Committee on Finance. - Vote 3—Office of the Taoiseach (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (14th Dáil) – Thursday, 19 Jul 1951

Mr. S. Collins

When I moved to report progress I was about to suggest to the Government that there would be nothing detrimental in the effort to conserve the language in our making the Gaeltacht and congested areas economically sound. I believe the Irish language is much more likely to flourish in a prosperous Gaeltacht rather than in a poverty-stricken one. No matter how desirous we may be for the rapid re-establishment and development of our language the Government will have to face the existing problem on the basis of grappling first of all with the economy of the areas concerned. One factor that bears heavily on the people in the congested and Gaeltacht areas is the unreal values that are placed on their holdings. I would have liked the Taoiseach to have given us a reasonable indication of what the functions of the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Government are.

The House owes the country, and the Government owes the House, some explanation for the festooning of the House with five beautiful Parliamentary Secretaries. If there is a Government policy for the Gaeltacht, surely there must have been some plan crystallised in their minds when they decided to appoint this new and special Parliamentary Secretary to the Government itself? What is that policy? Can the Government give us any indication of what scheme, if any, they propose to keep in employment people living at present in the Gaeltacht; what plan, if any, they have for the development of industries that the Taoiseach wants in harmony with the area and not tending to Anglicise it? What are these industries? What are their likely prospects of survival or of economic reality? We are entitled to know that, instead of being treated, as we were this morning by the responsible Leader of the Government, to a shamming, circuitous hour and ten minutes of virtual codology. Never in my short experience have I heard a more inept effort at presenting a case.

We are entitled to know what is Government policy on major issues. Is it to be a continuation of intelligent capital investment? Is the drive for housing to continue at its full impetus? Are the social improvements conceived and designed by the predecessors of this Government to be implemented in full? Above all, we were entitled to a statement from the Taoiseach to-day as to whether that cemented unity and domestic peace which exist at home are to be preserved, as to whether or not he has departed from that extraordinary statement he had to make about the Republic of Ireland Bill— that he did not know whether it was a good thing or a bad thing. We are entitled to inquire and to know whether the country can under this Government hope for a continuation of domestic peace. We are entitled to get an assurance that the special courts and tribunals will not once again raise their ugly heads in the domestic affairs of this country. We are entitled to have, and I am demanding from the Leader of the Government, an assurance to the country that the gun has gone out of politics, that he will strive to maintain the internal position that has been attained, and that he will ensure as Leader of the Government that the seeds of bitterness and disunity are finally laid to rest, and will remain so.

One would have expected, and was entitled to expect from the Leader of the Government a statement as to what is the Government's approach to all the big issues. We had lamentations and exhortations for many months on the issue of defence. We were told that we should raise unlimited cohorts. We were entitled to get an indication, which we did not get from the Taoiseach to-day, as to what is the Government's plan for defence and for the building up of the Army about which Deputy Major de Valera was so vocal for three years. We were entitled to a statement from the Taoiseach to-day in the light of what had been said by Deputy Boland, the present Minister for Justice, when he was on this side of the House, as to the Government's attitude to their new brother in bondage, Deputy Cowan, and his erstwhile army of four and forty fighting men and a couple of stout gossoons.

We were entitled to, but we did not get, a pronouncement on the particular heads of the Government's approach to these problems. We were entitled to get an indication, where special Parliamentary Secretaries have been assigned duties, as to what the Government's intentions and policy on certain issues were. We were entitled to hear, after the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary to deal with the problem of fisheries, what the approach to the fishing industry is to be and whether or not the Government will face up to the problem of making the fishing industry, not a subsidiary industry but a major industry, self-supporting and of a truly national character. We were entitled to know whether the Government will develop, and aim at maintaining or exceeding, the target set for afforestation. We were entitled to get information as to what the Government had planned for the future. What did we get? We got incoherence, indefiniteness and a complete lack of cohesion in a rambling speech indicating that the zest and the personal vitality of the Taoiseach were suffering with the passing of the years.

I want the Taoiseach, when replying, to let the country know where exactly it stands under this new caretaker Government. I want the Taoiseach to be careful and deliberate in reassuring the country as to where it stands. Does he intend to continue the effort to bring to full fruition the scheme that it took the courage and the vision of a James Dillon to initiate? Does he intend to give to the workers throughout the length and breadth of this country the security they might have hoped for and would certainly have obtained, under the previous Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Norton? Will he not come into the House now and indicate whether the Minister for Finance, adopting the role as he did last night of the doleful Johnny in the hair shirt, represents the Government view or whether, looking at his own Party organ this morning, he can see the divers tongues of two of his Ministers talking within an hour of each other in this House—one boasting that exports have reached pre-war level again and the other enunciating a tale of woe, misery and impending doom.

We are entitled to know whether the Leader of the present Government, the Taoiseach, has suddenly become wedded to the idea of a Coalition Government, and what has caused this change of heart in one who preached and prated from one end of the country to the other: "We stand alone and we will touch nobody else." What motives, other than those of seeking power and patronage, coalesced him with the "Doubtful Five"? This country was entitled to get, but did not get, a responsible, considered statement from the Leader of a Government, resting as it does on foundations of that type. It is remarkable that, having jettisoned day after day during the election campaign all of its one-time policy, it now comes into the Fourteenth Dáil to assimilate, and grasp at, the policy of its predecessor. It was a good policy and we know it. At least the Taoiseach, as the responsible Leader of the Government, could have had the courage to come into this House to-day and say: "We are in Government again now with responsibility, and we intend to discharge that responsibility by accepting the able and intelligent policy given to us by our predecessor."

I am glad the Taoiseach is back in the House because I want to ask him, as a member of a different generation, why has it become something of an abhorrence or something not to be touched that we should, in the year 1951, want to hold out our hands as a gesture to the North of Ireland and say to them: "All of you, be you anti-Partitionists, Nationalists, or whatever creed or class you like, are welcome to have audience in our Oireachtas"? This view is extraordinary in one who can let his mind go back to the part that he himself played in the establishment of the First Dáil in this country, a Dáil that was ultimately to ensure that the King's writ no longer ran in the present territory of the Republic of Ireland. It may well be that there are arguments against this method, but I am asking the Taoiseach to consider very well whether the crack of his whip to-night, driving his 69 heroes before him to vote against this motion, is not going to retard the progress that I genuinely believe he himself has sought to make in the Partition problem. It does seem extraordinary, when one remembers the situation of an all-Party group in the Mansion House Committee striving for a unified Ireland, that we cannot have unanimity, or at least the exercise of free conscience and of a free vote on this problem. I want the Taoiseach to tell us why. It is common knowledge to us all that to many elements in the North of Ireland, the present Taoiseach is a symbol of greatness and of leadership. Let us see and consider carefully what might happen to whatever goodwill might be built up when this motion is dealt with to-night.

I do not wish to delay the House but there is one further problem that I must deal with before I sit down. It is one that is agitating this country and it is one on which the Taoiseach cannot avoid facing the issue much longer. There has been controversy under the Health Bill; there has been a question of the constitutionality of parts of the 1947 Act; there has been a responsible and considered document served on the Government at the behest of the Irish Hierarchy objecting to certain portions and certain parts within that Act. This House and this country are entitled to know from the Taoiseach whether the boast of Deputy Cowan that he would not be subject to or dominated by the Bishops is to be a reality or whether——

Captain Cowan

You should give a little thought to your uncle.

Mr. S. Collins

——the Government, in the light of the responsibility it has to the Irish people and in the light of the responsibility that the Irish Hierarchy has to the Irish people, will give a considered and worthy answer to the Bishops, and whether we will now have an opportunity of solving forever a problem that was deliberately put in a wrong perspective by people trying to exploit a situation for their own ends. The country is entitled to know what the answer to that problem will be.

Deputy Cowan's last reference by way of interruption to me is typical of him. If he might some time remember what he once could have been and might have been, he would be a better ornament to this House.

I want to conclude on this note, earnestly to exhort the Taoiseach, in the situation, complex as it is, of Deputy MacBride's motion being taken with his own Estimate, at least to allow the issue on the first motion in the name of Deputy MacBride to be one for the free vote of this House, each Deputy exercising his responsibility in the full national consciousness of what his duty should be.

Mr. MacBride

I do not agree with the suggestion made by Deputy Collins that the attitude and the actions of the Taoiseach in this House to-day were in any way due to the fact that the Taoiseach is ageing. In my view, the Taoiseach is one of the ablest and most experienced politicians we have in this country. I am not saying that in derogation of the Taoiseach. It is because of that, however, that I was puzzled and surprised this morning to see the Taoiseach, at the end of a few perfunctory remarks in which he said absolutely nothing in introducing his Estimate, resume his seat.

It was because of that I was surprised, when he was successfully drawn by Deputy Corish, by other Deputies, and by myself, that he still said nothing though he spoke for one and a half hours. I should like, if I may, in passing, to compliment him for being able to speak for one and a half hours and yet say nothing. He gave this House no indication of Government policy in any respect. I defy anybody who reads the Taoiseach's speech this morning to be able to know what the policy of this Government is at the moment, or what it is going to be.

I was more surprised still to find that, until I asked the Taoiseach what the Government's policy was in regard to Partition, there had not been one single, solitary word uttered from the Government Benches or by any of the Ministers of the Government in relation to what is admittedly the paramount problem of this nation, what is admittedly the paramount objective of the Irish people, namely, the undoing of the unjust and unnatural partition of our country. We were often told, and told rightly, when sitting on the benches opposite that it was part of the function of a Government to give a lead to the people. What lead did the Taoiseach or any of his Ministers give the country in the course of these discussions? Naturally, I sought for a reason. I pointed out that the Taoiseach is one of the ablest and most experienced politicians we have in this country. He cannot have casually adopted the course he did in this House this morning. It was not due to lack of experience or to lack of ability, There must have been a reason for it, and I have been puzzled ever since this morning trying to think what his reason might be.

I could easily, I suppose, make a gibe and say it was because the Taoiseach had no policy, or because the Government had no policy. I do not think that would be the answer. If the Taoiseach had no policy or if his Government had no policy, he would be able to disguise that fact much more ably than he did this morning. The only conclusion I could come to was that there must be a very serious difference of opinion within the ranks of his Cabinet.

There must be a reason for it. As I said before, the Taoiseach is experienced and he knows it is part of his duty as head of a new Government on the last day of this Session of the Dáil to give a lead, to give an indication of the Government's policy to the country. There must be a compelling reason to prevent him from following that normal and desirable course. I do not think that he can shelter himself behind the plea that he has not been long enough in office. He has been in office since the beginning of June. In any case, even if he were only a week in office, presumably he has given some thought to the different problems. He is sufficiently fluent to be able to give expression to the remedies and the solutions which he proposes.

I warned the Taoiseach on the night upon which he nominated his Government in this House that the most alarming feature of that Government was the appointment by him of Deputy MacEntee as Minister for Finance. I did not say that in derogation of Deputy MacEntee personally, whom I believe would be quite a good Minister in some other Department. To my mind, however, the appointment of Deputy MacEntee as Minister for Finance was a clear indication that progress in the policy of development and investment which had been pursued successfully during the last few years was going to be brought to a standstill. The speech that the Minister for Finance made yesterday is I think a clear indication of that in so far as the Minister for Finance is permitted to pursue that policy in the present Cabinet. My only hope is that the Tánaiste and other Minister in that Cabinet will be sufficiently strong to be able to prevent the Minister for Finance's policy from being given effect to, to be able to prevent us from returning to a mid-Victorian form of economy.

The Taoiseach spoke about emigration this morning. Incidentally, if I might digress for a moment, the Taoiseach said to-day that he had not had time to have the emigration figures made up. He made a somewhat similar remark during the general election campaign when relying on figures which were two or three years old. It might possibly be of assistance to the Taoiseach, on the assumption that his statement was a correct one, if I drew his attention to some of the figures which were given in this House and which were readily available to the Taoiseach at any time he desired at five minutes' notice.

Captain Cowan

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy.

Mr. MacBride

Then do not, if you do not want to.

Captain Cowan

On a point of order. I understand, Sir, that you called Deputy MacBride in the place in which you called him because he has two motions on the Order Paper to propose for consideration in connection with this Estimate. I take it that that was the reason you called him at the time you did and as there is only approximately another——

Mr. MacBride

Long before Deputy Cowan was in this House to-day, I presented myself to speak and was not called upon. With respect, I have been here since 10.30 this morning. Deputy Cowan was not even here.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy MacBride has been called by the Chair just as any Deputy who offered himself to speak would have been called.

Captain Cowan

We have to consider two motions on the Order Paper. I think these motions are of sufficient importance to be moved and the reasons for them given by the Deputy who has them on the Order Paper.

Mr. Davin

On a further point of order. Is it not the privilege of every Deputy, no matter where he sits, to review Government policy on this particular Estimate?

