most of the opportunities that present themselves. I should like to see rural electrification and rural water supply schemes carried on with somewhat the same intensity as housing and the provision of other amenities for the City of Dublin and other large centres and with the same desire that apparently exists among the Parties supporting the Government for the provision of these amenities in the City of Dublin and the other large centres.

If other people can organise and secure advantages for themselves, the agricultural interest in this country is not by any means so backward or unintelligent as not to grasp the moral for itself. If the present trend continues, and if we will have the position that the population on the land which we used to hear was roughly 50 per cent. of the total population, decreases to 40 per cent. or even lower, it will mean that the preponderance of influence, which is already too great in the case of this metropolis, in the political, economic and every other sphere, will be so great that, unless the rural community is organised and regimented in a way that has not happened before and that has not been possible, they will not be able to maintain their interests against all the other interests that are organised to get more than their share of the national cake.

According to the Taoiseach, we have an increasing number employed in industry, but that number, of course, is altogether below the number we ought to have if the policy of industrialisation was being carried on in an active and progressive way. According to the Taoiseach, the bulk of those described as being in the industrial category are only distributing goods. Therefore, instead of 20 per cent. in industrial occupations we ought to have a much larger percentage in the actual production of goods which we are at present importing. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has said that there is some £60,000,000 worth on which we could try our hand. We could do so if the Government would only give the necessary direction and set in motion the necessary organisation and direct that industrial effort with the necessary energy and capacity.

I was rather amused when I heard the Minister for Industry and Commerce interrupting Deputy Corry to say that we had more food in this country now than ever we had before. So far as the consumers in the City of Dublin are concerned, it is not very noticeable to them that we have more food if the price of food is any criterion as to the supply. When the Minister for Industry and Commerce told us recently that there was, in fact, an increase in the cost of living, he tried to excuse himself by telling us that, if conditions had remained the same as they were when the promise to reduce the cost of living was made, there would have been a very substantial reduction. Of course, if the conditions of 1947 had obtained in 1948 and 1949, the progress that has been made in industrial production, increased employment and general improvement in many spheres, would not have been possible. When the Government are quoting 1947 as a base figure for comparison to show improvements that have been effected since then, for which they would like to take credit and to attribute to themselves, they fail to make allowance for the particular conditions and circumstances of that year.

If we want to be honest about it and to ask ourselves whether we are making progress nationally or not, and economically or not, in fairness, we ought to compare the figures, as the Taoiseach has done in a few instances, with the position in the pre-war period. Then we shall see, as I have indicated, in respect of agriculture that, even though there is a big improvement in certain respects, particularly if you regard certain figures of output and so forth from the monetary point of view, when you look at them from the point of view of value, the position is entirely different.

It is admitted that in the sphere of agricultural production we have only now reached the pre-war level. It is admitted, also, that instead of a vast increase, having regard to the improvements in equipment and methods to which the Taoiseach referred, we have only an improvement of about 1 per cent. per annum in industrial output, if I got the figure correctly. I think that in a State which was being geared up to a proper level of industrial activity and not still in low gear, so to speak, a greater increase in our output ought to be possible. It is not as if we had reached such heights of industrial production that 1 per cent. more would be regarded as a very big thing. The fact is that we have been starting, of course, from a comparatively low position after the war situation and, therefore, the 1 per cent. per annum is all the more disappointing. If it is to be taken as a pointer that the Taoiseach is indicating signposts of advance, and so forth, I think, as he indicated himself, 1 per cent. can only be regarded as very disappointing.

The Taoiseach also stressed, I think, with regard to the volume of our exports, the increased value of our exports. We know that the terms of trade are in our favour; we know that there is a shortage of food in the world and, no doubt, exports have gone up to a very great extent. Nevertheless, as I understand the Taoiseach, the volume of our total exports is only 90 per cent. of what is was pre-war. If you take these three figures—the 1 per cent. per annum improvement in industrial production, the fact that our total volume of exports is only 90 per cent of pre-war and the fact that we are only now reaching the pre-war level in agricultural output generally—I do not think there is any room for the complacency that the Taoiseach seems to show. I should imagine, if we are serious about this matter, we ought to set before ourselves a target of achievement for the future.

If we want to reach a position that we are going to make our agricultural effort such that we can contemplate the future with equanimity and go out to meet all competitors in the international market; if we are going to face the position that, as far as possible, we will try to provide for ourselves and our own requirements in such a way that many of the things we had to go short of during the last war will now be available; if we are going to tackle agricultural production and industrial development in that spirit, I suggest the Government is failing in its task of leadership and direction in not giving us a more definite target as to what exactly the aim is to be-an aim which ought to be kept before all our producers and all our organisations of both employers and employees so that they may cooperate in the general national effort of turning out the greatest amount possible.

I had intended to refer to the statement of the Minister for Industry and Commerce that one reason why the cost of living had gone up, and which he claimed it was beyond his capacity or power to control, was agricultural produce. "Agricultural produce," he said, in the course of the Estimate on Industry and Commerce, "is about the only article in consumption that I cannot control." That statement was made in respect of this agricultural and food-producing country where rationing is still being maintained and where it looks as if we shall be the last civilised State in the food-producing category applying rationing to fats. The Minister went on, on that occasion, and said, as an additional reason for the increase in the cost of living, that protection leads to an increase in the cost of the protected article in most, though not in all, cases. That certainly, if it is true, is a strange commentary on the Industrial Development Authority, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, on the Minister's prices control organisation. The third point, of course, was one to which the Taoiseach referred and that was that the full effect of devaluation has not yet been felt. As the Taoiseach's statement pointed out, while it had shown itself clearly in the prices of raw materials, it is only now that the increased prices are working themselves out towards the consumer in the way of increased prices to wholesalers and retailers and, finally, to the public generally.

The Taoiseach referred to the national income and pointed to an increase. He said that there has been an increase in the national income from £338,000,000 in 1948 to £352,000,000 in 1949. I was rather anxious to hear from the Minister for Finance, and perhaps the Taoiseach will tell us when he is concluding this debate whether the principle that the Minister for Finance laid down in his Budget statement last year that we had reached the absolute limit of taxation and that the people could not be taxed further still holds. "Taxation," he said, "was £27 per head of the population and that was roughly, if we include both the national taxation, local taxation and insurance contributions, about 25 per cent. of the total national income." It is quite true that there has been no increase this year in the rates of taxation, but it will be seen that the sum of money which the Exchequer is expected to collect in one way or another of £75,000,000 to £76,000,000 is a very substantial proportion of the total national income. That is only a result of the failure of the Government, as has been pointed out in other directions, to make good the promises which were perhaps not very sincere but which were made, at any rate, that they would, as well as reducing the cost of living, reduce the cost of Government. The Taoiseach told us, when the Government came into office, that the country was overtaxed. The fact is that the cost of Government, which was about £65,000,000 in the last year of the previous Administration, has gone up to about £87,000,000 in the present year—and, of course, the retrenchment over a wide field was only applied to certain schemes which the present Administration regarded as grandiose schemes but which seem very much on the small side in comparison with the huge expenditure and huge schemes we now hear of.

