Committee on Finance. - Vote 3—Department of the Taoiseach (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (14th Dáil) – Wednesday, 16 Dec 1953

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.—(Deputies Costello, Norton and Mac Fheórais.)

Dr. Browne

Last night I was dealing with the remarks made by the former Fine Gael Minister for Finance in relation to this Estimate, and I was pointing out that most of his comments, and many of his suggestions appeared to me to be useful, valid and, indeed, valuable, in spite of the fact that at times he tended to be carried away by the force of his undoubted ability and to leave the impression that here was a Minister for Finance after one's own heart. But, when I place his record while in office against his criticism here, his assault on the Government for its policy in relation to financial matters, then I must say that, as far as I was concerned, his criticism lost all its weight. There was one phrase he used which negatived any good effects that might have been felt after listening to this Fine Gael financial authority. He pointed out, unconsciously, that when faced with these real problems while in power, when he was in a position of authority as he has been over the years —he had been a very influential member of his Cabinet, I am sure, and an influential member of his Party—problems such as the public control of credit, his suggestions in regard to the Control of Manufacturers Act, his considerationsfor the disposal of sterling and his suggestions for a better orientation of banking policy, his only comment in relation to all these was that when he had the opportunity he had to go very cautiously.

That, I think, really disposes of any merit there was in Deputy McGilligan's contribution. I was surprised to see a Deputy of his long experience adopt a form of attack in which he accused the Fianna Fáil Government of having done nothing over the years in relation to the development of this State. He put it that the only development we have had here has been in relation to electricity and postal services. A Deputy of his experience ought to know that he was speaking to intelligent people who read the newspapers, and read some of his own speeches. He must know that these people are aware that in making such a statement he was speaking a palpable untruth.

It would be possible for Deputy McGilligan to say that the Government did not do as much as he would like to have seen done, but to make a sweeping assertion of that nature is, as I have said, transparently and palpably untrue. Consequently, it would be impossible for anybody to credit the Deputy's assertions or to accept him as a responsible Deputy. If his contribution had been made by a newcomer, or a back bencher without any knowledge or access at any time to the facts, it could be forgiven. But here was a man who had occupied a position in which he had all the facts available to him. I am sure he has gone over these facts time after time in the course of his work in the Dáil on both sides of the House, and in the course of his very difficult job as a former Minister for Finance. That position is a very difficult one in any Government. He must be aware that assertions such as he made do not damage or hurt anyone. I honestly believe that they do not. I think the only person who is affected by statements of that kind is the Deputy who makes them. As I say, he could be discontented at the rate of progress, but there is easily ascertainable evidence available to everyone in the country to see that considerableprogress has been made. One might quarrel with the rate or extent of the progress made, but, at the same time, considerable progress was made.

Mr. O'Leary

No one condemned Fianna Fáil more than yourself when you were in Clann na Poblachta.

Dr. Browne

That is not true.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy O'Leary should not interrupt.

Mr. O'Leary

I read your electioneering documents.

Dr. Browne

In relation to certain aspects there is room for criticism.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

He did not say as much about the Labour Party as you said before you joined it.

Mr. O'Leary

Will you shut up? You are only a green chap in here.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

I am not as green as you may think.

Mr. O'Leary

It was easy to get you over. You changed your policy overnight.

Dr. Browne

Anyone must admit, no matter how bitter an enemy he may be of the Government, that great development has taken place here under the policy of the present Government. This State, in its development, has not been able to follow the normal lines pursued in many countries, such as Sweden, Great Britain and America, due to the fact that we have had control here for a period of only about 30 years. During that time we have had three wars to contend with—the civil war, later the economic war, and then the second Great War. All these factors must be taken into consideration when one sets out to evaluate the extent of the achievement of this Government which has been in control for the greater part of that time—that is if a fair-minded assessment of the progress is to be made. I do not think that any fair-minded person can deny that the greater part of that progress took place under the aegis of the Taoiseach and his Government.