The figures which in no uncertain fashion indicate emigration in any given year are those which are obtainable from the issue of travel permits and passports to persons seeking employment abroad. They are somewhat exaggerated because they do include migratory workers who come back, but no person can leave without such a travel permit. For the information of the Taoiseach, in the year 1948 there were 40,075 such permits and passports issued. In the year 1949 that had fallen to 25,491. In the year 1950 the figure had fallen to 17,356. I think these figures do show that there was a steady fall in emigration in the course of the last three years. I merely draw the Taoiseach's attention to that.

Is Deputy MacBride giving us any reasons for the motions?

Mr. Coburn

That is for the Chair to say, not Deputy Cowan, the know-all.

Mr. MacBride

The Taoiseach expressed regrets, which we all share, in regard to emigration. He expressed regrets, which we all share, in regard to the dwindling population of the Gaeltacht. But the very thing which promotes emigration, which results in the depopulation of the Western seaboard, is the thing which his Minister for Finance is going to promote, namely, the policy of restricting investment, of restricting development here and of building up sterling assets.

There are two different approaches to our economic problems. You may pursue the policy which has been pursued since this State was set up, that of building up sterling assets, of relying on the income from these sterling assets to make up for our adverse balance of trade, but that policy inevitably must result in underinvestment and under-development here. That policy, too, must inevitably result in, and indeed depends for its success upon, the maintenance of a pool of unemployment and a stream of emigration; another concomitant feature of that policy is a policy of low wages.

The alternative approach is that of development of our own resources by the utilisation of our capital for that purpose. The last Government pursued the latter policy for a period of three years, with the results that have been pointed out by Deputy Costello this morning. As a result of that policy, we have had a lower rate of unemployment in the course of the last three years, and particularly in the last year than at any other period in our history. We have had more people in employment in this country than ever before. These developments were rendered possible by the fact that we were prepared to engage in a policy of capital development here and to repatriate sterling assets for that purpose.

We have been spoken to about the dangers of inflation. For the last 30 years, the same old worn-out tags have been trotted out by economists, born and bred in the last century, who have talked to us about inflation. We have no control over inflation in this country. We have not got control of our own currency.

Mr. Davin

Hear, hear!

Mr. MacBride

We cannot influence inflation. The inflation from which we suffer here, if inflation occurs, is inflation that occurs from outside, and over which we have no control whatsoever. Inasmuch as we cannot control either the value or volume of our currency, it is quite obvious that we cannot either prevent or promote inflation. The only type of inflation that has been noticeable in recent years has been inflation in regard to house property. Any inflation there has been in that regard was due to the fact that we had not got enough houses and that scarcity prices prevailed. The remedy for that is to provide more houses. You cannot increase production unless you are prepared to invest your capital here for that purpose. Any policy which will involve either the abandonment or the slowing down of the capital development schemes that have been started by the Government can only result in unemployment and more emigration.

I hope that the Taoiseach was not serious when he made a reference, a casual reference, this morning to our health plans and indicated that they might prove too expensive or too ambitious. He qualified it immediately afterwards, but I doubt if the Taoiseach would have made the reference to our health plans being too ambitious or too expensive, even if he was qualifying it afterwards, unless he had some reason for doing so. I hope it is not an indication that it is proposed to curtail the hospital building programme or the health plans.

The Taoiseach

We built more hospitals during the period we were in office than you did.

Mr. MacBride

Certainly. In the final analysis, the continuance of Partition depends on the determination and the ability of the British Government at any given time to maintain Partition. Partition was created by the British Government and Partition can only continue by virtue of the political, economic and military support which the British Government extends to a minority of the people of the Province of Ulster. Therefore, in the final analysis, the task of any Irish Government, if it is to undo Partition, depends upon its ability to make the British Government of the day realise that the Irish people are determined not to allow the continuance of Partition and are determined to use every means at their disposal to secure the unity of their nation. I believe that a reasonable solution, based on the unity of will of the Irish people, on the common interest of the Irish people, North and South, can be arrived at rapidly, once Britain can be persuaded to cease interfering in our affairs in this island.

I believe that, so long as Britain is prepared to lend her political, her economic and her military power to any section of our people, in order to maintain a minority Government, the problem remains insoluble. The first point of attack must be devised to ensure that Britain will let go her hold on portion of our country. When I say "attack", let me clarify it immediately; I am not suggesting a physical attack or a military attack. In that regard let me make it quite clear, too, that I think the Irish people, through this Parliament, through their Government, have a right to use force in order to secure the reintegration of our national territory, if the Parliament, if the Government, so decide. It is not a course I advocate, and I do not think it would be a desirable or a necessary course, but it is well to make it quite clear that we, as a nation, are entitled to use every means at our disposal in order to secure control of our own affairs, in order to establish for ourselves the elementary democratic right of national self-determination.

The problem to attack, therefore, from a political point of view, is that caused by the claim of the British Government to exerise sovereignty over a portion of our island. To my mind, that is the first and main obstacle to the ending of Partition. A powerful State can always interfere successfully in the affairs of a small neighbouring State, if it is prepared to use its economic, political and military power to do so. In effect, the history of the world could be described as an account of such attempts right through the ages, attempts by large nations to interfere in the affairs of their smaller neighbours. To us in Ireland, the power and prestige of Britain when interfering in our affairs, is as objectionable as was the German or the Russian interference in the affairs of Poland and Czechoslovakia objectionable to those nations. I think that, in forcing Britain to alter her policy in regard to Ireland, our first task is to compel a realisation of the issues in Britain; to compel the British Government of the day to understand quite clearly that this nation is determined to end Partition and to secure the enforcement of democratic rule in this island and that all Parties in the State are united for that purpose.

The Taoiseach has asked me how the formation of a national Government would help to do that. It is quite obvious that if the Taoiseach were able to speak on behalf of a national Government, he could to-morrow, next week or in a month's time, say to the British Government: "On behalf of the Irish people, on behalf of a Government united for this purpose, I now ask you to declare that you relinquish your claim to sovereignty over any portion of the island of Ireland," and that he would be able to speak with much greater authority and to command a hearing which he could not command in his present position. It is quite obvious that, so long as the Taoiseach is dependent for office on the votes of a couple of irresponsibles, such as our gallant captain and some of his friends——

I think that a Deputy who uses falsified documents in this House in order to attack the Hierarchy should be ashamed to open his mouth here. If he went off to play soldiers, he might be better occupied.

Captain Cowan

This was the marvellous Minister for External Affairs.

Mr. Coburn

He is not a politician on the make, anyway.

Mr. Hickey

We are dealing with British imperialism.

Mr. Coburn

It is pure jealousy.

Mr. Hickey

The British would be pleased to hear us differing amongst ourselves on this matter.

Mr. MacBride

I have answered the Taoiseach, who asked me how and in what way a national Government would work in reaching a solution of Partition. I think that in dealing with the British Government a national Government would be infinitely stronger than a one-Party Government, particularly a one-Party Government which is not in a strong position numerically.

The Taoiseach, in the course of his speech this morning, suggested, I think, that I promised that Partition could be ended within a matter of months. I have never promised that Partition could be ended. I said that, in my view, conditions were such now that Partition could be ended within a reasonable space of time, within a short space of time. That is still my view, if we are in a position to maintain a sufficient degree of unity among ourselves here.

The Taoiseach

Surely there has been unity of the most complete kind in regard to that question here for years.

Mr. MacBride

I do not think there has been. I do not think that either this Government, or the last Government, for that matter, were in a position of sufficient authority to be able to force a realisation on the British Government that the people of this island were determined to secure the ending of Partition, and were serious about it.

Mr. MacCarthy

The British Government itself has a very slender majority.

Mr. Hickey

If they had a more slender majority, they might deal out justice to Ireland.

Mr. MacBride

The British Government are not in the position of having portion of their country occupied by another Power. If they were, you would find they would have a National Government.

Mr. MacCarthy

We have the same views here, in any case.

Mr. MacBride

One of the difficulties in dealing with Partition as far as Britain is concerned is that the British Government has a great many problems of one kind or another. The first essential is to secure the direct attention of the British Government to the problem of Partition, to make the British Government realise that it is an urgent problem that can no longer be put aside. I have talked so much on that aspect of the problem that it may be represented afterwards that I ignore the difficulties which we have here. I am fully conscious of the difficulties we have here. I realise that Partition has two aspects, the aspect to which I have just referred, namely, Britain's interference here, and the other aspect which concerns our own population in Ireland. I think that Partition has become much more real in the course of the last ten or 20 years. We have become detached from our people there, even from the nationalist population; we have drifted apart far more than we should ever have allowed ourselves to drift apart. That is one of the difficulties which I hoped that these motions would remedy.

Before dealing with the motions, I should like to say what the motions do not involve. I have found, in discussing this matter, that all kinds of completely fictitious arguments are used, probably due to lack of appreciation of the factors involved. These motions do not involve any amendment to the Constitution.

This House can, by amending its Standing Orders, admit anyone it likes, to speak or to sit in the Dáil, not to vote in the House. Therefore, these motions involve no amendment of the Constitution, and we have been so advised by the last Attorney-General. I am not asking in these motions that the Six-County M.P.s should be given a right to vote in this House. Therefore, when arguments are used to the effect that it would mean power to vote on legislation for the imposition of taxation which would be unfair to the people here, it is not a real argument. I am not asking that Six-County M.P.s should be given the right to vote. Personally, but this is a purely personal view, I would give them the right to vote in this House; but I know that if I ask for that in these motions I would be handing a weapon to those who see good reasons for not passing these motions.

The House will also have noticed that I did not specify in the first motion whether they should be admitted to the Dáil or to the Seanad. I left that to be considered either by this House or by the Government. I merely asked the Government to initiate proposals to enable them to sit either in the Dáil or in the Seanad, as might be determined.

Now I would like to refer the House to the provisions of Article 2 of the Constitution:—

"The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas."

If this Parliament is the Parliament established under that Constitution, how can we refuse to admit into it the elected representatives of any portion of Ireland? What reason can we give? Let us try and have a perspective on this whole matter. Can the Taoiseach visualise a position in the First Dáil where anybody would have suggested that a T.D. from the Province of Ulster should be excluded from the First Dáil? Why should we, in the year 1951, come along and say: "Oh, we will not allow you into this Chamber; we will not listen to, we will not hear any representatives from the six occupied counties."

Mr. Hickey

Because the Imperialism of England is preventing it.

Mr. MacBride

I do not think it is even that. I think it is sheer prejudice. I think it is due to the factors I mentioned earlier. I do not know whether I made myself clear, but people are inclined to set their minds in a given set of circumstances and find it difficult to change their minds later on when the circumstances have changed. As I said before, I am quite satisfied that all the younger men, and a great many of the old men too, on all sides of this House are in favour of that proposal if they felt free to say so. It is nothing, if you like, but prejudice and stubbornness that prevents this proposal going through.

The next Article of the Constitution provides:—

"Pending the reintegration of the national territory, and without prejudice to the right of the Parliament and Government established by this Constitution to exercise jurisdiction over the whole of that territory, the laws enacted by that Parliament shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws of Saorstát Éireann and the like extra-territorial effect."

It is quite clear from that Article of the Constitution that it is intended that the laws passed by this Parliament shall some time apply to the whole country and, pending the reintegration of the national territory, they shall apply only to a certain portion of the island. If it is contemplated that the laws which we discuss and pass in this House are, at some stage, to apply to the whole country, would it not be only right that the representatives of the Six Counties, who are at present excluded, should, at least, have an opportunity of being heard in this House on these laws, of telling us their views on these laws, of telling us the effect these laws would have if applied to their portion of the island and of telling us the effect they might have on the ending of Partition? Why are we afraid to hear what they have to say? Why are we afraid to consult them? Are we sincere when we say that we want an all-Ireland Parliament? If we are sincere when we say we want an all-Ireland Parliament, why do not we now begin to build an all-Ireland Parliament? We have not heard one good reason against it.

The Taoiseach

Or one good reason for it, yet.

Mr. MacBride

That is not an argument. That is a flat-footed statement. I have put forward a number of arguments in favour and I hope the Taoiseach will deal with each one of these arguments when replying and not merely try to dismiss the matter casually with the usual see-saw argument that it might be good and might be bad. I think we are entitled to this.

I will make this offer now. I am willing to stake my political reputation, whatever that may be worth, and retire from public life if I am wrong in saying that, if this matter is submitted to a referendum of the people, it will receive the support of the overwhelming majority of the people. If there is any doubt, why not do it? We have machinery for a referendum. Will the Taoiseach agree to submit this matter to a referendum of the people? Presumably, we have included in our Constitution provisions for a referendum so that it could be used, so that the people could be consulted and their views obtained on different issues. Would not this be an ideal issue upon which to obtain the views of the Irish people? Why should we be afraid to ask the views of the Irish people? It is an ideal issue to do it on. We are not raising it as a Party issue. It is not a Party issue in this House. We have been told by Deputy Costello that, as far as the Fine Gael Party are concerned, they will leave it to a free vote of their Party. Why not do the same on the other side of the House? Why not submit this question to the Irish people and let the people decide it by way of referendum? I will undertake to give any assurance the Taoiseach may like that there will not be any attempt to make political capital out of it. He can submit the question himself. We can decide not to have speeches on it if you like.