Perhaps the Taoiseach will give us some information as to whether the Government is now definitely abandoning the mandate the Minister for Finance claimed he had in 1948 to carry into effect a policy of retrenchment over a wide field, or whether, on the other hand, the idea of keeping the cost of government as low as possible is to be put on one side and the new policy of meeting expenditure hitherto met out of revenue is going to be the main feature of Government administration. When the Minister for Finance asks us what item of the £12,000,000 we would cut out, we say that is the job of the Minister for Finance. I suggest it is the task either of the Minister or the Taoiseach to explain to the country why, when the Minister borrowed a mere £600,000 in his Budget in respect of these items in the preceding year, he can now turn round and pretend it is the same policy that is in operation when he is borrowing £12,000,000, 24 or 25 times as much as during the previous year.

It would be unfair of me to go through the items, but I think I may, to this extent at any rate, repeat what I said already, that when we are borrowing this £12,000,000 a year which, apparently, we are going to borrow permanently, we will have to pay for it, and the fact that we have to pay £665,000 a year for the next 30 years is sufficient proof of the heavy nature of the charge that has to be met. It is no wonder that the Taoiseach, in his statement, which was interlarded, like the Budget statement of the Minister, with qualifications and suggestions and advice as to the danger of pursuing this policy to an unnecessary degree, or to an alarming extent, said:—

"Let us have regard to the earning capacity; let us put the money, if we are going to repatriate it, into enterprises that will pay."

This £400,000,000, as he said, is only one year's income, and, viewed from the 1938 point of view, or the present value of money, it is not anything like £400,000,000. If you compare it with the pre-war figure of our sterling assets, and ask yourselves how much more we would get if we go outside the country to purchase our requirements as compared with what we would get at that period, then I do not think we would get very much more.

The Taoiseach now tells us we should be careful about this. Are we to agree with the Taoiseach in regard to this money, the yield from which the country is going to lose, and the whole capital of which it could also lose in a very short period under an improvident policy? Are we going to follow the Taoiseach's advice about putting that money into productive enterprises which, as well as giving employment, will add to the national wealth and will help to pay for themselves, or will we take the other line of spending the money on socially profitable schemes, as suggested by the Minister for Finance? If the criterion is to be whether the scheme is socially profitable or not, where will we stop? If we are to borrow for school buildings and housing grants, why not borrow for other services? Socially or otherwise, they are closely allied.

I cannot see where you will draw the distinction. The moment you pass away from the fundamental idea that, if you represent the people's interests truly and want the best return for the community, the investment should be one that will have a reasonable prospect of paying for itself—if you depart from that to any great degree— then we know what will happen. We know that, after a short time, such an improvident policy will have to come to an end.

I have, I fear, taken up more time than I had intended to take. With reference to the spending of $129,000,000 to which the Minister for Justice referred recently down the country, our information is, so far as I have been able to gather from Deputies in this House, that they are not prejudiced against the land rehabilitation scheme. They would like to see that, and other schemes calculated to benefit the country, prospering. We should like to see in operation schemes of such a character that all the farmers will benefit by them, particularly those whose lands are in need of rehabilitation because of necessary over-cropping during a period of emergency.

To that extent Deputy Cogan put the position pretty clearly in so far as it affects the ordinary farmer and, whether we agree politically with Deputy Cogan or not, we must admit that in this matter he has put up the attitude and the feelings of the great majority of the agricultural community. His suggestion was the suggestion of anybody who would have the temerity to make a suggestion to the present Minister for Agriculture, and that is that the whole of the agricultural community are entitled to consideration under this scheme and are certainly entitled to a more courteous, a more reasoned and a more worthy reply than the Minister gave.

There is another point about it. That scheme applies to all the rural areas, even though it is only to a limited extent, and when the Minister for Finance is sneering, backed by his satellites in the Labour Party, reunited now, at the Fianna Fáil scheme for Government buildings, I would remind him that that scheme, reference to which he has made, and the extracts he has purported to quote about it, go as far back as 1935. That is a very long way back. That scheme had not even reached the stage that it was brought before this House or before the Government for any decisions which would bring it into effect or which would even bring the preliminary plans into operation.

What I said before I will now repeat. If you want to provide an unemployment scheme for the large mass of unskilled labour in the City of Dublin or anywhere else, when your ordinary housing programme has reached a point of saturation, you will have to fall back on some large constructional scheme of that character. It is a serious defect in the Government's policy that, although they have received this huge amount of money which, apparently, according to the Minister for Justice, they do not ever expect to be asked to repay, they are not making proper provision for it. It is a serious defect in their handling of that if they have made no provision for increasing productivity in non-agricultural enterprises with the aid of that money. If they are doing it, members of this House have not heard what they are doing about it. We have not heard it from the Minister for Industry and Commerce. We are told the Industrial Development Authority is sitting, but we do not know what they are doing. There is no report from that body and, in fact, it has not yet received the sanction of this House by legislation.

Mr. Cogan

I should like to support the Taoiseach in the compliments which he paid to the Statistical Section of his Department for the good work they are doing. That section of the Taoiseach's Department have collected and are collecting and collating information which is of use to this Government and will be of use to every future Government in preparing policy and coping with national economic problems. I should also like to support the views of those who have pointed out how grave is the present economic situation of the country, having regard to world affairs. Unless some miracle occurs, a war involving the entire human race will take place in a very short time. Faced with such a prospect, there is a terrible obligation upon any Government to make provision for that situation, for the feeding of our people, for carrying our people through that emergency with the least possible loss. I know that any Government which undertakes the unpopular task in peacetime of stock-piling for war is taking a very grave risk of being laughed at, scorned and ridiculed in time to come if a war does not occur. But that is a risk which must be taken and every possible effort should be made to ensure that the raw materials for our vital and essential industries are procured so far as it is possible to procure them.