Deputy McGilligan last night accusedthe Government of taking an interest in capital development for the first time. I do not want to dwell too long on Deputy McGilligan's speech, but at the same time my main quarrel in this House is and has been with the Fine Gael Party and the leadership of the Fine Gael Party, and I think it is very difficult for a man like Deputy McGilligan to accuse a Government with a record of achievement behind it of not developing the country to the extent that he felt was desirable, when you put in apposition to the achievements of the Fianna Fáil Government over the years the achievement of the earlier Cumann na nGaedheal Governments of which Deputy McGilligan was, I am sure, an influential member. And also it should be borne in mind that in the development of a country such as ours in the relatively short time that we have had control that a good Government, a Government preoccupied with the welfare of the citizens as a whole, preoccupied with the welfare of the under-privileged and of the poorer sections that, much as they might like and much as the Fianna Fáil Government in 1932 might have liked to pour out whatever wealth was available at that time into the development of mineral resources or the development of resources of one kind or another, there was the consideration that in ten years of government by Deputy McGilligan's type and attitude of government, something like 29,000 houses of a total requirement of something in the region of 200,000 had been built. To provide those houses, the capital had to be found. Any Government with the interests of the people at heart must find capital to provide good housing conditions for the people. It is a first responsibility on a responsible Government, a responsibility which was ignored by Deputy McGilligan and his colleagues between 1922 and 1932, and it was their legacy of slums and their legacy of ineptitude in regard to the provision of proper housing for our people which created the necessity for this Government in 1932 to throw money into these necessary social improvements in the life of the country.

Then the housing drive was carried on by Deputy Tim Murphy—no memberof the Fianna Fáil Party—the late Deputy Tim Murphy. It was the coordination of those two drives which succeeded in that very essential task of any responsible Government and which brought us to the stage where we are now, thank God, seeing the end of the necessity for this very necessary capital expenditure — unfortunately non-productive capital expenditure and at the same time utterly necessary. That was merely one of the calls on the then Government.

Government of the country by the British and by Cumann na nGaedheal had left it in a sad state and there was a limited fund available. The question was to try to give priority to the greatest need and the greatest need was of those living in slums or in bad housing conditions.

I find it difficult to understand the impudence of a man who comes into this House and lectures the Leader of a Party which has just succeeded in the magnificent job of seeing the completion of the task left by him and his colleagues in the Cumann na nGaedheal Party.

In addition between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000 had to go out on schools, a certain number of hospitals, 6,500 beds in hospitals. Deputy McGilligan's only achievement, as far as I can understand, was the establishment of the E.S.B. for which he should be congratulated. It was a great idea. But the expansion of its needs and demands in order to create the magnificent organisation which is there at the moment; the growth of Bord na Móna; development of communications; the roads, telegraph services, grants for agriculture, grants for afforestation came afterwards.

I was, I must confess, fascinated to listen to Deputy McGilligan skipping around as lively as a ballet dancer over the remarkable achievements which even his worst enemies concede to the Tánaiste, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr. Lemass, in regard to industry here in Ireland. For Deputy McGilligan to trip lightly over all those achievements, housing, schools, hospital beds, afforestation,agriculture and industry, Bord na Móna, E.S.B. expansion, and to sum up in the phrase "the only development we have seen is in relation to electricity and postal services" is a most scandalous statement for a responsible Deputy in this House, particularly a Deputy who so often lectures us on the standard of morals and social standards which should be held by us in our attitude to legislation and to pass over the achievements of the Tánaiste, who by his efforts, with the co-operation, collaboration and assistance of the Government of which he is a member, succeeded in putting something in the region of 200,000 persons into good employment here in this country and in providing the industries which are making us independent, as we are, of so many imported articles and giving employment to our own people.

The money had to be found for all those things. Money also had to be found for social services. Fine Gael Deputy McGilligan left social services as he found them. There was not a single contribution in the field of social services from Fine Gael in all their years of public life here. Yet, they now have the arrogance to come in here and lecture men who, while we may not concede that they have done everything we would have liked them to do, have nevertheless done a damn sight more than the Fine Gael Party did when they had the opportunity of doing things.