As far as the nationalist population of the Six Counties is concerned and as far as their leaders are concerned, they complain, and complain constantly, that we have abandoned them. Possibly, that complaint is not justified. Possibly, it is exaggerated but, certainly, we do not act as if Partition was our primary concern. We do not maintain that closeness of contact with the nationalist population of the Six Counties that we should maintain.

I agree, possibly, that the leaders of the nationalist population of the Six Counties have not always provided the leadership they should have provided but I am not certain to what extent we are not to blame ourselves and to what extent we have not left them somewhat rudderless at times. I am sure that a great many of these obstacles could be overcome if the Six-County representatives were sitting in our benches and if they had an opportunity, when the Dáil was sitting, of discussing their problems with us and of our discussing our problems with them.

We know little of their problems. The Ulster T.D.s, possibly, are closer in touch than the rest. I venture to say, with all due respect to our Cork T.D.s, that they know very little of the problems that exist in Belfast and of those of the nationalist population. We would get to know a lot about them if we mixed and mingled with them here. Likewise, I think that the presence of Six-Counties' representatives here would enable us to discuss the future economic development of this nation as a whole.

References were made in this House yesterday by Deputy Costello, junior, to the possibility of a customs union. If a customs union were a feasible possibility, I would agree with a customs union. I do not think it is a possibility because in fact there is a customs union at the moment between that area and Britain.

What about the homespun industry?

Mr. MacBride

It was not closed down. It worked better last year than in your time.

Mr. Cosgrave

It was not closed down. We got markets as a result of trade agreements.

Mr. Aiken

You got single tickets for the people to England and America. That is what you did for them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy McQuillan, on the Estimate.

Mr. McQuillan

When I proceeded to question the Taoiseach with regard to his policy of development in the Gaeltacht areas, he went on to say that we must be very careful how we move in these areas. In other words, he realised that he had put his foot in it by his previous statement. He said that we must be very careful, in regard to whatever development works that were undertaken in the West, that the language did not suffer. He also expressed the view that wherever industrial development took place and wherever industrial employment was given, it tended to change the outlook of the people and that, naturally, as a result of that, the Irish language would suffer. To my mind, that is not sound policy : it is one with which most Deputies do not agree—and that includes many members of his own Party.

The Minister for External Affairs intervened to state that the present Opposition, which was formerly the inter-Party Government, had closed down industries in the West of Ireland. I am not going to throw any bouquets at the inter-Party Government for their work in regard to industrial development in the West but I will give them the credit that they attended to one of the things that was essential in order to improve the position of the people living on small uneconomic holdings in the West—drainage—and, undoubtedly, splendid work has been done in the past three years in the West of Ireland under the Local Authorities (Works) Act.

Having listened to Deputy MacEntee last night and to the Taoiseach to-day, I am inclined to believe that Fianna Fáil or the present Government—I do not know how they should be described, perhaps as a "platypus"— do not intend to pursue an energetic programme with regard to drainage. I believe that when the change of Government took place the people responsible for arterial drainage, and so forth, in the particular Department sat back with a sigh of relief and said to themselves: "We will not have to work so hard in the future." I had proof here to-day that the present Government is not really interested in drainage. I do not want to go into details, but I had a question down about the proposals to drain a river in the West of Ireland. That particular river had been very low on the priority list during the Fianna Fáil régime before 1948.

Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for Finance (Mr. Beegan)

It is as low and as high now as ever it was.

Mr. McQuillan

I know that the height of the river has gone up.

That statement is not true.

Mr. McQuillan

Everything is untrue, according to the Minister, except what he himself says. I am not satisfied that the inter-Party Government made good progress in connection with industrial development in the West. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing the hope that the promise made by the Tánaiste that all possible steps will be taken by this Government to increase industrial employment in the West and develop that area will be lived up to and carried out. I am afraid that when we compare the statement made by the Tánaiste with the statement made by the Minister for Finance it is very difficult for an ordinary Deputy to convince himself that both statements agree.

To my mind, the statement of the Minister for Finance expressed the view that retrenchment was necessary and that it was his intention to curtail capital development works in the country. If the Minister for Finance, Deputy MacEntee, is going to get a free rein in that regard, I cannot see how the Tánaiste, Deputy Lemass, can hope to carry out his policy with regard to industrial development in the West. In the three years during which the inter-Party Government was in office I understand that approximately 150 to 200 people obtained employment in industry in the West of Ireland. That is a very low figure. From a question which I asked in this House I gather that only nine new factories were opened in the West out of a total of somewhere near 150 that were opened in the country as a whole. That is a very small proportion for the West of Ireland, when you consider that over 17 per cent. of the population of the country lives in Connacht alone.

The present Taoiseach has nominated a young Deputy whose responsibility it will be to co-ordinate the work of various Departments so that everything possible can be done for the Irish-speaking congested areas, especially in the West of Ireland. When the Taoiseach was appointing a Parliamentary Secretary for this work, the least he might have done would have been to choose somebody from the West of Ireland who would be familiar with the problems of the congested areas, and familiar with life in general in the West.

I am not casting any aspersions on the Deputy who was appointed. As an individual I have a profound respect for him but, in justice to the Deputy himself, I think it was unfair to put him into that position in view of the fact that he comes from an area far removed from the western seaboard. I am sure there are plenty of Deputies in Fianna Fáil who have a thorough knowledge of the western counties and the western seaboard and of the problems that have to be tackled there. However, it is a matter for the Taoiseach and I wish Deputy Lynch the best of luck in his appointment and I hope that the problems outstanding in the West for the past 30 years will receive very careful consideration from him. I hope, too, that he will be successful in remedying even some of the grievances that exist.

In connection with the two motions on the Order Paper I know of no sound reason why these two motions should not be accepted. I am speaking now as a young Deputy who was not born in 1916. In this House before one is allowed to speak it seems to be essential that one should have taken part either in the 1916 Rising or in the troubled years between 1919 and 1922. Repeatedly insults are hurled across the floor of the House and valuable time is wasted on this business of "Where were you in 1916?" or "What side were you on in 1922?" This is the first time I have ever mentioned this matter here and I am glad to have had this opportunity of doing so because this is a very important Estimate.

To the older men here I offer nothing but the greatest respect. They did a good job when it was needed. They have the thanks of the present generation, but I would like them to remember that "Time marches on" and they alone cannot accomplish the unification of our country. A new generation has grown up and that new generation feels it should have some say and some responsibility in this matter. Up to the present that generation has not been listened to; up to the present very few young men have entered political life. Up to the present the older generation have maintained that grasp on politics which to my mind is responsible for much of the bitterness throughout the years.

I understand the Taoiseach is not in favour of either of these motions. He has not given us any reasons for his disapproval. He has asked instead for sound reasons as to why the duly elected representatives of the six northern-eastern counties should be allowed in here. Is it not a sound reason to invite them in here for the purpose of helping us to end Partition? What sounder reason could one want? We all hope the Border will be removed. I know, of course, that if people make up their minds along certain lines all the soundest reasons in the world will not change them; in other words, if they do not want to do something they can always find fairly good reasons to convince themselves that they are right.

The view has been expressed by certain people on this side that Partition could be ended within a short space of time. That is only a view and I do not accept that view. When one looks back over the past 30 years and see how little has been accomtion, one can only conclude that we are no nearer its solution to-day than we were in 1925. Talking about Partition will not solve Partition. It is the duty of every Deputy to do whatever he can to help towards removing the Border.

I think the idea contained in the first of these motions is a sound one. It would at any rate help to break down some of the prejudices that have grown up. I do not care whether the people who come are Orangemen, Nationalists or Republicans. I think they should all be welcomed here and in the Seanad. That is the only way in which we can get to know their minds. I think we have an excellent opportunity now of proving to the world that we are sincere in wanting to bring about an end of Partition, in offering the hand of friendship and equality to those people in the northeastern portion of Ireland.

I think that if we do not pass the first motion we would leave ourselves open to a great deal of criticism outside this country, and that we shall be giving a strong lever to Britain, which she can use against us in the world councils because anybody could get up at any of these councils in which we have functions and ask our delegates: "How on earth do the people in the Twenty-Six Counties maintain that they want to end Partition when Dáil Éireann refused to admit elected representatives from the North to their Parliament?" I think that weapon should never be put into the hands of the British Government. At any rate, I shall do my utmost as one individual to secure the right of admittance for any elected representative from the North to this House or the Seanad.

I say, with all sense of responsibility, that I shall do the utmost within my power, irrespective of the consequences, to see that elected representatives from the North are allowed into the Oireachtas, even for the right of audience alone, although I personally think that that is a very small right to grant them, and that they should be given fuller powers than are indicated in this motion. At any rate, for a start I think that for the reasons that have been already covered by the mover of the motion, it is desirable that they should be given the right of audience. I would urge on the Taoiseach not to divide the House on such an important motion as this. There are young men in all Parties. I have talked this matter over with them and they agree that we should hold out the hand of friendship to the representatives from the Six Northern Counties. I think it is very unfair to prevent these Deputies from expressing their true belief, when it comes to a division. I would ask, even at this late stage, that the Taoiseach should take off the Party Whips and leave this matter to a free vote of the House.

The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. Childers), General MacEoin and Mr. Dunne rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.

Mr. Dunne

On a point of order, may I draw your attention to the fact that I have been in the House for something like five hours during this debate, and that the Labour Party is the only Party which has not been represented so far in the debate. I think, Sir, that you might take notice of that fact.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair does its best to call on representatives of all Parties in turn. A Minister, of course, gets precedence when offering himself, especially having regard to the fact that three Deputies from the Opposition Benches have spoken in succession—Deputy S. Collins, Deputy MacBride and Deputy McQuillan.

Mr. Childers

If Deputy Dunne has to leave the House, I have no objection to his being called on now.

Mr. Dunne

I feel aggrieved and I think that there should be some fairness in the distribution of the call to speak.

An Ceann Comhairle

I cannot allow that to pass unchallenged. There were three speakers, as I have said, from the Opposition side in succession—Deputy Collins, Deputy MacBride and Deputy McQuillan. Surely the Chair must give an opportunity to some speakers from the Government side to take part in the debate, especially when the Deputy offering himself is a Minister.

Mr. Dunne

I must bow to your ruling, but I think I am justified in drawing your attention to what is happening.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not dispute my ruling. As I have pointed out, three Deputies from the Opposition side have spoken; that is three to one. When a Minister offers himself, the Chair has no option at all. I shall call on Deputy Dunne if the Minister gives way.

Mr. Childers

I do not mind.

Mr. Dunne

I do not want to speak at very great length on this Estimate because, having listened to some very long speeches, I can understand the feeling of those who are waiting to speak. I do want to say, however, that if any proof were needed of the absolute ineptitude of the Fianna Fáil Government in the present circumstances, it has been provided by the speech of the Taoiseach. I hope I am not being too unkind to him when I say that it would have been of tremendous political good to every Party in the entire Opposition if the Irish people had been able to listen to the Taoiseach this morning in the House, because definitely it was a speech that was empty of anything, of any coherent proposals that would benefit the people. It was simply a reiteration of what every Irish leader, from Wolfe Tone to the present day, no matter what his politics, whether he was reactionary or progressive, whether he was on the Left or the Right or in the middle, whether he was constitutional or a physical force man, has said. Every one of them could have subscribed to what the Taoiseach said here this morning, and it would still not mean a snap of the fingers.

I want to refer to the motions which appear on the Order Paper with regard to those who are elected representatives of the people of the six occupied counties and the according to them of right of audience in Oireachtas Éireann. I believe that that is a step which should be supported. I do not think that any more effective step could be taken to bring to the attention of the entire world the injustice of Partition. I understand that the Taoiseach proposes to oppose this and to lead his troops into the Lobby against this motion.

It is interesting in this context for us to recall what happened on a previous occasion when something similar occurred in the history of this country. In September, 1922, when this Assembly was first convened, it was then described by its opponents as the Southern Parliament. The entire question as to whether or not it was to be regarded as a Partitionist Assembly hung upon the question of whether a certain Seán O'Mahony, who represented the division of Fermanagh, as it then was, and a Mr. Ginnell would be invited to sit in the House. Some Deputies here will remember that.

We have a somewhat analogous situation at the present time. These two gentlemen did not take their seats, as far as I can discover, but the Leader of the Government, the present Taoiseach, made it plain at that time that he would regard their reception here as a determining factor in deciding whether this Assembly was Partitionist or not, particularly in the case of Mr. O'Mahony.