So far as agriculture is concerned, that industry, if placed on a sound basis, can support our present population without any outside aid. But during whatever period of peace is left to us we must set ourselves to provide additional raw materials for that industry to strengthen it so that it will carry us through that emergency period, if it should occur. The first thing necessary is to speed up and accelerate the pumping into our soil of the necessary lime, phosphates, potassic and other manures that are essential to make the land produce its maximum.

In words dripping with venom I have been assailed for urging the Minister for Agriculture to undertake a policy of speeding up the restoration or the fertility of our poorer soils. I admire the work that has been done in regard to the reclamation of bogs and mountains, but there is another form of reclamation and rehabilitation which must be pushed forward with the utmost speed, and that is the restoration of the fertility of land which is potentially sound but which has been drained of its fertility in one way or another. I hope that no effort will be spared to get from every part of the world where they can be got the raw phosphates which are so essential for this nation. I hope that no effort will be spared to help our farmers to put into their land all the necessary manures that can be put into it during the time that may be left to us. I hope also that whatever can be done to produce additional nitrogenous manures in this country will be done, and that all essential fertilisers will be procured. These are essential and urgent tasks that cannot be left in abeyance. They must be pushed forward with the utmost speed.

I do not feel complacent about our industrial and agricultural output. So far as agriculture is concerned, we have succeeded in getting back to our pre-war output, but that is not enough. We must push forward very much further. All experts are agreed, and amongst experts I include practical farmers, that our land is capable, with proper treatment, of producing possibly 50 per cent more than it is producing to-day. I know thousands of farmers who realise that they are not putting into the soil all the manure that it requires. They would like to be able to do so, but the majority of the farmers are limited so far as capital is concerned. We have heard a good deal from the Taoiseach about chronic under-investment in regard to home development. There is no industry in which there is such under-investment as in agriculture. During whatever time is left to us, I hope the Minister will bear in mind the necessity for strengthening our agricultural industry.

The statistical survey issued last year by the Taoiseach's Department revealed one interesting fact. The figure for net volume of agricultural output for 1939 was given as 100. In 1942 it was given as 112. In 1945 it also reached the same figure. In 1947 it was back to 97 and in 1948 it was 98. It has now reached 102. But the important point to remember is that we are still 10 per cent. below the figure of output for 1942 and 1945. We are also below the average figure for the whole emergency period. I want to know why that should be. It may be suggested that it is due to the inclusion of turf with agricultural products. I have not been made aware by any Minister that there has been such a substantial decline in turf production. I had the feeling that with intensive mechanisation we are keeping up the volume of turf production. If we are not, I think we should be. Modern machinery for producing turf ought to be capable of bringing the turf output up to the highest level ever reached during the emergency. It is desirable from a national point of view that that should be done, thus saving us from sending money out of the country for essential fuel.

With regard to the possibility of an emergency, it is also essential to ask if the Government have considered arrangements for carrying on industries and transport. We are turning more and more to the elimination of the horse and the mechanisation of the agricultural industry. That will take a good deal of the drudgery and hard work out of agriculture and it will appeal to the farmers generally. Everyone likes to carry on his work in the most modern and up to date conditions and the farmer is no different from anyone else. The young farmer naturally is attracted by every form of mechanisation of his holding, but it does raise a problem of supplies of tractor fuel which should be considered very carefully.

In the recent war, mechanisation had not reached the pitch to which it has been pushed forward during the past few years. The number of agricultural horses was much greater three or four years ago. If the process of mechanisation continues, the number will be greatly reduced and a serious problem will arise in regard to the maintenance of our food supply in an emergency.

I do not want to enter on the contentious matters that have been raised. I think the Taoiseach would be well advised to discourage the formation of an army by an individual Deputy. I know that it might be a great asset to every Deputy to have an army of his own, particularly at election times.

The Taoiseach

It would be a shocking liability. How would you pay for it? It is hard enough to pay election expenses, without having to pay for an army.

Mr. Cogan

It is no harm often to treat matters of this kind in a jocose way, but there is often the possibility of something serious developing out of a complete departure from principle. There ought to be an accepted rule that there is to be only one Army, the Army controlled by this House. I can see very grave dangers arising, perhaps not from Deputy Cowan or anything that he may do or say, but from others who may be inclined, having regard to the leniency with which he has been treated, to follow his example.

The Taoiseach is entitled to ask for co-operation from the Opposition and is entitled to expect it, particularly in times as grave as the present. He is entitled to expect co-operation in regard to national problems and serious economic problems. He is also entitled to invite them to come into the Government, so that they might have representation in the Government in proportion to the representation which they have in this House. I have frequently made that appeal, both here and outside. I have no use for an Opposition Party. I believe that every Deputy should be independent to a great extent, in the sense that he should be free to criticise Ministers or Governments. I believe there should be no definite "ins" and "outs" in politics. That is an old British system, which should be dispensed with.

An all-Party Government, representative of every section in this House, would carry the country much more safely through any grave danger that may face us in the future, and if no danger does arise it would carry this country much better to times of peace and provide for our people a much better living than we get by having half of the population set in opposition to the other.

Mr. Little

The Minister for Defence approached the problems presented to him by the Leader of the Opposition in the wrong spirit, I think. He started out by trying to find out who was wrong and who was right, rather than by trying to find out what was wrong and what was right. He can hardly suggest that there is a lack of sincerity on this side of the House, or of earnestness in facing up to a problem which at the moment is making the whole world anxious. For that reason, it would have been fairer if he had dealt with the suggestions made by Deputy de Valera on their merits, without suggesting wrong motives. He said that Providence was going to look after us, but "God helps those who help themselves." We cannot leave things to be prepared at the last minute. He said that even two years ago the Leader of the Opposition had been suggesting to the Government that they should give very special attention to our defence problems. Well, if they had done that at that time and had laid their plans then, we would be in all the stronger a position to-day and we would be all much easier in our minds and less prone to be carried off by any panic which might occur owing to outside causes over which we have no control.

The Taoiseach was very interesting in his whole statement and approach to the question of investments. He said that we had not sufficient investments in the country. That is perfectly true. He said that private enterprise cannot deal with the situation entirely. A considerable amount of criticism has come against the independent corporations established in this country. Are we to assume that the Taoiseach will follow the line he has taken with regard to Córas Iompair Éireann and go in for a code of socialistic propositions of industries supported by the State? Or will he pursue the line of having independent corporations to deal with the big sources of production? It would be interesting to have an answer to those questions.