Deputy McGilligan, a member of the Fine Gael Party, accuses this Government of having done nothing. But there are 200,000 families to-day living in homes for which they can thank the several Governments, the Fianna Fáil Party, and Deputy T. Murphy, jointly. There are 200,000 men in employment at home, employment for which they can thank the present Minister for Industry and Commerce. It should be recorded, and I speak now from personal experience, that practically every single move made by the Fianna Fáil Government to create a proper way of living for our people, to improve social services, to provide employment, to build houses, and to raise money to provide the amenities so essential in acivilised modern community has been made in the teeth of the opposition offered by the Fine Gael Party, a Party that has voted against, filibustered, blocked and obstructed every single effort made to better the lives of our people during all the years in which they have been in the public life of this country.

I do not think I should waste any more time on Deputy McGilligan's contribution. I am sure it will be received with the scepticism it deserves. There are a few items to which I would like to refer in relation to this Estimate from the point of view of the future policy of the Government and future development. There is no doubt that one of the most remarkable achievements over the last 30 years has been in the industrialisation of the country, and possibly the most interesting aspect of that is the remarkable genius with which the three broad divisions of industry have been co-ordinated in order to get the best possible results for our people in a modern society. I refer in particular to the way in which it has been found possible to integrate private enterprise, State monopolies and semi-State bodies. I am interested in the possibility of future development. So far as one can see at the moment, the present arrangement of industry is working exceedingly well. In the private enterprise section of our economy men of courage have invested their money and their savings in Irish industry. They have brought to industry the initiative and drive that has made industry so successful here. I agree with the Government's approach that it is silly to have doctrinaire and fixed views about matters such as this; the wisest arrangement is to see what works best so that one can get the best out of any of the basic approaches to the organisation of industry in a community.

One of the troubles that I see is one to which reference was made by Deputy McGilligan last night. That lies in the Tánaiste's quite rational and perfectly understandable exhortation to industry to appreciate that it must now move out of the protected home market intovery difficult competitive foreign markets. I am concerned to know how we will survive in foreign markets. Many of our industrialists insist on protection from outside competition. I cannot see how it will be possible for us to export to any great extent in competition with countries which are much longer at the game than we are and which will raise their own tariff barriers against our goods. Recently in an American economic journal, in a warning to us on this side of the Atlantic, it was stated: "Anything that is worth your while exporting and producing, we can mass produce." If they can mass produce they will, like the British, put up their tariff barriers and make the export of our products very difficult in foreign markets. I do not know what our young industries will do or what the Government thinks it will be possible to do in order to carry out this necessary and desirable increase of exports. Even the British with their long experience, their considerable advantages, their knowhow and their accessibility to raw materials are finding it very difficult to compete in the foreign export markets. It will be very difficult for our industrialists to export to the extent which would make exports worth while and of any advantage to the community.

Unfortunately, many of our industries are subsidiary to the larger main manufacturers in Great Britain. The industries with big organisations based in Great Britain who have established subsidiary companies here tend to take the view that if there is any exporting to be done or any dollars to be made it will be done by the British organisation and to lie low behind our protective tariff wall. That brings very little return to the over-all national industry or to our attempts to create new wealth which is so important if we are to expand and to improve the standard of living of our people at home.

The problem is a particularly difficult one. The question is whether, at this stage, by the introduction of a Bill similar to the Industrial Standards Bill or reconsideration of the extent of our tariffs and the desirability of maintaining them at present levels, it might be possible to isolate the worthwhileindustries so that the Government could concentrate on these and thus try to create new wealth. At the moment, the problem for industrialists is particularly difficult and the problem confronting the head of the Government is also difficult. I fail to see how our industries can compete in foreign markets. Private industrialists are doing all they can and will continue to do their best, with the encouragement of the Government.