We now have the situation that a man has been elected to a constituency across the Border. The constituents in that area were told that, if elected, he would seek the right of audience in this Assembly, the sovereign Parliament of the nation. He was elected. I may say, incidentally, that the Labour Party had a candidate in the same election, on a different programme, but Mr. McGlennan was elected on that strict understanding that he would seek a right of audience here.

I am astounded that the Leader of the Government, the man who, 30 years ago, made it a test as to whether this Parliament was Partitionist or not —a similar test to what is being made now—would vote against the motions which are in the names of Deputies MacBride and Tully.

I feel that every justice attends upon the case which the Northern people who are claiming to sit in this Parliament have. Like others, I do not think that this right can be claimed only for nationalists. I think that every elected representative across the Border, in our lost province, should have the right to come to Dáil Éireann and to speak his mind and should get a céad míle fáilte here, even Sir Basil Brooke himself. It would be a great thing if that could be brought to pass. Some day, please God, it will be brought to pass. There is nothing surer than that. Perhaps not in the lifetime of some people here, perhaps not in my lifetime, but there is nothing surer than that one day there will be an Assembly in this country wherein representatives of all the sections of the people will meet. Let us hasten that day as much as we can. Whatever little thing we can do now to bring that day nearer should be done.

There are many of us who do not agree, possibly, with the social or economic policies that may be enunciated from time to time by our brother nationalists in the North. Some of us would take issue with at least some of the North very easily.

Captain Cowan

And some of the nationalists in the South.

Mr. Dunne

We are already doing that. Practically everybody in this House is a nationalist or, if you like, a republican, and believes in the integrity of the 32 Counties and in the sovereignty of the Republic of the 32 Counties.

There are differences in regard to social and economic policies in so far as the internal administration of the country is concerned. I do not deny that there are differences between individuals here and individuals who make up part of the nationalist minority in the North of Ireland, but upon the general question of the integrity of the nation and of the right of the nation to unity and to one Parliament there is no difference, there cannot be any difference.

I believe that we would be doing a constructive thing in extending to the elected representatives of the people of the six occupied counties the right to speak here on subjects in which they are interested and which affect the entire country. We have been talking about Partition for a long time. Some people would be inclined to the view that the time for talk is long past. The fact that within very recent years men lost their patience in waiting resulted in their finding themselves in jails throughout the Twenty-Six Counties as well as the Six Counties and in British jails. Some of them whom I recall very well as my own friends eventually met the death of a soldier or the hangman's rope. All these men were good Irishmen. Some of them loved this country, like many before them, not wisely but too well.

If we are to carry on the tradition that has been handed to us by brave men who had varying policies and varying beliefs as to the internal administration of this country, but who all held fast and firm a strong belief in the divine right of the people of this country to unity and independence, if we are to honour those men who have gone before, not alone those who went in 1916, 1920 and 1922, on both sides, but those who went within the last ten or 12 years, if we are to honour them all— God rest the souls of all of them—I believe we should support these two motions.

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. Childers)

In the course of his observations earlier to-day, Deputy Costello was challenging the Minister for Finance to make clear what the policy of the Government was going to be in regard to such matters as investment and the dissipation of external assets. I think we should be very clear on this side of the House as to our future plans, and as to what we really mean in that regard. The Minister for Finance, in the course of his speech on his Estimate, indicated that there were seven points on which there should be some agreement among us all. He referred, in particular, to what he described as "the unwieldy programme of capital expenditure, the trading position which we had with the rest of the world, and the dissipation of our external assets." He also referred to the very considerable items for which no provision had been made in the Budget.

The thing that I wish particularly to emphasise this evening is the fact that the seven point policy stressed by the present Minister for Finance was, in fact, virtually composed and prepared by Deputy McGilligan, the former Minister for Finance, the only difference being that he was compelled, for political reasons, to refrain from stating in detail how he proposed to put that policy into operation. He was compelled to leave the electorate, at the time of the general election, ignorant of the not perhaps very serious dangers, but the dangers that confronted the country from the financial point of view. I think it just as well to remind the House that Deputy McGilligan realised himself, at that time, that there would have to be a certain re-examination of the Government's financial policy, and that that re-examination was overdue. Therefore, when the present Minister for Finance suggested the necessity for a re-examination, he was really only following out in greater detail, with greater realism, greater truth and with more facts at his command the rather vague warnings given by the previous Minister for Finance.

I do not suppose there is any need for me to quote at great length from the Budget statement of Deputy McGilligan, the then Minister for Finance. He made it perfectly clear in a number of paragraphs in that statement that the position could not continue as it was. The Budget speech is to be found in Volume 125 of the Dáil Debates. Under the heading: "Investment and Stockpiling," at column 1882, the then Minister for Finance had this to say:

"It has been estimated by the Central Statistics Office that the increase in external disinvestment of £20,000,000 in 1950 as compared with 1949 has been accompanied by a net addition of £6,500,000 to physical capital at home."

He added that he was glad to say that not all the balance of £13,500,000 was dissipated in consumption. He indicated quite clearly there that the principle upon which money should be spent—money that was invested abroad —on capital services here, was not being followed, that the whole principle, in fact, had been abandoned, and that we were selling our external investments not only for necessary stockpiling, stockpiling of a desirable character, but also for what are, relatively, luxuries.

We, in Fianna Fáil, have always realised that it is very easy to talk blandly and glibly about the investment of money at home—money that is now invested abroad. If you change the policy in regard to that, you have to make sure of what you believe the results will be. One would think from listening to Deputy MacBride that we, on this side of the House, know nothing whatever about the investment of capital at home in this country, or of encouraging private individuals to start industries by using their capital or using their savings. I do not see why one should have to indulge in elementary economics in this House, but, from hearing discussions on this matter, it would appear necessary for me once more to state the Fianna Fáil view in regard to a return of external assets. The Fianna Fáil view is this, that if I, or anybody else, have £100 invested in British War Loan and I receive an income of £3 a year from it for which I buy a pair of shoes, that it would be very much better if I sold out the £100 of war loan and helped somebody to invest it in boot-making machinery here and, on the interest which I received from the boot factory, to buy my pair of shoes or anything else that I needed.

That is the right definition of economic policy in reference to a return of external assets, but that is not what the last Government has been doing. Money has been brought back home for non-essential purposes and it was that which Deputy McGilligan was warning the House against at the time of the Budget. Speaking, again, at column 1883, he said:—

"The rise in import prices should, in due course, expend itself. It would, however, be optimistic to expect an early reduction in the trade deficit. The outlook for 1951 is, I fear, that the deficit may be even greater than in 1950."

He went on to say:—

"The present position on external accounts is by no means satisfactory, and if it continues to develop unfavourably the application of corrective measures will be called for."

Even since that date, there has been a continuation of the adverse position, and it was not only the present Minister for Finance, but the last Minister for Finance who, driven at last to the truth in some fundamentals, was calling for corrective measures and was warning the public that they would come. He went on to say:—

"While the materials are still available it is right that the State and private individuals should proceed with productive capital development to the utmost extent possible. It is, however, also desirable that the public should transfer to the State for the purposes of its capital development programme a greater share of the purchasing power now being expended on the less essential consumer goods."

In other words, Deputy McGilligan was going further, almost, in detail than the present Minister for Finance in warning the public that he was printing money against no known production, that the printing of money could not continue, and that you could not either raid the Post Office Fund or make use of the Counterpart Fund without, in effect, printing notes for which there was not in advance any evidence of increased production to justify it. He was warning the public that there was a limitation to that kind of thing; that you could, for a time, perfectly easily make use of the Post Office savings to balance the Budget, that you could make use of the Counterpart Fund, and that you could ask the banks to invest their own deposits instead of inviting the public to invest them in a national loan—that you could do all these things, but that the time would come when the whole question would have to be revised.

Neither the then Minister for Finance, nor his Party, had the courage, before the election, to take any definite steps in that direction. They did not even promise a modification of their programme, and they took no definite steps to provide for all the items in the Budget. They left it to the present Government to deal with these problems. That was not opposed in any way by any of the members of the Coalition Parties. They evidently reserved their criticism, knowing that an election was inevitable. The then Minister for Finance, speaking at column 1884, said:

"Making all allowance for the exceptional conditions now obtaining it is to be feared that we are not producing and earning enough to pay our way. The implication is obvious. We cannot have both consumption and capital development on the present scale unless we save more and produce more.

Additional saving would ease the congestion that now exists and causes consumer demand to seek an outlet in imports. It would relieve the pressure on the balance of payments and help to confine external disinvestment—or surplus imports—to what is needed for home development..."

—by which, I suppose, he referred to capital development, the import of machinery——

"... or for stockpiling."

That was a very definite warning by the Minister for Finance. He made it perfectly clear to the House at that time that, although he was unable or unwilling to make any definite proposals, there would have to be changes and that he was only hanging on, so to speak, with his bare teeth to the edge of the rock in the hope that he would not fall, in the hope that something would turn up before there would have to be, not necessarily a very drastic modification, but some modification of the general financial policy of the Government.

One of the difficulties in talking about financial matters is that, in order to emphasise a point, it is very easy to exaggerate, and it is my duty to-night to make it perfectly clear that the Government could not possibly contemplate any violent change in policy, but will simply have to study the situation from month to month during the current financial year. Any violent change made would almost certainly bring about unemployment and any violent change made might have just as adverse an effect on the economy of the country as some of the foolish policy of the previous Government in regard to financial matters. We have to warn the public that the cost of living is going to rise considerably in the future, due partly to this policy which we inherited of increasing the note issue inevitably through borrowing moneys for which there have not been corresponding savings. Practically every country in Europe in the past ten years——

Mr. MacBride

Would the Minister say how the policy of the previous Government is ging to cause prices to rise next year?

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Would the Minister be allowed to speak without interruption?

Mr. Childers

I am dealing with that matter. Practically every country in Europe has had to go through the third phase in its economic life in which they have had to face the difficulties that arise from a series of situations parallel with those which took place here.

Mr. MacBride

Was the previous Government responsible for that situation?

Mr. Childers

Most Deputies know the order of events: that there was a great scarcity of goods during the war; that plans were made for new capital development after the war; that money is generally released and put into circulation through various political or economic influences before the goods or the machinery are available; that there is generally a sharp rise in the cost of living almost immediately after the war; that that can be checked in various ways; and that then a country desiring to go full speed ahead with new development starts investing and expending large sums in capital development and, sooner or later, finds that it has gone a little too far in certain respects and that certain retrenchments of a minor or major character, according to the conditions obtaining, have to be made. The Swedish Government have been through the process; the Danish Government have been through the process; and so have the New Zealanders. Practically every Government has, so to speak, to take a jerk on itself sooner or later in what might be described as the third or fourth period of post-war economy.

One of the things that has arisen in the case of this country is that we faced one situation which we had hoped we would not have to face, a reopening of an emergency state, increases in prices resulting from what might be termed a semi-war inflation economy. That was the circumstance that arose in July of last year. The previous Government saw it inevitably coming, and, so far as we can ascertain, they took no very noticeable steps to overcome the difficulties that would arise. As I have said, the great thing to do on these occasions is to foresee the difficulty as far as one can and to have the political honesty and courage to put before the people the machinery necessary to restore the balance, to restore what might be called the economic balance, and prevent an increase in the cost of living, through the unwise issue of notes because the people are not saving as much as is being borrowed in any one year.

I might add that Deputy McGilligan, as Minister for Finance, for a considerable part of his administration, went far beyond what would be considered wise, in both his borrowing programme and his inflationary programme, by the most Socialist left-wing administrations in Europe. Socialists, because they have always desired to spend the largest possible proportion of the national income in taxation for their own reasons, have learned perhaps more quickly than others—certainly more quickly than Deputy McGilligan —just how far one can go, and, as I have said, Deputy McGilligan and his Government in general, at the end of their three years' régime, were going beyond what were considered to be the most advanced principles enunciated by such people as Lord Keynes and others in regard to the capital investment of the State, borrowing money, expenditure on the Budget and so forth. I want to make it perfectly clear that we, in Fianna Fáil, have no intention of doing anything rapid or violent, and no intention of preventing the natural course of capital development schemes which we hope to continue and in many cases to stimulate far beyond what they are at present.

Mr. Hickey

I take it you have no intention of repealing the Central Bank Act of 1942?

Mr. Childers

I am not talking about the Central Bank Act. I am talking about general economic policy.

General MacEoin

And the bank has nothing to do with that.

Mr. Childers

The cost of Government administration rose by a very large amount in three years. The State debt was doubled and one of the difficulties we have to face is that, in every speech the former Minister for Finance made, he kept on warning the people that, although the increase in industrial production was very satisfactory, unless the volume of agricultural production increased—not the value of it but the volume—and unless the tourist industry expanded, or at least remained where it was, he could not recommend to this country that the borrowing programme should be continued. He kept on giving these vague, rather quiet warnings to the people of this country and to the members of this House, but he was unable to be emphatic enough in what he said because he would have burst up the Coalition Government. He kept on warning them the whole time.