I shall not attempt to interpret the statistics he gave us, as they would require very close study. I think I can say that the trend of the statistics showed a strong advocacy of the policy of developing our exports. The Taoiseach pointed out the incalculable factors in the American market and he led on from that to the tourist traffic. But he did not tell us what plans he had with regard to the tourist traffic. That traffic has become bigger than our actual cattle trade. It requires close attention. Already the Government has been two years in office and should have been trying to consolidate that traffic by proper planning. We are very anxious, indeed, to know what plans they have for developing the tourist traffic.

There is a tremendous potential attraction in the country and I think our soundest line of approach would be, first of all, to develop these attractions for our own people in order to, shall I say, "exploit" our traditions and bring our people to a proper appreciation of them. The American expert on tourism pointed out that one of our unique features was our national monuments. Other nations have scenery and attractions which are more or less common to all. Our national monuments are, as I say, unique. These monuments require great care.

This is a problem that cannot be solved by any one Department. It is natural that it should arise on the Taoiseach's Estimate because there are several Departments involved. The Department of Industry and Commerce, for instance, deals with development. I do not want to go into details, but I can instance Tramore as a typical example of gross neglect. In my constituency the whole coast-line and into Lismore should be developed. However, to come back to our monuments I want to point out that the right kind of plaques are not put up in order to inform visitors about these. We have not the right kind of guides, such as one finds in other countries, to take our tourists round. The Department of External Affairs is also involved because it forms a link with outside. That Department has done something but a great deal still remains to be done in order to develop our natural attractions and our cultural institutions.

Fisheries are involved, too. I was amazed at the number of Deputies on the Government Benches who pointed out recently how impossible it is to get fish in country towns. Whether or not that is due to the irresponsible remark of the Minister for Agriculture that he does not like fish, I do not know. I know plenty of people who would be delighted to get fish in these out-of-the-way villages. I believe that if the supply were there the demand would come and I think that demand would help to create a healthy population in the most depopulated areas.

When we criticise the Government we are immediately told that we are indulging in sabotage. Are we to behave like dumb, driven cattle? Are we to be mute as mice? Are we to do our duty by taking notice of every form of political corruption, deceit and misrepresentation in order to ensure that these things are nipped in the bud? I suggest we do not indulge in sabotage. Our criticism, if severe at times, is always constructive. We believe the life of the nation must go on no matter what Government is in power. In one sense we are in a very awkward position because we are embarrassed to some extent by the success of Fianna Fáil policy. We get Fianna Fáil policy hurled at us now in an attempt to destroy us. From the point of view of the nation, that is a good thing. I could not help feeling, when the Tánaiste was pontificating upon his Department to-day, that, after all, he was just building on the foundations we had laid and that, if we had not built up what he built on, he would not be able to do what he did.

The Taoiseach

How on earth did you ever get over there and leave us with your policy?

Mr. Briscoe

First of all——

Mr. A. Byrne

On a point of order. There was an agreement to finish all the financial business to-morrow.

Mr. Briscoe

This is not to-morrow.

Mr. A. Byrne

That cannot be done unless this debate concludes to-night. Is there any agreement that the Taoiseach should get in to-night?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a point of order and the Chair has no control over that. If there is an agreement, it is for the House to carry it out.

Mr. A. Byrne

Is there any agreement to let the Taoiseach in before 10 o'clock?

The Taoiseach

There is no such agreement.

Mr. Briscoe

First of all, might I have the temerity to ask the Taoiseach to examine a matter brought to his notice by the Leader of the Opposition to-day when he referred to the possibility of making available to the Oireachtas a staff, which would be an addition to the staff of the statistics branch, under the control of the Taoiseach? The staff of the statistics branch has quite deservedly received the highest praise since it has taken up duty in its new Department. The Leader of the Opposition referred to a body of men in the Congress of the United States who are referred to, so far as I understand, as economic analysts. These men make available to the members of both Houses there all information, statistical and otherwise, in such a form as to leave it untinged by a political approach either one way or the other. I would ask the Taoiseach to examine that suggestion.

In approaching this Estimate this year I have a very clear recollection of the statement made by the Taoiseach in introducing his Estimate last year. In that statement he took a certain amount of credit for having brought about what he described as good housekeeping. He indicated that through the good housekeeping of his administration the adverse balance of trade had been considerably reduced. On that occasion I drew his attention to the position which could arise as a result of a misinterpretation of the monetary situation as it might affect us. I indicated that devaluation could come and that, if devaluation were to come, what appeared to be good housekeeping then could, in fact, turn out to be the reverse. To-day, the Taoiseach gave us a new set of analyses and comparisons to some of which I want to refer. He gave us, among other things, a comparison of the liabilities and assets of the State, and gave one very peculiar explanation. He told us that, in the liabilities of the State, of some £150,000,000, there was a liability of £21,000,000, being the receipts from the economic co-operation fund. At the same time he stated that some of that money, while taken as a liability and as an asset had in fact been utilised for certain purposes. I suggest that if a certain amount of this money has been devoted to certain schemes what has been produced by it should be valued as an asset and not reckoned just as if it were taken from one pocket and put into another. It has been put into circulation and will create something. The value of what has been created as an asset can be calculated at some later date.

I want to suggest to the Taoiseach that we should examine the capital liabilities of the State to-day. We should have some regard, in assessing the value of these items, not to what they cost in the past, but to their real value to-day in relation to the value of money. If we took out a balance sheet we might find that some of the assets, included in that list of assets, would bring our assets to-day, with regard to the value of money, almost to, if not over, the value of our total liabilities. I mention that for the purpose of pointing out to the Taoiseach that we must not lose sight of the fact that, when we are given figures in relation to assets and liabilities, whether they are composed of money on the one hand or of institutions, they do not portray a proper picture. In the same way, when we are dealing to-day with money, from the point of view of its world value, we should remember that we are dealing with something that is fluctuating in value.

I said last year that I had grave apprehensions as to the stability of the nation. Again, I say there is every evidence that we can be faced with a further devaluation of the £, not in the distant future. One may ask what has led me to that conclusion. In the free markets of money, not the control exchanges, the £ to-day can be bought cheaper than at its controlled rate. The £ sterling, instead of being sold at the equivalent of two dollars 80 cents is being sold at two dollars 40 cents, which is a drop, in world opinion, of the value of the £ note of another 14 per cent. I suggest that, when we come to consider the position of the affairs of the State we must bear in mind that the £ note, or the coinage we use, is no longer static. It is a fluctuating commodity.