The establishment of semi-State companies was one of the most interesting of all the experiments carried out in this country over 30 years. The control of industry and the attempt to maximise its efficiency was the biggest headache of the British Labour Government. I was particularly interested in the Tánaiste's suggestion some time ago concerning the relationship between management, worker and consumer, the possibility of changing the company laws and that we should give this matter careful consideration. Somebody remarked that business can operate only when based on the profit motive. In the establishment of semi-State companies in Ireland I think we have gone a long way towards disproving that suggestion. From time to time we are treated, both in the House and outside it, to tirades against the suggestion that any system other than private enterprise is possible. I do not know what is the final or the best approach to that question. We have in the country a number of semi-State companies which are controlled by a group of individuals who were chosen by the Government in power when they were established to operate them. Their achievements and efficiency would not sustain the view that business can be run only by private enterprise. Aer Lingus, Irish Shipping, Irish Assurance Company, Irish Steel Holdings, Bord na Móna, E.S.B., Comhlucht Siúicre, have varying degrees of autonomy. They all depend on management and control as industry at present and in future must depend on management and control.

It seems to me that the syndicalists who believe that the worker must control industry are quite obviously wrong.

Mr. Davin

That has not been advocated in this country.

Dr. Browne

Not in this country but I am discussing the question of the control of industry. We must think of other countries. A parochial, insular attitude in these matters is rather silly. Equally, I would put in apposition to that the suggestion that the son of the father is the best manager for an industry. I refer to the hereditary board of directors. It is as silly to suggest that the worker should control industry as to suggest that the son of the father should control industry. The person best equipped is the trained manager, the person picked for the particular qualifications that he has. It would be silly and wrong to make up one's mind irrevocably on any of these questions.

A very important consideration, I always think, is the condition of employment. It surprises me when I find workers taking an abusive misunderstanding or critical attitude to the semi-State company and coming down on the side of pure private enterprise. I could understand them taking a critical attitude in the case of private employers, but it is difficult to understand them taking that particular line in regard to the semi-State company and particularly to a State company, where the conditions of employment are far and away better, as they are in those companies I have mentioned. Going over to the pure State enterprise, the Civil Service, the conditions of workers are outstandingly good. I quite often come up against that in my business as a doctor when a person is anxious to go back to work and is partially disabled.

There is no doubt in the world that a man working, say, for C.I.E. or one of those other companies, or a civil servant, is very much better off in ill-health—a good year followed by a half-year in bad health, with full pension and superannuation rights, an appeal against arbitrary dismissal, good conditions on the job, fixed hours, good overtime rates and all those things. These things make the community—and that is what the State is—as an employer a particularly exemplary one. On the other hand,the private employer may not be able to afford it, he may have perfectly good reasons for doing it, but where a worker is not 100 per cent. fit but may be 90 per cent. or 80 per cent. capable he is no good to the particular business. I have found that by personal practical experience.

As I say, the last word cannot be said on all these things for many years, but at the same time I would hesitate before outright condemnation of ourselves as employers—because, of course, it is ourselves here who lay down the rules under which we will employ people in those particular enterprises.

Mr. Davin

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy, but he knows that the C.I.E. workers pays for those benefits out of his wage or salary.

Dr. Browne

He may, but at the same time due to the rationalisation of the transport company he is able to work in a company which can organise superannuation funds, pension schemes and different benefits such as medical schemes which C.I.E. and large companies like that can provide for the worker. However, as I say, those are consideratins which as time goes on will work themselves out and we will all be able to make our final choice whichever way we feel the decision is best justified. At the same time the main problem facing the Government is summed up rightly in the Tánaiste's exhortation "Export or die," and in another phrase he used once before, that "Nobody is going to keep us as a pet." I think that is very true, that everybody is fighting pretty hard for his own existence at the moment and that we have really to work hard if we are to maintain our standard of life—and most of us want if possible to improve our standard of life.