We know from statements made by the Minister for Finance that the volume of agricultural production only just reached pre-war level in 1949 and went down by 4 per cent. in 1950. We know from figures published recently that there has been a very slight decline in cattle exports and the beginning of what appears to be a partial collapse of egg and poultry production and unsatisfactory conditions in regard to milk, butter and pigs, indicating that the 1950 position, which was 4 per cent. worse than in 1939, is likely to become still more serious, unless corrective measures are applied. That is the difficulty which this House faces. We, all of us, want to expand development schemes in every direction. We cannot expect the volume of agricultural production to expand immediately, but, as I have said, there must be some expansion in due time, some visible expansion, if the policy of borrowing more and more—doubling the State debt, for example, in three years— continues.

Mr. Norton

Does the Minister doubt that, if the State debt was increased, there were definite assets against it?

Mr. Childers

I will deal with that later. Certain assets were created undoubtedly by the increase in the State debt both in the previous Government's time and our time. One of the promises made by the Minister for Agriculture in the last Government was that he would increase the volume of agricultural exports by 100 per cent. in five years. It was a colossal boast to make, a colossal prediction, knowing the fact that one of the difficulties affecting the whole of this country since 1912 has been that the actual level of agricultural production has changed very little. It is one of the deepest and most long-term problems affecting this country. The change has been extraordinarily small. It scarcely altered even after five years of economic war. There were changes in certain respects from one period of five years to another period of five years, and then it seemed to fall back to its original level, in spite of many efforts made by Governments of all kinds in the past to stimulate it. He made that very lurid boast and his boast was not justified. There was nothing like a 100 per cent. increase in the volume of agricultural exports during the past three years, and, in respect of most of the important items, that value would not have been reached, even if the Government had remained in office for five years.

To give just one example of the kind of promise that was made, in reference to this prediction of Deputy Dillon's about increasing the volume of agricultural exports by 100 per cent. in five years, the number of cattle exported in 1939 was 482,000 and, by 1950, it had reached the dizzy figure of 494,000— very far off a 100 per cent. increase. I might add, examining again eggs, butter, bacon and pigs, that one can see very easily that that prediction was not made good, but it was upon that prediction that much of the policy of the then Minister for Finance was based.

He hoped that all these things would happen. He hoped that in some mysterious way a miracle would be performed overnight. Another example was Deputy Dillon's lurid boast that he would restore the pig population in 12 months, given the opportunity. The pig population was something just under 1,000,000 at the end of the economic war, and by the end of the three-year régime of Deputy Dillon it had reached just over 600,000. It began to reduce rapidly in the last half of 1950, and showed a very serious reduction in the first quarter of this year.

The last Government has tried to take credit and has tried to justify its borrowing programme by giving the impression to the public that one of its successes was the very great increase in cattle prices that took place, as if there was something new in that, as if no one ever increased cattle prices before. They seek to justify their programme—shall we say, the uncontrolled borrowing, the unorganised, co-ordinate capital development—by the increases in cattle prices that took place. As I have already pointed out, there was not very much increase in the volume of cattle exports, there was some increase in the value; but it is interesting to note that in spite of the rumours sedulously spread through the country that Deputy Dillon was responsible for cattle prices, according to his own figures the prices of most of the principal classes of cattle went up more in the last three years of our office than they went up in the three years of their office. It is a thing so cleverly put in their programme that some people, even on our own side, are almost dizzied by the statement. In fact, according to Deputy Dillon's official statements on cattle prices, issued by him during his term of office, the price of cattle one to two years old and two to three years old and fully fattened cattle, in every single case went up higher in the last three years of our office than in the first three of the Government's office.

Mr. McQuillan

Can you give the figures?

Mr. Childers

If the Deputy wants me to give the figures, I will. I have given them once already. He seems to be annoyed at being told the facts. People do not realise the actual facts, as given by Deputy Dillon. That is a very important point. One of the few justifications for the existence of Deputy Dillon would be if he could claim some very extraordinary increase in the price of cattle, that he was able to effect and which had not been effected by the previous Government, in the three years from the ending of hostilities, from 1945, when shipping became available and circumstances become more normal. If any Deputy would like me to give the figures I will. They are Deputy Dillon's and show the truth of what I have just said. I would mention just one figure. For fat cattle two to three years old, the price in February, 1945, three years before the end of our period of office, was £25; the price went up until in the month we left office it was £36; and in February, 1951, three years later, it was £43. If any Deputy works out the percentage, he will find that it went up proportionately more in our time than in Deputy Dillon's.

Mr. Rooney

Nonsense.

Mr. Childers

Another statement of Deputy Dillon's was that he would work miracles during his period of office regarding restoring various classes of the cattle population. We were told by him, as given in column 2589 of Volume III of the Dáil Debates, that the number of cattle of under one year old had reached the lowest level in history in the year 1947. That, of course, was the year after two seasons of appallingly bad weather. He said he was going to do something to restore it. The number of cattle under one year old in 1939 was 978,000; and by 1950 it was 983,000—a remarkable increase of some 5,000 from the period at the end of five years' economic war, when farmers were working under very many difficulties. The total number of cattle in this country in 1950 increased by 296,000. The figure is there for all to see, until you suddenly realise that virtually all of them were two to three-year-old cattle and their coming into existence in this world in 1950 could hardly be said to be the responsibility or the work of Deputy Dillon.

Deputy Dillon was speaking about the number of heifers in calf during a great deal of his period of office and saying they would prove the correctness of his policy and of all he was doing. He ceased to talk about it in the last 12 months or so and there were very few references about it at agricultural committee meetings. We discovered that in January, 1947, there were 142,000 heifers in calf and although they increased for a time, in 1950 the number was 140,000. It is just as well to mention these things.

Again, dealing with our difficulty in facing this enormous budgetary position, one of the things we would like to have seen, if the then Minister for Agriculture had been able to perform the miracles which he promised, would have been a great increase in crop yields. Deputy Dillon stated in 1948 that the fertility of the soil had reached its lowest level since the famine. We all can remember the flowery phrase, in 1948, after he took office, and he made it perfectly clear that Fianna Fáil was responsible for that. I suppose Fianna Fáil was responsible for the Great War when no artificial fertilisers were available.

Mr. Rooney

The economic war.

Mr. Childers

Deputy Dillon was opposed to us during the economic war, too, when farmers faced great difficulties. During the economic war, in fact, the crop yields did not suffer any deterioration. There were also the bad winters of 1946 and 1947, as Deputies well know. Deputy Dillon did get an extraordinary answer from Providence in 1948 and 1949, when there were too good cereal harvests and when, in spite of the soil exhausted by Fianna Fáil, in spite of all Fianna Fáil had done to the soil, the yield of crops bounded until it reached almost pre-war proportions, and Mr. Dillon attempted to take credit for the Act of Providence in bringing about that situation. I myself was surprised at the time. I knew there was great fertility in Irish soil. I knew that farmers were conservative and husbanded their soil, but I did not realise that there could be such a rebound in crop yields after only two years' full supply of artificial fertilisers. It was a proof that we did not do so badly after all.

Agricultural production in Europe increased in volume by 10 per cent. during the period when it fell by 4 per cent. in this country, showing that the main problem is that of increasing the actual volume of production per acre. Until there can be some substantial increase there will always come a time when a wise Government carefully and methodically, without necessarily taking any drastic or unpleasant action, changes their borrowing policy, their capital development policy, their budgetary policy and their policy in regard to the utilisation of external assets and the future balance of trade.

We have other unpleasant facts to face. We know that, as already stressed by Deputy McGilligan, personal savings have been insufficient to allow for the borrowing programme to continue. He said it over and over again in his quiet way. He was very quiet about it. He kept on hinting that it worried him. Presumably, he has a knowledge of what real State finance is. He kept pointing out the necessity for increased savings and announced a scheme at the time of the Budget for advertising the value of increased savings which, I think, is now going ahead. As we all know, in an inflationary situation and when there is no actual war and when people are not asked to save for some vital immediate purpose such as war, it is very difficult for a mere appeal for savings to succeed. I hope it will succeed. I hope that the people of this country will adopt the attitude that turf production, electrical production, rural electrification, land reclamation, housing and hospitalisation are far more vital but less spectacular matters than the more dreadful business of defending oneself in war. From the point of view of civilisation it is more fundamental and far more positive in character that they should follow the advice given to them by Deputy McGilligan in quiet tones but given very seriously. They must save more, for not even the previous Government's programme could continue nor our programme of expansion that we anticipate. The warning has been reiterated by the present Minister for Finance, who sees the position even more clearly and who has the courage to make far more definite statements; to speak with greater insistence and to speak with the whole of the Fianna Fáil Party behind him. All of us hope that the people will consider the savings facilities in this country just as they would if we were fighting a mortal war against an enemy, otherwise it will be impossible to continue with the present programme.

Another difficulty we face is that, although the cost of administration went up by £25,000,000 during the course of the last Government's office, for some reason or another some of their most important capital projects appear to have misfired. Less was spent than they contemplated. A very large Civil Service organisation was expanded. Whatever directions were given, the money for very urgent schemes which were claimed to encourage agricultural production and justify their cost seemed to misfire. Only half of all the money to be provided for the Department of Agriculture in 1950 was finally spent in that year in connection with the land project—one of the projects which should result, in practice, in increasing the volume of agriculture, the number of blades of grass per acre and the number of cattle to be fattened. Only one-sixth of the money provided in 1950-51 was spent and of that half went in expenditure for administrative costs.

Only one-fourth of the sum allowed for certain expenditure in health development was spent that year. Only twothirds of the amount provided for turf development was spent and, of course, there were some delays in developing turf to the maximum degree.

Not even all the housing expenditure was fully absorbed. The amount was £14,000,000, but it turned out at the end of the year to be £11,000,000. I am not saying that a great many houses were not built. I am merely showing that some of these more important projects were misfiring in 1950, three years after the Government came into office when the level of capital expenditure could surely have been predicted properly. I might also add that the rural electrification scheme, a scheme which should have had a definnite effect in spiriting agricultural production, was behindhand compared with the maximum desired.

We learned also, during the period of the late Government's office, that a very large number of people left the land. The figure given by the Minister for Agriculture for a recent period was 28,000. A great many more had left before that. The signifiance of that is rather hard to analyse because the Government boasted that workers' wages had gone up markedly, and that they were doing everything they possibly could from the point of view of social services. The fact remains that the flight from the land to the towns continued at a vastly accelerated rate during the office of the late Government.

There were delays in production schemes, all of which have had their effect, and which leave us with the problem of trying to carry on the capital development, in order that production may increase and at the same time provide finance from the savings of the people. At the same time we notice this external disinvestment, not for capital machinery goods, but for goods of far less importance to the community.

Certain Deputies on the Labour side of the House were warning the public that we might be in for a hair-shirt existence. It is well to remind the House of the circumstances under which that phrase was used. We could not run this country normally during the war. The phrase was invented by certain members of the Labour Party to describe, generally speaking, the difficulties we faced at that period, as though everything should have been absolutely normal all through the war, with sometimes only 25 per cent. of normal raw materials coming in, and with very difficult circumstances to face. We, on this side of the House, know that there was never such a thing as a hair-shirt policy on the part of Fianna Fáil. We increased social services continuously during our first period of office. The wages of all classes of workers rose steadily and continuously during that period. I want to repeat again some figures that I discovered, I think, perhaps a little late for the election, and which could have been used in every direction to counteract the "standstill Lemass" campaign that went on—the suggestion that if Mr. Lemass was made Minister there would be a standstill of wages or anything else.

It is just as well to remind workers and members of the House through the official record of the House of the fact that even during the war when there were certain restrictions on wages, salaries and the earnings of companies, wages did in fact increase, and that they increased more from the end of the Standstill Order up to the end of 1948 than they increased in the period after that. I received the final figure the other day taking the wages of men and women in transportable industries. The figures given for these two periods are difficult to relate to an individual wage because they include both men and women in their different proportions. It is well to remind the House that we have no such hair-shirt policy. Wages increased from 43/- in 1939 for women and men to 66/- in 1946, an increase of 40 per cent. The theory behind the increase was that it was possible for the housewife to buy essential commodities at the rationed prices then available in rationed quantities. Most other goods were extremely scarce and dear. If the wage levels were allowed to mount by the percentage reflecting the increased costs the only result would be that more people would seek those goods and the prices would be higher still. The Standstill Order was removed in 1946 and between then and 1948 the figure rose from 66/- to 80/7 and the figure had risen since to 87/7 in three years. That is sufficient to show that this Government was not a government believing in restricting wages. As long as conditions remain relatively normal we believe in free negotiation of wages between workers and employers.