On a previous occasion I attempted to make a reference to the Coinage Act. I was ruled out of order then because the Coinage Bill was not before this House. It has since been passed by the Seanad and is now on our Order Paper. With the permission of the Chair, I would like to make a short reference to it and a suggestion to the Taoiseach. When that measure is passed by the Dáil, it will become the Coinage Act. According to the Minister for Finance, the purpose of it will be to call in silver coinage and substitute for it what is called cupro nickel. The Minister for Finance indicated in the Seanad that, as a result of doing that, the State Exchequer would benefit to the extent of £1,000,000 by selling the silver bullion and by using the new form of cupro nickel. I want to suggest to the Taoiseach that we should keep that silver in our Central Bank as a commodity which will have an international value. It will not fluctuate downwards if our coinage falls. If we sell it for 1,000,000 £ notes we may find, in time, that these will have only one-third or half the value of their present rate. I suggest that it would be a good thing to start keeping that silver within the control of the nation as a backing for the paper money issued. It is a commodity which will have a value. In time to come it will be a form of guarantee for our paper money if, at any time in the wisdom of those who are in control, it is decided that we should break the link with sterling and have our own independent currency.

I make that suggestion to the Taoiseach and would ask him to pass it on for examination. We hear a lot of talk about the repatriation of money from abroad. If that is ever accomplished, I believe we will have reached the position when we can afford to anchor our own currency to whatever sort of backing we decide on whether it is with regard to our earning capacity as a nation, to our trade, or to whatever we have in the shape of commodities.

From time to time we hear a great deal of talk about the repatriation of capital from abroad. It was discussed to-day. It is a question that is greatly confused by some people with what they call breaking the link with sterling —in other words having our own currency. As regards the arguments in favour of the repatriation of capital, a question arises as to how it will be employed. What the Leader of the Opposition said to-day is quite obvious, that you just cannot take it back and leave it no longer a dividend earning investment. You cannot just dissipate it, and have it disappear. It is obvious that it has to be done on the basis of where and how it can be employed for the benefit of the nation, for the development of industry and so on, but without the destruction of it, from the point of view of its existence, because it belongs to the great number of people who have credit balances. In that connection, I have come to the conclusion that where the State to-day seeks to get large sums of money made available to it for State purposes, it finds itself in competition with private enterprise which is also seeking to attract capital for the development of larger industrial enterprises.

In the manner in which we are going on to-day, a position has been reached in my opinion where money, when it is available for investment, is attracted either to the Government for Government schemes or to private enterprise for other schemes, to the extent to which either the State or private enterprise is prepared to pay in the shape of interest, which some people call a tribute, for making that money available. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has made it clear, without any reservation whatever, that he is anxious to see industrial development in this country continued at as rapid a pace as possible with all the benefits that will accrue to the nation from it— the reduction of the adverse trade balance, the production in this country of all the goods this country needs and so forth. We have reached a stage where apparently there is a unanimous acceptance that that is a desirable development.

I should like to hear the Taoiseach say in connection with that matter and in connection with the blessing, if you like, that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has given to the development of industry, that what has been said in the past will no longer be repeated, that those who start these industries will not be described, if they become successful in industry, as racketeers, buccaneers and all the rest of it. The industrial development of this country is of great importance from every point of view. I think the time has come when an indication should be given that it is no longer considered an evil thing and that those who were prepared to establish industries and conduct them properly, under whatever controls are thought necessary, are entitled to have the benefits of the profits which accrue to them as a result of their ability to make such profits.

Some cross-talk was indulged in here to-day about what had been promised in pre-election times and what had been accomplished. I think all of us on this side of the House would join with Deputy Little in congratulating the Government and the Parties that make it up, in having adopted to a great extent what we regard as the Fianna Fáil policy. I think the time has come when we should cease from this side of the House producing all the pre-election promises of the different Parties, pointing out all the different promises that were made by these Parties which they said would be put into effect if any one of them became the Government, and we should concentrate on considering, not the pre-election promises but the post-election promises made by the combination of Parties. In that connection I should like to refer to the ten points on which they came together and I think it would be fair to launch a criticism with regard to the extent to which these ten points have been achieved. I can remember only a few of them. Certainly, one of them was a reduction in the cost of living. Well, that has not been achieved and I do not think it can be achieved. I am prepared to admit that since the devaluation of the £ we all have to agree that No.1 can be crossed off and the inter-Party Government is then left with nine points.

I am very glad to hear that. It will be very interesting to read because it is something of which I wanted to make a study. Furthermore, in connection with production, I should like to make this suggestion to the Taoiseach and to the Government as a whole. I thought that the Minister for Health had gone a good distance towards being reasonable in introducing his Estimate and in replying to the debate this year, as compared with previous years, because he did say that were it not for the plans which he had found in his office which were left there by his predecessors, a great deal of the work which he had accomplished would not be accomplished at this moment. Would it not be possible for the Government now, after two and a half years in office, to say: "We have also reached a stage where we agree that while we claim we have brought about increased production, that increased production has been brought about in a great many of the industries started by our predecessors." It is all very well for Deputies opposite to say that there was a danger of closing down our boot factories because a big quota had been given for the importation of British manufactured boots some few years ago but when we took office in 1932 we were not self-sufficient, so far as the manufacture of boots and shoes was concerned. We are to-day.

Mr. Larkin

Over-sufficient.

Mr. Briscoe

Very well. The fact is that that over-sufficiency will bring greater competition amongst manufacturers and the most efficient will survive. The country will get the benefit of that competition. In a great many other industries, increased production would have been possible if there had been a similar approach to this problem. A great deal of the arguments in this House could be avoided if there was a greater degree of concession from one side of the House to the other on what could be regarded as just simple plain facts.

I would also say in that connection that there is at this moment the danger of a world conflict, the danger of another emergency, and requests were made for co-operation. I think everybody in this House, irrespective of Party, will agree that where the interests of this country are affected from outside, the Government, whatever Government it is, can always rely on the fullest and absolute co-operation not only from every member of this House but from every section of the community. In time of emergency, in time of war, the fact remains that it is the country that is involved and that political differences must take second or third place.

And I am coming to wool prices. They have gone up because of the excessive demand in the world to-day in relation to the supply and it could, at any time, fall back to normal. If people are encouraged to get into the production of items that have taken a sudden steep rise there can be the danger of the opposite happening when a reverse takes place. To take credit as if these benefits had accrued to the people as a result of Government policy instead of as a result of circumstances entirely beyond our control is to use an expression that the people know how to assess.