I am a city Deputy, representing a city constituency, but if I might make a reference to the Department of Agriculture I would say that I was interested to listen to Deputy Dillon preening himself on the long term success of his policy. That, I suppose, is fair game. It is politics. He accepted full responsibility for theincrease in agricultural production due to his activities three or four years ago, but I did not notice him accepting any responsibility at all for the rate of emigration or the rate of unemployment about which his Party is very vocal. It seems to be all right if it goes all right, and if it does not, duck and let the other fellow take it. I think that that, like Deputy McGilligan's contribution, is one which will be seen by the people. It is quite obvious to most people that if we are to have a sound industrial economy broadly it must be based on a really efficient agriculture, and I do not think that anybody is satisfied with the rate of output or the cost per item of output on our farms at the moment. One feels, as a city Deputy with little experience of agriculture, very diffident about criticising the farmers at all, but I think that most of them know that things could be much better on the land even yet. Many of the reports made by outsiders—whether they are reliable or not I do not know—suggest that we have a high cost and low yield per acre for most of our crops and the produce of the land. There are probably many explanations for that, and the fact that we are moving out of that particular phase and that agricultural production is increasing is a grand and heartening sign.

I feel that one of the most important considerations for the farmer, of which I have a little experience in a small way, is the fact that unlike most other industries we seem not to have found a way in which we could give a guaranteed price for his crops over a fixed period of five or six years or whatever you like. It seems to me, with even the limited knowledge I have of farming, that it is quite impossible for the farmer properly to plan his cycle of crop production unless he can be sure that for that produce from the land he is going to get a guaranteed market. That, I know, has been said often enough by many other people, but it seems to me to be the one incentive that is going to get the farmer to produce the maximum is an assurance that he will get a ready disposal at a good price.

The Taoiseach and the Government may say: "How can that be done?"and I am afraid that there I cannot be of much assistance. It has always struck me, however, that in relation to all the goods consumed in the country, whether it be for animals or human foodstuffs, that if even that amount could be assessed for a number of year and a guaranteed market for the output to that extent made available to the farmers it would be some help to them, rather like the case of the barley growers to whom Guinness and the other consumers of barley in the country can guarantee a price. I am afraid that really is only a very lame suggestion. At the same time it seems to me that, at bottom, the farmer must get a guaranteed price. So long as our farming economy is run in the way it is, he must be assured of a guaranteed price, otherwise he will not continue in production.

I do not know to what extent farming methods can be improved or how they could be improved. Deputy Dillon stated that when he wanted to tell farmers of something he had in mind he sent out 25,000 postcards. I do not think the distribution of information is as difficult as all that, having regard to the present widespread use of radio, films, etc. From my own small experience of the propaganda machine of the Department of Agriculture, I think it is very bad and that it could be greatly improved. I know that civil servants do not like publicity or propaganda at all, but I think that farmers could be greatly helped by the showing of films illustrating the methods carried out in different countries, and by a more improved system of leaflets and booklets on farming methods, authoritative and properly "vetted"—ones that the farmer will not throw aside as being the product of civil servants in regard to whom they seem to have a quite unmerited secpticism. The propaganda end of the Department of Agriculture could be greatly improved by the use of radio. A certain amount is being done in that regard, but I think a lot more could be done by the making of films on our own farms here in Ireland, and by the issue of leaflets and booklets on the more improved farmingmethods carried on in Sweden, Denmark and other countries.

The whole question of the better coordination of the activities of farmers is another terribly complex problem. Again, as an onlooker, may I say that one of the enterprises, the development of which has I think won universal admiration, is that of Comhlucht Siúicre under Lieutenant-General Costello? I may be wrong but it has struck me as being one of the most "live" agricultural organisations that the country possesses, from the point of view that it turns out a home product manufactured from our own raw materials. In regard to advertising, the giving of a guaranteed price and the publication of details of where it can be collected, the whole organisation from the planting of the seed to the manufacture of the sugar was magnificently co-ordinated. In every advertisement, the case for the growing of beet was very clearly and very cogently put. I think that the country has benefited to a great extent from the prosperity of that particular industry and from the magnificent progress which has been made under the direction of the general manager.