The same thing is true of agricultural workers. Wages went up very considerably during the period we were in office from 1939 to 1947 and they have increased since. The suggestion is being given that there was no increase in the wages of agricultural workers but of course that is ridiculous on the face of it.

Deputy Dunne referred to various matters of interest in connection with this debate. He suggested that we had bribed a certain Deputy of this House by increasing the price of butter through increasing the price of milk. Of course it is convenient for the Deputy to mention that and not to mention the fact that there were three other members who supported the Government who would be hopeful that the price of butter would not increase. One cancels the other but Deputy Dunne gave the impression that it was meant to offer a special bribe to one particular Deputy.

Deputy Dunne referred to increases that had taken place in the cost of living. We do not ourselves know I think entirely how much the cost of living has increased. It depends on whether or not Deputy Lemass, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, has had time to examine all the draft Orders for increases in price that lay on his desk when he arrived. I do not know whether he has gone through the list. Announcements have been made of increases but there may still be a considerable number which he has to examine, which were placed before the previous Minister for Industry and Commerce before the election and upon which no final decision was made although in many cases increases had actually been recommended by the Prices Advisory Body.

The vast majority of new industries and of extensions to industries started since the last Government came into office was due ultimately to the stimulus given by Deputy Lemass during the previous 16 years. A great many of these new factories were factories moving out of Dublin City and being constructed anew and expanded or were the extension of industries partially developed under the Fianna Fáil Government. A number of brand-new industries have been started for which the last Government may take full credit, but the great panoply of industrial production increases since the war has been due to our encouragement of private capital development with enormous success during the previous 16 years. New ships were bought by Irish Shipping, Limited, as a result of stimulation by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. One of the plans we have in mind, if we can get the ships, is to expand Irish Shipping, Limited. There are immense difficulties in that regard. The price of all shipping materials has gone up owing to inflationary conditions. So far as we know, no ships were ordered during the last three years.

Mr. MacBride

Surely that is not correct.

I should like to correct a criticism that was made of the Taoiseach when he referred to the question of the preservation of the Irish language in the immediate Gaeltacht so far as the establishment of new industries is concerned. It is quite obvious that you can establish a number of small factories giving employment in various classes of industry in the Gaeltacht without interfering with the language. I imagine that what the Taoiseach had in mind was that if an enormously large-scale factory, involving foreign technical assistants and foreign keymen, were planted in the middle of an area in which the local people speak the Irish language, it might be a less desirable development than the establishment of industries of a smaller pattern manned by our own people who speak the language. There was no suggestion that economic development would be slowed down in order to maintain the Irish language. It was simply a matter of balance and it is ridiculous to make any suggestion to the contrary. It is just that it might be better if we could avoid placing an enormous industry of that type in the heart of the Gaeltacht and substitute instead the other types of industries which I have mentioned. To suggest that the Taoiseach is going to starve the people of the Gaeltacht rather than to give them an industry is ludicrous.

Mr. Childers

The prices.

Mr. Allen

Prices and output are two different things.

Mr. Norton

Did you ever see a national income calculated on prices? You can produce one of those on your own if you like.

Mr. Davin

It is county council finance he is on.

Mr. Norton

Let us pass on to Table II, which shows the personal net national expenditure at current prices. We find, in 1947, personal expenditure in goods and services at market prices was £289,000,000 and in 1950 that had jumped to £342,000,000. Does anybody want to take exception to the fact that our people have more to spend, that they are now getting more food, more clothes and enjoying some of the things which were long denied to them and that generally they are enjoying a better standard of living?

Mr. Colley

It does not follow. It is the prices they are paying.

Mr. Norton

Deputy Colley's economic contribution to this debate should not be suppressed. The Deputy says it does not follow.

Mr. Colley

It is the prices.

What is the position now? Look at the figures. In 1948 they had just begun to meet and now the earnings have gone up above the cost of living index figure, but that balloon would have remained there if Fianna Fáil had remained over there. That position has been changed now. Anybody who wants the facts can get them in this Official Report, and they will see that anybody who depended on wages had no reason to regret the advent to office of the last Government.

Those are the facts, so far as I have time to recount them, published in this official survey. Not only does the survey provide a full justification of the progress made by the last Government, but when the survey for 1951 is available, provided our plans are not interfered with by this Government, the result will be still more heartening so far as most of our people are concerned. If that annoys the Minister for External Affairs I cannot help it. I have, however, to offer him the solace of joining with everybody else on this side of the House in feeling the satisfaction that the nation at last is going ahead, and I am willing to share with him any part of the pride which may justifiably belong to him in that achievement.

I did not intend, Sir, to talk on those lines at all were it not for the thesis which was read for us this evening by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. I intended only to intervene on one matter which I think is of considerable importance to the nation, especially in the cultural and educational field. During the past 48 hours the cultural activities and the cultural life of the nation has sustained a blow heavier than that which it has sustained for many and many a year. I refer to the unfortunate happening which has deprived Ireland of the Abbey Theatre and of the crushing loss which the fire at the Abbey Theatre will mean to art, to drama, and to the cultural activities of the Irish nation. So far as this country is concerned, the Abbey has been the cradle of literature, of art, of drama and of the cultural activities which correctly interpreted the feelings and the patriotism of the Irish people.

The Abbey was to us the cultural cradle of the revolutionary renaissance in Ireland. That modest building kept alive through our darkest periods the flame of freedom, the flame of nationality and the flame of independence when that flame was almost extinguished on the military field. The men and women who graced the Abbey stage made the Abbey famous, not only at home but abroad, and won for our people in the field of art and culture generally an international recognition altogether disproportionate to the smallness of our nation in a territorial sense. These men and women shed lustre on themselves and they brought honour to the nation. It is probably true to say that never before did such a small institution do so much to exalt the name of Ireland throughout the world in a cultural sense.

The Abbey is now no more. It now lies in ashes and its financial position is so parlous that it will be probably impossible and indeed unwise to attempt to rebuild it, cramped as it necessarily is in its present location. But the Abbey in ruins leaves a vacancy in the cultural life of the nation which cannot be filled unless by the recreation of the Abbey in another and bigger sense.

The last Government had under consideration the question of establishing here a national theatre which would truly interpret the cultural activities of our people. It was contemplated that that national theatre could be utilised as a monument to all those who died for Ireland. At the same time, there was under consideration the question of erecting a traditional monument to those who fell in the national struggle in one of our principal streets so that visitors and our own people might, from time to time, be reminded of the struggles of the past and of the sacrifices made to achieve the freedom which has now been won for our people.

There was never, in fact, any issue as between whether the monument should take the form of a national theatre or one of the traditional monuments of stone or bronze. But it was felt that something should be done quickly, and I think the committee appointed to deal with the matter was told at the outset to get on with the task of endeavouring to devise a suitable monument in a suitable place which would, in a traditional way commemorate the struggle of our people for freedom and liberty. That did not mean that the idea of a national theatre was being disregarded or that it was not intended subsequently or concurrently to proceed with the idea of a national theatre.

However, at the time this matter was considered at least we had the Abbey and the tradition and feeling which the living, vibrant Abbey always radiated amongst our people. But to-day the Abbey is no more, and we now stand in great danger of losing the fount which was the inspiration behind the really great cultural talents manifested by our people for the past 50 years. I fear that unless the Abbey is rehoused and rehoused quickly, selfless though the men and women who graced its stage are, the inclination will be for them to disperse into other activities.

That is not unnatural. We can understand the factors which would operate to accelerate that dispersal. I feel sure, however, that patriotism of the men and women who are the life-blood of the Abbey is such that we could steady the position to-day if there could be some assurance given by this Parliament or by this Government that we would accept the principle of erecting here a national theatre to replace the Abbey which is in ashes and that that new national theatre would be regarded as a monument to all those who served Ireland and gave their lives for Ireland.

I know of no more fitting monument which could be erected to commemorate the magnificent sacrifices and the imperturbable bravery of our people than the erection of a national theatre of that character and especially a national theatre which would carry on the tradition which made the Abbey nationally and internationally famous. However much we may disagree on the economic interpretation of the last three years or the last 30 years, one thing we can all agree upon is that the Abbey must be saved for our people, that the tradition of the Abbey must be saved, and that the magnificent people who gathered round the Abbey and were ambassadors in their own special way of Irish art and Irish culture throughout the world must not be dispersed by temptations from other quarters.

Now that the Abbey has been destroyed and we have no real fitting monument of remembrance to all those who fought and fell in the national struggle, I should like to appeal to the Government to announce as speedily as possible that they are accepting the principle of erecting a national theatre to carry on the traditions of the Abbey and to give those who accept the Abbey philosophy a wider and ever-expanding opportunity of advertising Irish culture and art for the benefit of the world and the edification of our own people at home. I think that this is a matter about which there will be a widespread measure of agreement among all Parties in the House and I hope the Government will find an early opportunity of indicating that in the situation which now confronts us, the Abbey being in ashes, they will accept the principle of erecting a new national theatre to replace it and to commemorate our illustrious dead.

Something perhaps may be necessary as an interim measure. It is quite clear that the Abbey with its present financial resources will be unable to carry on for any length of time unless it is assisted by the only reliable donor in a matter of this kind, namely, the State. I hope also that as part of the policy of maintaining and promoting cultural activities among our people and maintaining our reputation in the international field the Government will give such temporary financial assistance as may be necessary to keep the Abbey going until such time as temporary premises are found and until such time as a decent national home is found to perpetuate the memory and the culture of the Abbey and to commemorate suitably the struggle of our people for freedom and liberty.

Mr. Aiken

May I ask the Deputy a question? After that lovely panegyric, will he tell us why he did not do something about the plans that were there three years ago to build a national theatre?

Mr. Norton

I felt we were bound to get a cultured contribution from the Minister.

Mr. Aiken

They were there three years ago and, after that panegyric about the ashes, he would leave them in ashes for another three years.

Mr. Norton

The Abbey was burned down only two days ago.

Mr. Corry

You lost your vocation.

Mr. Norton

Thank God, however, I can still pronounce what I want to say.

Mr. Cosgrave

I want to deal with the two motions that are before the House and that are being discussed jointly with this Estimate. Frankly, I think it was unwise to propose these motions for discussion with the Estimate, but the time-table probably necessitated that they be considered together.

Every Deputy agrees with the aim of having the elected representatives of this country in a single Parliament, but because every Deputy subscribes to that view it does not necessarily follow that every Deputy assents to the proposal enshrined in these motions. I do not think that the proposal which these motions involve of admitting to the deliberations of the Oireachtas some representatives who have been returned in the Six North-Eastern Counties is any practical step towards solving the problem of Partition. Undoubtedly, sentimentally a great deal can be said and a strong case can be made for having these persons who are anxious to take their place in a united Ireland amongst us and taking their place in our deliberations. But the proposal that is involved here, however desirable and however we may all subscribe to the aim of a united Ireland under a single Parliament, does not commend itself to me, because I regard it as merely desirable in theory, but impracticable in implementation.

For some time, I believe, the whole approach to Partition has been based too much on showmanship and not enough on statesmanship, and that a great deal of reckless talk on both sides of the Border has prevented practical steps or, on some occasions, has hindered certain practical steps, that might be taken towards achieving a united Ireland. I suppose that it is hardly likely, when reckless statements are made on one side or another, that rejoinders will not follow. It is inevitable, human nature being what it is, when an extravagant statement is made either by public representatives or others, that statements in answer will be made from the other side. From that point of view, the example in both parts of the country leaves much to be desired.

I think that the proper approach to this problem lies along the lines that have been adopted in relation to the Erne hydro-electric scheme and the Foyle fisheries agreement, and, although there may be some temporary divergence of view, the discussions that took place in connection with the Great Northern Railway. These three instances demonstrate the absurdity of Partition and the necessity for ending it as quickly as possible. They demonstrate, not merely the absurdity of the situation but the inescapable facts that if the maximum benefit is to be derived from the resources on either side of the Border, joint action in a number of cases is necessary and that that joint action is only possible when representatives from the Government here and the Government in Belfast join together to implement a common scheme.

I am glad to have had the privilege of piloting the legislation through this House to develop the Erne hydro-electric scheme. It is quite obvious that that scheme could not have been worked unless the drainage work that was carried out on the other side of the Border was allowed, and the drainage work would not have been possible unless other work was carried out on this side of the Border.

I was interested this evening in listening to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs claiming credit for a number of schemes initiated by the previous Fianna Fáil Administration and he referred to the Erne scheme as one. Nobody has ever attempted to diminish the credit which is due to the former Administration for their work on that scheme, but the whole electricity development programme in this country would have been far more rapid and done at much less cost if the same attitude had been taken up by the Fianna Fáil Party when in opposition and when the Shannon scheme was initiated.

Mr. Cosgrave

If the Shannon scheme had been developed as fully and as rapidly as was possible before the war, when raw materials were cheap and supplies plentiful, a far greater supply of electricity would have been available here. We progressed with the Erne scheme. We implemented the work that was already started and I am glad to say that part of the Erne scheme is already in operation and it is hoped that the remainder of this scheme will be completed very shortly. However, that digression has nothing to do with the remarks that I was making.