Mr. O'Leary

The farmers do not care what way it comes so long as they get the price.

Mr. Briscoe

I am afraid that the Deputy does not appreciate what I am trying to suggest.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce is here. I do not think he is responsible for it although he had to execute it and I wonder does he realise what a tragic disaster it was to abandon air development in this country.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is a matter for the Estimate.

Mr. Briscoe

Government policy is——

An Ceann Comhairle

The test for anything on this Vote is: was it discussed on or appropriate to an Estimate? If it was, it should not arise.

Mr. Briscoe

If you say to leave it out I will leave it out.

If that is so, I do not propose to proceed any further.

Mr. R. Walsh

I would not have intervened in this debate were it not for the speech delivered by the Minister for Defence. I have been a member of this House for 20 years and I have listened to many heated debates, but of all the exhibitions of vindictiveness, of spite and of viciousness I ever listened to, the speech of the Minister for Defence was the worst. It seemed to be deliberately intended to prevent anything like co-operation in the matter of the defence of this country and it seemed to be intended to kill any inclination towards co-operation or unity.

Perhaps the Taoiseach will allow me to make my speech. I do not usually interrupt him or any other speaker. My contention is that, having gone to all that trouble, after a vicious harangue and making every spiteful statement he could make, he proceeded, as I said, to disclose, if it could be called a disclosure, the military strength of this country. After all that, he proceeded to disclose, if it could be called a disclosure, the military strength of this country, while his major accusation against the Opposition was that we were doing so.

The Minister then referred to the numerous trained men that there are in the country and told us that they would spring to arms. I have no doubt at all that the men who entered the Defence Forces, either the Regular Army or the auxiliary force, will answer the call if necessity arises. By the way the Minister spoke, it looked as if he had a secret understanding with Joe Stalin or some other body that when an emergency would come Joe would kindly send him word to the effect: "We are going over Dublin to-morrow night with our planes. Tell the people to go to the Phoenix Park so as to be out of the way." He ridiculed the idea of mobilisation—no matter how critical the situation became, it would not be right to mobilise these men; it would be a waste of labour. He forgot that thousands of men are leaving this country every year. The Government has not taken any steps to stop them. If an emergency arises, those men will be sorely missed. Now we are told that it would be bad policy, bad tactics, to mobilise the Defence Forces.

Then, as I have said, we were told a fairy story about fabulous shiploads of munitions that are coming into this country, pouring up secretly to somewhere in this city. It brings the minds of some of us back to days gone by when we smuggled a revolver or something of that description. I repeat that of all the viciousness and spitefulness and vindictiveness I have ever heard, I heard the worst exhibition of it that could be given in this House to-night by the Minister for Defence.

Mr. McGrath

I would like if the Taoiseach would tell us which of his sMinisters we are to believe in respect to policy, especially in regard to the policy spoken of by Deputy Walsh. After the passing of the Ireland Bill the Taoiseach said in O'Connell Street that they would hurt these people in their pride and in their pocket. On 3rd March, in Cork, the Minister for Defence said that they would appeal to that "lion-hearted statesman, Winston Churchill." As far as I can gather from replies to questions in this House about the defence of this country, I am coming to believe that it is on some people like him that the Government intend to rely. Of course, it would not be the first time that some of the members of that Government relied on the same gentleman. I quote from the Cork Examiner of 4th March:-

"Dr. O'Higgins, who concluded with an appeal to Mr. Churchill to use his ‘immense influence and unquestioned prestige' towards a settlement of a question of ‘farreaching importance to the democratic world in its stand against the Communist menace,' pointed out that in a great defence line from Iceland to the American continent, there was a vacuum in the centre, a vacuum represented on the map of Ireland."

Mr. Lemass

That is the highest compliment ever paid to you.

Mr. Killilea

I will give them full credit. I think that the Taoiseach must realise that if Ministers and Deputies who sit on the Government Benches make statements throughout the country to the effect that representations made to Government Departments on behalf of individuals throughout the country are useless unless they are made by individuals on the Government Benches, they are doing a grave wrong and that such statements should not be made. In any event, when a Deputy approaches a Department to make representations on behalf of a constituent the Department gives the same attention to every Deputy no matter to what political Party he may belong. I think I am quite right in saying that, and I believe the Taoiseach will agree with me. Therefore, it is very wrong of Government Deputies and Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries to try to create any other impression. The behaviour of Deputies opposite, with their grunting and snorting, reminds me very much of the family to which I would suggest they belong—but I will leave the rest unsaid.

The last item that I have mentioned is one, I think, that the Taoiseach should make a statement on when he is concluding the debate. I have never met with discourtesy myself in the various Departments. In every Department I have gone to I got the greatest courtesy from the officials, whether on matters relating to old age pensions, the Board of Works or any other Department. I do not want the impression to be created outside that if a Fianna Fáil Deputy goes in person to make a representation, it might be much better for any other person to do it. That impression has been created and I would like the Taoiseach to indicate whether it is right or wrong.

Micheál Ó Cinnéide

Tá cúpla ceist agam don Taoiseach. Bhíos ag éisteacht leis an cheist a chur an Teachta de Valera air, ar cheist na mbóthar fan dtuaith agus ar cheist an airgid, agus chuir sé in iúil dhom an Meastachán a scrúdú. Dúirt an Teachta de Valera go mba cheart go ndéanfaí iarracht i dtaobh na daoine fán dtuaith a bhí in a gcomhnuidhe ann agus a bhí ag imeacht agus ar siubhal as na feirmeacha. Dúirt sé go mbeadh siad ar siubhal chomh fada is nach mbeadh slí beatha maith acu.

I want to reiterate what Deputy de Valera said about conditions in the rural parts, that if the people are to be kept on the land they must have the same amenities as the people in the towns and cities. They must have good roads and good boreens into their residences. They cannot be asked any longer to go through muck and slush on those boreens on their various occupations. The maintenance of the country roads has been evaded by this Government. They or their successors will have to face the responsibility.

The Taoiseach was speaking about the financial position of the State and it reminded me of the note that the Minister for Finance has in the Book of Estimates for the current financial year. In the latter portion he is dealing with the segregation of capital services and current expenditure and he states:-

"For a full account of capital outlay financed by borrowing, regard must, of course, be had not only to the capital services included in this volume but also to the direct issues from the Central Fund for advances to the Electricity Supply Board, the Local Loans Fund, etc., estimates of which appear in the White Paper of receipts and expenditure published prior to the annual Budget."