I do not know, again, whether it would be possible for the general body of our farmers to derive any instruction from that particular industry or its method of organisation or whether it would be possible to apply in other directions the lessons gained. Beet growing, of course, is a specialist job but some ideas could be gained from that particular enterprise which might be of help in organising other aspects of our agricultural economy.

Mr. Hickey

They could take many valuable lessons from that organisation.

Dr. Browne

I speak as I said before without any specialist knowledge of the industry but it seems to me that it is a properly co-ordinated, rationalised industry, which is doing a very good job and which seems to be a very healthy industry.

Very briefly I should like to refer to the question of money, banks, etc.— very briefly, as I say, because I am notan economist and naturally I cannot, most of the time, follow what the economists in this House are talking about. It seems to me, however, that the question is not just simply one of going to the banks and borrowing money. If that were the simple solution of the problem—plenty of borrowed money at a cheap rate of interest preferably——

Mr. Davin

Six per cent. for farmers' loans.

Dr. Browne

If that were the simple solution of the problem it would be an easy matter, and I am sure any Government would be able to handle it. But the difficulty I see is this. We got the Marshall Aid loan and we had the spending of that loan. I would imagine that an ideal arrangement for spending money by the State is to dispose of the money in a way over the years so that it would lead to the absorption of the unemployed and the creation of wealth—I mean capital expenditure of a wealth-producing kind. How is that to be done? It is important to remember that in the disposal of the American dollars—I am not suggesting that this was in any way deliberate—the greater part went in consumer goods and not towards the creation of new wealth. It has been mentioned before by different Deputies that it was expended largely on corn, wheat, tobacco, petrol, paper pulp and paper products, motor vehicles, etc. Over £100,000,000 was spent on consumer goods. I am not saying that at all in any spirit of criticism of the then Minister, Deputy McGilligan, because, as far as I can recollect, the dollars were there and they were placed at the disposal of wholesalers, retailers and consumers. It is a sad fact, however, that the dollars were not taken up by the people who could get the best value from them, from the point of view of the country as a whole. A lot of money went on consumer goods of a luxury nature, but that was not because the then Minister said: "You must buy refrigerators, nylons, lipstick and wireless." It was merely because of the fact that the personwho could get rid of the goods quickest was the draper, or the chemist, or whoever you like. But, unfortunately, the people producing farm machinery and equipment, the industries which could be reproductive, did not take up the dollars.

I know it was very pleasant for a Government to have £100,000,000 in circulation, with plenty of everything everywhere and a feeling of prosperity in the air. At the same time, I would like to know how you can alter the direction of the flow of that money from the consumer type of expenditure to something of a productive, creative nature. It seems to me that in relation to over-all expenditure we have now got to a phase in which the demand for social necessities such as housing, schools, roads and so forth and their use for the provision of employment must soon come to an end and that the next phase for the development of our country is the one which we now must largely consider. If we do go to the banks and raise more money and get larger loans oftener and it seems to me a very desirable thing to improve the wealth-producing capacity of the country, then, as Deputy Kyne said, it is most essential that the money should be restricted to that and that none of the money borrowed on behalf of the people should be frittered away on anything except projects which will bring a return in 15 or 20 years ahead.

There is no good in crying about spilt milk, but in relation to that loan it is quite obvious that we have practically nothing as a new asset as a result of the injection of all that wealth into the national funds. As to how money is spent in that way, I suppose it can be directed into the different Departments. How one can canalise some of that wealth into the Department of Agriculture in order to provide cheaper and easier loans for the farmers is the problem which is facing us, but I am sure that, in one way or another, none of the money raised in the form of loans will go to any but the most desirable purposes.

In relation to the expenditure of money on roads, I have often wondered whether it would be possible to regionalise the road-making capacity of ourlocal authorities. I know that road-making has a high labour content and, consequently, is very valuable in that regard. My own view is that it is not the most desirable form of labour. As other Deputies have said, I would prefer if the men were on the other side of the fence creating wealth for the country. However, there is the question of whether road-making could be regionalised so that the equipment available for making good roads quickly could be shared by the different local authorities. I know it is a very difficult question and one which will take a long time to settle, but ultimately I hope we will see the day in which we cannot afford to have our workers engaged in such an occupation as road-making, when the work content of road-making will be reduced to the very limit.