The argument in favour of admitting the representatives from the six north-eastern counties, I believe, would have some merit if there was any divergence of view in the Dáil or in the Seanad but, however other problems may cause dissension or divergence of viewpoint, on the reunification of the country there is unanimity and on that problem there is no divergence of viewpoint on the aims, whatever about the methods. As I said earlier, the whole problem of Partition has not been approached in a statesmanlike way and there has been far too much talk and far too little action.

Captain Cowan

Hear, hear!

Mr. Cosgrave

My view of action and Deputy Cowan's are not the same. I know that Deputy Cowan favours the módh díreach but its recruits have diminished.

If we approach this problem by seeking agreement where agreement is possible, by eliminating the differences where it is possible to do so, by recognising that this problem cannot be solved easily or cannot be solved merely by talk, I believe we will go a long way towards speeding the day when a solution of the problem can be achieved.

I do not think that however desirable or attractive the proposal enshrined in these motions may appear, it would achieve any practical result towards securing the early ending of Partition. I must say that, from my contacts with Ministers in Belfast over a period relating to one specific problem, I definitely got the view that they recognised that ultimately Partition will end, that they recognised that a solution of the problem of Partition must inevitably be found some time; but they also appreciated that there are practical difficulties in the way. We here on this side of the Border recognise that a solution will be found, and that the sooner it is found the better, but a campaign designed to heap criticism and abuse on those on the other side of the Border cannot have desirable results, or cannot prepare the ground for a satisfactory solution of this problem.

For these reasons, I do not think that these motions should be pressed to a division. It should not be left to others to criticise the action of the Dáil, as I believe the Dáil will reject these motions. It may be misrepresented and misconstrued outside if these motions are not pressed to a division. After a free and full discussion here, no misrepresentation and no misconception of our position can result. If, on the other hand, they are pressed to a division, I must say that I will be obliged to vote against them because I do not think that the motions offer any practical solution to or improvement in the position.

I agree with the view which Deputy Costello expressed here to-day, that it would be representation without taxation. While something may be said for having expressed here the viewpoint of persons representing some of our people in the six north-eastern counties, nothing is less likely to achieve a solution of the problem of Partition than a make-believe policy or a policy based on wishful thinking. Wishful thinking, however attractive in theory, can achieve little in practice. I do not believe that the suggestions enshrined in these motions can achieve any practical step towards solving Partition.

The only other matter that I would like to refer to is the one that was mentioned by Deputy Norton. I agree with the view that steps should be taken to rebuild the Abbey Theatre. I think there is widespread regret at the devastation which the fire caused. It is obvious to anyone who has a knowledge of the site that it is not large enough to provide the country with a suitable building to replace the Abbey. I believe that, if the Government indicated their willingness to the directors of the Abbey, there would be unanimity here after the Recess to vote a Supplementary Estimate to meet the financial requirements.

Some Deputies may say that there were proposals in the past to build a national theatre. That may be so although I do not think the proposals were ever developed to any considerable extent.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

Yes, there were.

Mr. Cosgrave

At that time, the Abbey was available. The position is different now. The Abbey no longer exists, and it is obvious that the facilities which were available then are no longer available and that steps should be taken to provide a national theatre to continue the work that was carried on in the Abbey for so many years, with such honour to those concerned and to the country.

Mr. Corry

One would imagine, listening to Deputy Norton and Deputy Dunne this evening, that wonders had been done during the past three years. Deputy Dunne in particular, representing, I believe, the rural workers—God save the mark—caused a terrible uproar here when the increase of 1d. a gallon on milk was given. When the previous 1d. a gallon on milk was given we had the same uproar from Deputy Dunne and others, but in that very same week margarine was increased by 4d. per lb. and we did not hear any word at all about that. That was put on one side as a natural thing to happen.

I wonder do Deputies realise that the increased cost, caused by the week's holidays with pay, the weekly half-holiday and the recent increase of 7/6 a week in agricultural wages, amounts exactly to an increased cost of production of 1.37d. per gallon of milk. The actual increase in the cost of production since the price had been previously fixed by Deputy Paddy Smith is 3.63d. per gallon—that is since March, 1947, to date. Deputy Dunne can be counting that up because I intend to force it until we get it, and I make no apology to anybody for doing so. Due to that policy, of which Deputy Norton and Deputy Dunne are prominent exponents here, we have had the position that, during the past three years. some 28,000 people have left the land of this country. Whether they went coal-mining in Britain or came into the towns and cities here is a matter for themselves, but the solid fact remains that 28,000 left and did not come back.

We heard Deputy Norton quote extracts from the famous book which he produced here, but Deputy Norton forgot all about page 17, which gives the volume of agricultural output. Taking the net output in 1938-39 as 100, in 1950 it was only 95.7, so that we had a reduction in agricultural output as between 1939 and 1950, the last year accounted for here. I have preached in this House for many a year that the agricultural labourer working on the land is entitled to the same wage as the man working in industry, or any other class of employment, and until that condition is brought about, you are going to have that flight from the land. It is all very well to have Muintir na Tíre meetings, at which learned gentlemen with big salaries talk about the flight from the land, but when we get down to bedrock and find a wage of £3 10s. 0d. or £3 13s. 0d. a week for an agricultural labourer and a wage of anything from £5 upwards for that man if he turns his hand to anything else, away from the land, we must realise that we are going to have that continual drain from the land. There is no use talking about increased productivity while that situation exists. That drain is not confined to agricultural labourers.

It is largely a drain of farmers' sons and daughters who see no future to-day in agriculture but who can see that, if they turn their hands to anything else, they will have a better opportunity and a better chance of going ahead and earning a decent livelihood for themselves. There is no use in this Government or the previous Government digging their heads into the sand and ignoring that state of affairs. The previous Government ignored it for three years.

Deputy Norton spoke about price freeze Orders in relation to labour. We had a price freeze Order in relation to the agricultural community for the past three years. It was only three months before the previous Government left office that we had any increase in the price of milk since March, 1947. We all know that the dairy cow is the foundation of agriculture in this country—the foundation of live stock, anyway—because if you have not got the cow, you will not have the bullock.

I will not; I have said all I wanted to say. Those are the things that interest me.

I heard a lot to-day about industry in the Gaeltacht. I put up certain suggestions away back in 1940 to the then Minister for Agriculture which would have meant intensified agricultural production in the smaller holdings whether they be in West Cork, Kerry or Connemara. My suggestion was the production there of small seeds which has a large labour content on the land and which brings in a gross income of from £100 to £130 per acre. The production of those seeds in the Gaeltacht areas would undoubtedly help to stem the tide of emigration and would give the man with the small holding who undoubtedly, under ordinary agricultural conditions, would not have a means of livelihood, an opportunity of finding full employment on his own farm in the first instance and of producing seeds which are essential. Unfortunately, instead we see them produced in Meath, Westmeath, Kildare, Cork and other counties where farmers have 100 to 150 and sometimes 300 acres. These farmers do the work which should in common sense be done on the uneconomic holdings of the West. It would be far better and a far more common sense project than to bring any big industry into those areas. That is only my viewpoint but I am putting it. What a benefit it would be can be seen by any Deputy who takes the trouble of going into the quantity of small seeds, turnip, mangold, beet, cabbage and all the rest, that must be imported every year or purchased here. He will see the income that would give to the smallholder.

I am more than anxious to see industries placed in thickly populated areas where you have uneconomic holdings. What I had in mind is only one instance and there are other things which I am sure could be got going in those areas which would give employment to our people. I am sure that the Government would welcome any proposals from any Deputy in that regard.

Deputy Captain Cowan since he came in has not spoken on the Estimate.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Cowan should be known as Moses from this day forward —the man who struck the rock.

General MacEoin

It has been as was pointed out to-day by Deputy Costello the established practice that the Taoiseach on a Vote such as this should make a general objective survey of the economic condition of the country and I regret that the Taoiseach has seen fit to avoid that policy because he must be in a position to say whether he found conditions as he and his colleagues painted them during the past three years and he should have told us in an objective fashion whether there was any merit whatever in the previous Administration or whether they were guilty of all the offences with which they were charged. However, in what has been properly described as a wide-open, childish declaration he avoided all the principal parts of the duty he should perform.

The country is disturbed and the people are anxious to know what Government policy is in relation to the Health Act of 1947.

They want to know if it is the intention of the Government to amend that Act, as requested in October, 1947, by the spiritual advisers of the majority of the people of this country. They want to know the Government's intentions relating to matters that agitated the minds of the people and of the members of this House over the past few months. These were two very important items. One would expect that the Taoiseach would take the Dáil into his confidence at this particular stage and let us know the Government's intentions on these subjects.

For the past two years I have been listening to an attack upon the previous Government's policy of capital expenditure. I heard the charge made and attempts made to substantiate it, such as the attempt of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to-day, that the expenditure was extravagant. My memory goes back to the same type of criticism that was levelled in respect of the expenditure on the Shannon scheme and the beet scheme that was established by a previous Administration. I heard the matter of that capital expenditure bandied all over the country, as if it were a madman's scheme to build the hydroelectric Shannon scheme or the Carlow Beet Factory. A person who is now a Minister described these things as a precious lot of white elephants bestowed by an Administration. One would expect that after a period of office such as that which Fianna Fáil enjoyed, at least some of the Leaders and the Ministers of that Party would get some bit of sense—but it seems that the older they get the worse they become. It is a well-known fact that if the Banking Commission had known that a war was going to come in 1938, 1939 or 1940, their report would have been considerably different because it would have been tempered by that knowledge. If the Government of the day, when they saw that war was imminent in 1938 or 1939, had had the foresight to spend some of the capital assets——

Mr. MacEntee

The then Taoiseach said that it was a mythical war.

General MacEoin

Will the little Minister for Finance keep quiet and let me tell him what he said to me when I advocated the purchase of ships in 1938 and when I advocated the establishment of a mercantile marine? When I advocated these two matters the present brilliant Minister for Finance asked me how they would keep them on the high seas if they had them. Yet they bought old tubs. They were right subsequently—but they bought the old tubs at an increased cost.

Mr. Dillon

And the Minister for External Affairs wanted to sink them all.

Mr. Aiken

That is untrue.

General MacEoin

General MacEoin

——and compulsory tillage. However, I do not want to develop that point too far now. That was the Fianna Fáil programme, believe it or not—and Deputy Cowan condemned it and stated that he did not agree with it, when he was seeking the suffrage of the people of Dublin.

Captain Cowan

I did not make one speech.

Captain Giles

You fired the bricks.

General MacEoin

You had a gramophone record and a band, which was just as good.

Mr. Rooney

"Peadar at the polltop...."

General MacEoin

You had the gramophone record, which was just as good. The same is true of other Deputies.

The capital expenditure policy of the last Government was based on a sound financial foundation. If this country does not continue that policy, no matter what Government is in office, the country will find itself faced with some of the difficulties and dangers that Deputy Lemass, now Minister for Industry and Commerce, foresaw before the last election. Our Government believed that the best way to defend this country was to establish in it a sound economic condition both for agriculture and industry, owners and workers alike. I am a firm believer in that. Believe it or not, the best defence this country ever put up politically or nationally was when our people were able to keep their heads above the water. Whatever success we had in 1920 and 1921 was due to the Irish farmer and the Irish people generally who were in a sound financial position and could, therefore, keep us in the field. They were in a position to keep us in their homes and make us all welcome. The Irish people are a proud people and when there is full and plenty in the house you are always welcome, but if they have not full and plenty you are not welcome.

The land rehabilitation project, the development of agriculture generally and afforestation are things which will build up the financial wealth of the nation. Already there has been a decided and positive improvement in the standard of living. Let us hope that will continue. In so far as the present Government continues that programme, as far as I am concerned I will do all I can to help. The only opposition I will offer is when I believe the Government is doing something which will damage the country and the livelihood of our people. I know the present Government will not do that intentionally but, being the blunderers they are, God only knows what they will do. They have done many wild things in the past for which the Irish people apparently have forgiven them. Why I do not know. The people have the right to do that if they want to, but a day of reckoning will come.

I do not know what the policy of the present Government is in relation to the defence of our country. The Government to which I had the honour to belong took the view that the best defensive measure this country could adopt was to raise the country itself to a high economic level thereby putting ourselves in the position that we could put our manpower into the rehabilitation of our land, housing, afforestation and drainage. That is a sound policy of defence. The more that is done along those lines the stronger we will be and every farmer who joins the F.C.A. will be able to do a very fine piece of work if proper use is made of that force.