There has been an attempt all along by the Government to mix up current expenditure with capital expenditure. In this segregation the Government takes, for instance, the question of grants to local authorities for the execution of works under the Local Authorities (Works) Act of 1949, £1,750,000. Since I have become a member of this House, there has been current expenditure, under the heading of minor relief schemes, for this work. That will occur every year. How that can be put under capital expenditure confuses me altogether. It is current expenditure and it is falsity to put it under another head. Not only will these works have to continue but, as I have advocated here on the Estimate for the Office of Public Works, there will have to be a State scheme for their maintenance when they are done. Consequently, it is wrong for the Government to put that particular item down as capital expenditure. It is an annual expenditure and should be treated as current expenditure.

In the same way, housing grants were always made out of current expenditure. Any person examining the rural needs for housing knows that the back of the problem will not be broken for the next ten years, even at a conservative estimate. In my own county, which is a go-ahead one and which the Minister for Local Government will admit is a go-ahead country, I have seen elaborate schemes formulated and drafted for solving the rural housing problem; but no matter what we do, the progress is not all we desire. The same applies to a greater extent to other southern counties about which I have read, where they have not gone on with housing at the rate we have done. In my county, I estimate about 800 rural houses will be needed. We are building only about 80, notwithstanding the introduction of direct labour methods. I cannot see how this money for housing can be treated as capital expenditure. It is a current expenditure and the problem of the housing of the farmers will become more and more pressing and will have to be faced up to by this Government or the Government that succeeds it.

The same applies to the Gaeltacht. Anyone conversant with the Gaeltacht and the congestion there knows the number of houses on uneconomic holdings there that need to be pulled down and replaced. The back of the housing problem in the Gaeltacht, with the best intentions, will not be broken for at least ten years. How you can treat that as capital expenditure is beyond me.

From my knowledge of history, it strikes me that any country which keeps on borrowing, instead of taking its courage in its hands and taxing the people to their bearable capacity to meet current expenditure, cannot advance in the national interest. They are only biting off their noses to spite their faces. We have to-day the example of France where one Government after another collapses and where the value of the franc depreciates every six months. The Minister for Finance has stated that excessive borrowing leads to inflation. If there is inflation, then the cost of living—which this Government promised to bring down—goes up. In two years the interest and sinking fund of the national liabilities has gone up from £3,250,000 to £6,500,000. I have read out a number of items which I said should not be treated as capital expenditure. These items will recur next year and the year after and the increase in the redemption of capital will go on at such a rate that deflation must follow, the cost of living will go up and the Government that succeeds the Coalition Government will find itself faced with no enviable task. It is time the Taoiseach and those responsible examined the state of the Exchequer. The Minister for Finance made reference in his statement to the fact that in one year there has been an appreciable rise in the national debt. At column 1638 of Volume 120 of the Official Report the Minister said:—

"The gross State debt on 31st March, 1950, stood at £151,000,000 as compared with £116,000,000 on 31st March, 1949."

Is it not time that those responsible should take cognisance of this matter? Scoring political points is all right, but we should have a national outlook on these matters. That outlook does not appear to exist on the Government Benches at the moment.

Mr. Davern

I had no intention of entering into this debate——

Captain Cowan

You are under orders.

Mr. Davern

——until I heard the speech of the Minister for Defence. I think it is the duty of every republican Deputy to condemn that speech. I never thought I should have to listen to such a bitter speech as that delivered by the Minister for Defence to-night. It was brimful of hatred. We care very little about that. We care very little about the man who on one occasion referred to the immense influence and unquestioned prestige of Winston Churchill. We care very little how he denounces Fianna Fáil or shows his hatred for the greatest leader Europe has produced, Eamon de Valera. Were it not that the times are so dangerous, we would let these speeches pass just as we have let many speeches of that kind pass before this. This is not the time for preaching hatred. This is not the time for dividing the national forces. Possibly in weeks or months this same Minister for Defence may be appealing to the people to defend our independence.

Mr. C. Lehane

It is a pity Deputy MacEntee is not here to listen to that homily.

Mr. Davern

The defence of this country will be primarily one for the Minister for Defence. Nothing short of a revolution in Russia will stay the tide of world war so that democracy may be saved for another 100 years. Is it by preaching hatred that the Minister will find his volunteer Army? On the last occasion when this country was threatened we had many men with military experience, members of the Old I.R.A., who were anxious and willing to defend our independence. They may not be available to help in organising another defence force. The Minister will have to retrace his steps and cease this policy of bitterness if he hopes to meet any threat to our security, with a united front. Let nobody be foolish enough to think that other nations will not demand our ports or air bases. We must be in a position to answer that demand, we must take every step to ensure that this country will not be brought at a low price, or even at a high price.

I would like to see the F.C.A. reorganised on a war basis. I think it should be possible to do that. We have patriotic young men who, if they were given facilities for training, would from the nucleus of a very effective army. The Minister for Defence has failed to carry out the promises he made with regard to establishing halls throughout the country for the use of the F.C.A. so that they could be trained in military strategy and the art of war for the defence of the country's independence. Our agricultural position should be strengthened so that, in the event of war, we would not have to cave in because of the want of the necessaries of life, particularly of wheat. If the Minister for Agriculture pursues his present policy of grass we will soon be back again to ranching, pandering to the ranchers who farm from their hall-door steps. We do not want that position. We must remember that it was the working farmers of the country who kept us in food during the last emergency, and they are the people who will again come to the rescue of the nation if the necessity should arise. I want to refer briefly to the dilatory methods of the Land Commission.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on the Taoiseach's Estimate.

Mr. Davern

I hope that the Minister will carry out some of the promises he made and undo landlordism and plant on the land of this country people who will work it for the advantage of the nation. We hear quite a lot about the rehabilitation of the land. In my opinion, if the rivers are not drained first then we are simply putting the car before the horse. I would make an earnest appeal to the Minister for Defence that one of the first things he must do is to apologise to the House and to the country for resurrecting the bitterness that he was responsible for in this House a few hours ago.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Taoiseach to conclude.

The Taoiseach

A Leas-Chinn Comhairle——

Deputy Aiken rose.

Mr. Lemass

Is the Taoiseach concluding? There are other Deputies to speak.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No Deputy offered himself, and the Chair called on the Taoiseach to conclude. Deputy Aiken.