I do not intend to attack the Government or even the Minister for Finance for their failure to put up a munition factory. When I was Minister for Defence the present Minister for Finance was repeatedly asking was I going to wait until the Ford factory in Cork ran some of the munitions we needed off the lines. The Ford factory in Cork does run some stuff off the lines which is essential for defence. There is one thing certain and that is that the Ford factory in Cork, or any other factory, will do more for the defence of our country than the 30-years planned munition factory that never came to fruition about which we heard so much from the present Minister for External Affairs when he was Minister for Defence. If some of the younger Deputies will read reports they will see how far that munition factory was planned and how far it got.

I am glad that the Taoiseach to-day repudiated the Westmeath executive of Fianna Fáil for recommending the use of arms for the ending of Partition.

Mr. Dillon

Good God, are they split again?

General MacEoin

They are. At a Fianna Fáil executive meeting in Westmeath—and I think a lot of them were aged men—they solemnly passed a unanimous resolution, contrary to the wishes of the Minister for Local Government who was present, that the only way to end Partition was by the use of arms. I was wondering whether the shades of Deputy Cowan were not knocking around somewhere.

Mr. Davin

He must have been there.

General MacEoin

That resolution was carried unanimously by the Westmeath Fianna Fáil executive. That executive has been repudiated to-day. I am glad of that repudiation. Believe it or not, the Minister for External Affairs could, like myself, give these "youngsters" some advice as to the wisdom or unwisdom of taking a step like that.

Captain Cowan

I suppose it is the sort of advice you took from the older people in your young days.

Mr. O'Donnell

I hope the advice of the younger people will be taken to-night.

General MacEoin

I regret that the motions in the names of Deputy Seán MacBride and Deputy Tully are being discussed with this Vote because I think they deserve better consideration. I think they should not be messed up with this particular type of debate.

Captain Cowan

Senseless, senseless.

General MacEoin

I would much prefer that we should approach these motions in a friendly spirit in an effort to find out what is the best thing to do in the interests of the country as a whole and what is most likely to have the best results towards ending the unseemly and unreasonable division of our country.

I throw my mind back to the First Dáil. The Clerk of the House at that time called the roll at every Dáil meeting. He called Sir Edward Carson and Michael Collins. He called Sir James Craig and Alfie Byrne. He called John Redmond and everyone else. The fact that we were all called to an Irish Parliament left no doubt as to what the then Dáil was seeking to govern. All the elected representatives of the Irish people were being called to take their place in the sovereign Parliament of the nation. When I look at the Order Paper, motion No. 6 certainly appeals to me. I should like Deputies to consider it because I think, from the way in which it has been discussed, a number of Deputies just simply approach it as one of the means by which representatives from Northern Ireland can be given a right of audience here. It is however much more than that and, before the House comes to a decision on it, I think it should be examined in some greater detail. I do not know whether or not the mover explained it fully—I was not here, I regret to say—but in case he did not, I should like to stress a few points in regard to it. The motion reads:—

"Believing that, in order to achieve the unity of Ireland, a greater degree of contact and co-operation between the elected representatives of the people of the six occupied counties and members of the Oireachtas is required, Dáil Éireann requests the Government to initiate proposals for legislation in the Dáil or in the Seanad whereby all the elected parliamentary representatives of the people of the six occupied counties of Ireland will be given a right of audience in the Dáil or in the Seanad, as may be determined."

That motion appeals very much to me, as I say, and I think it should appeal to every one of us. Why? If it is passed, I believe that it is an invitation to all the elected representatives in Northern Ireland to come here. In passing it, we shall have taken the first step in showing our good will towards these people.

I am stressing the word "all" but, as I say, I wish this motion was not discussed in this particular way and that it was not mixed up with the Vote for the Taoiseach because, believe it or not, the Vote for the Taoiseach's Department is at present our own domestic affair in the Twenty-Six Counties. Let us hope that at a later stage it will become the affair of the whole 32 Counties but we are not, at present, owing to our political and other affiliations, just capable of approaching the motion in the objective way in which we should approach it. As, however, the House has decided that it should be discussed in this way, I commend it to Deputies in order that the invitation may be sent out and that the Dáil may ask the Government to take the steps suggested in the motion.

I support the motion in the firm belief that it will lead to a restoration of some of my pristine courage inasmuch as it is taking a step which will show to our fellow countrymen in the Six Counties, be they Nationalist or Unionist, Orange or Green, that we do regard them as forming an integral part of this nation, that we do regard them as Irishmen possessing equal rights and subject to equal obligations but that we do not intend to give, and will not give, them any privilege over other citizens.

As I say, this Vote is one on which the Taoiseach should have given us much more information. He should have told us, and settled once and for all, his views on the difficult question that brought about, in no small way, the defeat of the previous Government. He should have told us what reply the Government are going to make to the Hierarchy, and what reply they will now make to the letter of October, 1947, which was acknowledged only in February, 1948. He should have told us whether a positive reply will now be sent so that the people of this country can know exactly where we stand. He should have indicated that this House condemns in the strongest possible manner the action of any Deputy or Deputies who attack in an unmannerly way either the bishops of the Catholic Church or the leaders of any other Church in this country. I want to stress in conclusion that this Dáil has no intention of legislating against any religious denomination. It is true that we are forbidden to legislate for them by the Constitution, but it is equally true that we are not to legislate against them. Remember that the Catholic Church is still a very powerful force in this country. Let the Government realise that; and let them realise, too, that any tin can that may be tied to their tail can bring them grave disaster.

Captain Cowan

I should like to deal with the obvious illogicality of the Deputy who has just sat down.

Deputy Cowan just stated, Sir, that you were expelled from the Clann na Poblachta Party by Deputy MacBride.

Mr. Dillon

Is fíor dhuit.

I do not propose to follow Deputy Cowan along the lines of the speech which he made. Although there is much difference between members of the present Government Front Bench and myself, they will agree with me that it was one of the most nationally damaging speeches made in this House for a long time and one which, I am afraid, might be responsible for bloodshed.

Page 17, for instance.

Mr. Sweetman

If the Deputy does not think, when I have dealt with them, that I have covered them all, I will willingly go back to them. It starts off, as any statistical survey must start off, and shows that the national income had increased to a sum of £363,000,000 in 1950, compared with £318,000,000 in 1947 and £158,000,000 in 1938. Undoubtedly, some of that increase is due to increases in prices or a decrease in the value of money whichever way you like to put it, and this survey deals with that very point. It shows quite clearly that the view of the statistical department is that, even allowing for the decrease in the value of money or the increase in prices—it does not matter much how you describe it—there has been an increase of 24 per cent. since 1938. That is the view of the Director of Statistics apparently as shown by this survey—an increase of 24 per cent. over the last year pre-war, allowing for changes in price levels. If Deputy Briscoe considers that that is something which it is desirable for me to bring out, I entirely agree that it is eminently desirable.

One of the next items the survey deals with is the question of personal expenditure. It shows in a table on page 7 a steady increase in personal expenditure, an increase which Deputy Norton mentioned in his speech. He was interrupted by Deputy Colley who adverted—and he was quite right in doing so—to the fact that part of the increase mentioned by Deputy Norton was due again to increases in price levels or a decrease in the value of money. Deputy Colley was perfectly right in that regard. Deputy Norton had only just got the survey in his hand.

If he had had the opportunity I have had since then to study it, he would have seen that the Director of Statistics, who published this brochure —again taking into account the very keen point made by Deputy Colley— has shown in his survey that, taking the price level of 1938, that is, a figure of 146, the figure in 1950 at the 1938 price level was 185, showing a welcome increase in the standard of living of our people. The significant thing about it is that that increase has come cumulatively, progressively and steadily during the three years of the inter-Party Government, for which these figures have been compiled.

We pass on from that—I do not want to exceed the limit of time allowed— to the volume of physical capital formation and we find there that whereas, again taking the 1938 price level, the 1938 figure was £14.2 million, the figure in 1950 was £22.7 million, or very nearly double what it was in 1938 at the then 1938 price level. Of course, if you take into account the existing change in prices, it comes up from £14.2 million to £54,000,000.

We pass to the return made in regard to the production of industrial transportable goods. We find that, taking the 1938 prices as the level and taking the figure there as 100, in 1947 that 100 had only increased to 120—and I am not blaming Fianna Fáil altogether for that—but from 1947 to 1950, in those three years it increased not merely 20 points but 46.4 points up to 166. Therefore, there has been onethird as much again industrial transportable goods produced at the end of the three years of the inter-Party Government as there was at the time when we took over the reins of government in 1948.

Another course that I would suggest to the Taoiseach—and it would enable me not to ask the House to divide on these motions, if he is prepared to tell me or tell the House whether he is willing to consider it—is that we should have a referendum on this question. It seems to me an ideal question upon which to seek the views of the Irish people. It would be an easy matter upon which to have a referendum. If the Taoiseach gives me any indication, in the course of his reply, that he is prepared to consider either of these propositions, then I will not press these motions to a division. If he does not, I am afraid I will have to ask the House to divide on them.

The Taoiseach

On the question of Partition, which is, as everybody admits, the most serious problem, from a national point of view, that we have to deal with, no Government that is representative of the Irish people would fail to give the fullest possible consideration to any proposal that holds out any promise of putting an end to that situation. Naturally, when motions of this sort come up—and I have, in regard to that particular one, considered it time out of mind—one has to ask oneself the serious question: "Will it or will it not help towards solving Partition?" The decision that I have come to is precisely the decision that was reached by the Head of the recent Government, and that is, that it will not. I came to that conclusion many years ago. It is not that my mind is set on the matter. If conditions change or a new situation arises in which it is clear that this would be a step forward, then I would be all in favour of it.

If claiming was going to solve it, then there was not any difficulty. The fact is to make good our claim. How are we, by a gesture of this sort, to make good our claim? If we were able, for instance, when we had representatives of the majority of the people of Tyrone, Fermanagh, South Down and Armagh here to say: "The people whom you represent will be effectively under our jurisdiction", there would be a great deal to be said for the introduction of these motions.

Everybody knows that with a heart and a half we who represent the people of the Twenty-Six Counties would welcome the people from the North in here in a united Parliament. There is no question of any division of opinion between Parties or in the nation as a whole. I am perfectly certain that to-morrow, without any arguments of any kind, at least 90 per cent. or nearer 99 per cent. of the people in this part of the country would vote for the unity of our country if it were put to them.

How does the introduction here of members from the North help that? At first the proposal was that they be allowed to vote here but that was ruled out because of constitutional difficulty. As the Leader of the Opposition, however, quite rightly says, if that was all that was in the way we could easily get rid of it because the Constitution could be amended and any laws which follow it could also be amended so the constitutional difficulty would not be a difficulty.

The difficulty would be that we would have people here able to cast their votes on the matters that come up for decision with a feeling very different from that of the other members. They would be in a specially privileged position because the results of their action would not appear in the form of taxation or burdens on the people of the area they represented. They would be able to get neither advantages nor disadvantages for those people seeing that our jurisdiction does not extend over that area. For that reason, we could not ask them to come in here. If they did, they would be a very short time here when they would probably take sides and that would mean that certain antagonisms would be created.

At the present time we are all unanimous in desiring to bring about the end of Partition, and if any way of doing it was shown you would not need a national Government to do it. If anybody on any of these benches were able to show to-morrow a pactical way by which Partition could be ended he would be the Leader of the Government without any delay because that would be a sufficiently important political matter to give the leadership to him and to those who supported him. It is because nobody has been able to point out a definite practical way by which one would ensure that Partition would be ended that the difficulty arises, and that difficulty arises with the people in the North. That is why they are very often at sixes and sevens themselves regarding what policy they should pursue. If they were represented here they would create antagonisms and difficulties between themselves too.

I remember that after the Treaty I suggested to the people in the North not to enter the Northern Parliament because I thought at that particular time that the national attitude towards it could be so expressed. In a very short time the people up there showed that they did not agree with that. They wanted a different policy. There had been waverings to and fro over a period of years and arguments on different sides as to whether or not they should be represented in the Northern Parliament. Their coming down here would raise that question again and again because here we have a republican position while in the North they have quite a different one so they would create antagonisms amongst themselves. This proposal if it were carried out would create antagonisms and would also in a very short time prove its own futility. People would ask themselves the question: what is the use of sending down members to Dublin if those members are not able to affect our daily lives or bring about the end of Partition? So in the full sense of full membership we can see at once that it does not lead us to the goal at which we are aiming.

It would be almost as bad if they were to come here simply with the right of audience. When will that right be exercised? People can by arguments and speeches create antagonism almost as effectively as by their votes. Again, antagonisms would be created. We have nothing to gain. The only argument I saw put forward was that there would be a closer relationship between the people here and the people of the Six Counties.

Mr. Dillon

All very laughable after what I went through for three years.

The Taoiseach

I indicated quite clearly this morning what the general policy is. It is not the policy revealed by these figures. That used to be the policy of the old Cumann na nGaedheal Government. Our policy is the policy that we initiated and started in our early years, a policy that was supported by Labour.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 19 Jul 1951