Mr. Aiken

We want to put it to the Taoiseach that it is his duty, in the present world situation, to base Government policy, not on any likelihood of a continuing world peace, but on the assumption that we may be launched into a world war before we wake up some morning, whether it is to-morrow morning, in two years' time or five years' time. If we spend a reasonable amount of our national energy in taking ordinary precautions, in the training of our Army and the procurement of stores, we can make good use of the money earmarked for that purpose, but if we let the Army drift, if the Taoiseach continues to allow the Minister for Defence to sneer at everybody who goes into the Army as a person who is shirking an honest day's work, as one who is going to kick his heels and knock sparks out of the barrack square, we are not going to make a reasonable use of the Army. If it were true that the right policy for defence is that outlined by the Minister for Defence, that we should not take any more men into the Army and that we should keep all our young men at work until the drum beats for battle, why do we not dispense with the 7,000 or 8,000 men we have already in the Army and put them to work until the drum beats for battle?

For these last few years the Fianna Fáil Party has had to do the work that the Government should have been doing in relation to national defence. It is the Government's duty to face unpopularity, if there is unpopularity involved, in asking the people to support a reasonable defence policy under all circumstances. Other Governments do it and the Fianna Fáil Government were forced to do it. We were forced to do it in 1938 and 1939 and we were denounced here as spendthrifts, as people who were draining the life blood of the nation when we were making a very modest preparation for the war which then seemed to most people inevitable but which the Minister for Agriculture told us was never going to come. It is the Government's duty at the present time to ask the people to support a reasonable defence policy. It was their duty for the last couple of years if they had fulfilled it, but, to avoid the unpopularity of collecting money to pay the soldiers and to pay for arms, they neglected to carry out their duty in that regard.

When the atomic bomb exploded in Hiroshima, the next war was dated. Everybody who realised the consequences of that explosion, knew that it was dated unless the Russians were prepared to open up and allow other countries to inspect their munition factories and assure themselves that the atomic bomb was not being made. We know that if war comes, it is going to be a pretty savage affair. The one hope our people have to keep out of it is to make certain that no outsiders will come in here unless the Dáil has decided that they should do so. If we are going to create a vacuum here, that vacuum will be filled by somebody. Troops nowadays do not have to cross water on the surface, or under the surface, in order to get to an island. One of our fears in the last war—one of the danger points in my opinion always— was at the beginning that the Power which seized the Continent might easily come in here by air when the tide of war was flowing with them and the second danger was that they might have attempted it as a last throw.

It is our duty to do what we can to make certain that this defence vacuum, as the Minister for Defence called it, is filled by Irish troops. We would not have to mobilise the whole of our population in order to do that, but we have to make the reasonably modest demand of our people that they support as a maximum another few thousand men in the regular forces so that we can add to our regular Defence Reserve and also provide cadre and a stiffening for the Volunteer Forces and our Local Defence Force. We would not have to draw into the Army or attempt to draw into the Army the people that were outlined by the Minister for Defence, all who were trained here during our own previous wars or in foreign wars. It is useful that our people have such experience but that experience will be of no value militarily unless the people who have that experience are armed and trained to work together before the drum beats for battle.

Our F.C.A. should be getting very much more attention than it is getting at the present time. If airborne forces were to come on this country they would have to be hit quickly, and we must ensure that every weapon we have at the present time is in the hands of a trained man. One trained man is worth 20 half trained men when it comes to repelling an attack. Without any warmongering, and praying to the Almighty God that war may never come upon the world and that this thing that has started in the East will not lead to war upon an unprepared Europe, we should at least take steps and the Taoiseach should at least take the very small preliminary step of saying that his policy, the policy of a Government in a world in which every country is increasing its armament as quickly as it can, is no longer based upon the assumption that world peace will continue. His instructions to his Ministers should be that they should make reasonable efforts to organise the Departments of State and bring to bear on the people the influence of those Departments so as to secure reasonable defence precautions.

Without very much expenditure we can produce an A.R.P. service, the ordinary ambulance service of the Red Cross and other such organisations. That will not cost us a lot of money; all it will cost is that the Government should say that it is our duty to prepare to defend ourselves and to prepare to succour anybody who may be hurt or wounded in such an eventuality.

With regard to agriculture we could without any expenditure—indeed with the saving of dollars—set ourselves to grow the minimum of our cereal requirements particularly of wheat. If we are going to do that next year we cannot leave it until the Dáil comes back. If our farmers are to go in for a programme of increased tillage next year sufficient to meet our reasonable requirements for man and beast, they will have to know that now so that in a month's time when they start to cut their oats they will be able to get ahead and prepare for the following year's tillage. It will take a couple of months to get our farmers around to that point of view. Surely from any point of view our farmers owe it as a duty to their own people, a duty which they will fulfil if they are asked by the Government, to till as much of their land as will secure our people from starvation or from the threat of anybody pushing us around because of the fear of starvation. We all know from recent disclosures that that game was tried on us in the last war but we were not vulnerable to such an attempt. If tillage continues to fall as it has been falling during the last few years, however, we will be vulnerable. There are a number of Deputies, I am perfectly certain, on the Government Benches who are as little anxious as I am that we should be vulnerable in that regard. To produce merely what is necessary to protect our supply of bread will actually save us dollars and it will give farmers who are facing a price of a couple of shillings for eggs instead of 3/- a dozen something to compensate them. The change from our present policy with regard to wheat growing is a change that will be welcomed by our people next year. I think that the Government would gain in kudos, would gain somewhat in popularity if even at this late stage they were to say: "It would have been foolish to follow Fianna Fáil policy for this last couple of years but now under present circumstances it is our national duty to go out and get all the wheat we can."

Apart altogether from owing it as a duty to our own people to prepare ourselves in a reasonable fashion to fill that vacuum about which the Minister for Defence spoke, I think we owe it as a duty to civilisation. The one thing that will stop aggression in the world is that free peoples should be prepared to defend their freedom to the last breath. One of the things at which I am disgusted at the present time is that certain of the Powers who prate about the coming fight for freedom and democracy are not prepared to carry out in their own regard the rules of conduct they have laid down for other Powers. I would be prepared and I hope our people will be prepared to make them do it in our regard before they ask us to go gunning for those principles elsewhere. I think it would be a good contribution to the cause of Christianity and western civilisation if we were prepared to fill our vacuum and see that nobody will get in here except with the concurrence of our people. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 14th July, 1950.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 13 Jul 1950