I should like to refer to the question of our future general attitude in relation to social services and amenities for our people as a whole. No matter how many of us try to ignore the fact that many of the old traditions are being left behind and broken, we will not be left completely undisturbed in the years ahead. The pattern on which our society will be ordered in the years ahead depends on the fact that most modern societies and most true democracies have now got to the stage where there is evolving a literary and educated majority. It seems to me that that essentially is the basis of the evolutionary changes which are taking place in most countries and I feel that in time it must affect us here. As I see it, our people have learned to know the advantages of the education of a limited kind which was available to them in their time. Most of those whom I know, at any rate, are becoming more and more determined that their children will grow up into a better order and a more just society. If one has a true democracy, the Government which most closely represents the majority mind or the mass mind in that community is the Government which ultimately must assume control. In the old British days, very few families had access to the best health services, to higher education where the child had the intellectual capacity for it, and to real security from want inold age. All those things were cherished by the few in the past and the retention of them is bitterly fought for by those few in the present.

As far as I can see, as time goes on the Government must concede those privileges—equal opportunity in education, equal opportunity in relation to social amenities in old age, equal opportunity in health services—to the mass of the people. I must confess I see nothing very wrong in that conception. In the old days it was a great life and it was great fun being a son of the manse, a son of the big house, with access to the best of everything. We must be careful that we do not just transfer the privileges of the few in those days to a small group in our own time. Certainly, it would give me very little consolation to know that that had happened. I feel that in a properly ordered society the ideal is the one which will give proper expression to the phrase "cherishing all the children of the nation equally." To me that phrase seems to be merely the politician's interpretation of the Second Commandment—to do unto other as you would like them to do unto you—that must pervade the organisation of government in a Christian society.

I should like to give one illustration of what I mean. In the debate on the Health Bill, a Senator remarked that what will happen now is that we will level down all our services and give everybody the same standard as we now give to the poor. I felt that it represented a terribly dangerous and bad development in a true democracy such as ours, that there should be people who felt they had privileges in these very essential aspects of properly ordered society, and that we were unconsciously allowing these people to assume control and to create a feeling that for some one standard was better and for others in the nation another standard was good enough.

I know it is very difficult for a Government to try to achieve maximum social justice in any community, but I know well that no Government in this country has striven harder than the present Government to achieve that social justice or equality of opportunity.It is very easy for the "haves" to take any argument to obstruct and beat down the demand of the "have-nots". Personally, I think it can be delayed, but I do not think it can be denied to them. In these things my attitude always has been something like this. The child who ends its education at the age of 14 and has to take its chance in the world against the privileged boy—who comes from Clongowes or Belvedere or some college like that and who later has had a university education—obviously finds that the dice is heavily loaded against him in such a society. It is no good at all saying that if you help people too much you kill personal initiative. What difference can personal initiative make, in the attempts of the child who stops his education at 14, when he is competing against the young man who is a doctor, an architect, a barrister or a solicitor? I hope that we just do not develop into a nation in which labourers breed more labourers, doctors more doctors, barristers more barristers, solicitors more solicitors, and so on.

If we are to get the best value out our society, we should see that the best intellects have access to the educational opportunities available to us. Reading over all the things that they wanted—those men who went out 30 years ago and who created revolution —it seems to me perfectly clear that that is the society they had in their minds. From what I have read, it seems to me that they did not want to perpetuate the old traditional approach to these matters. All of them had truly in their hearts the idea that we would "cherish all the children of the nation equally." I know well that it is easy to talk like that and to hope for these things. At the same time, I certainly should be silly if I said that I had given up hope of these things. I think that, ultimately, we will be privileged to redeem that magnificent idea.

I realise that we are a comparatively poor nation but, as things are at the moment, we have done a very good job—a job of which the Government can be very proud indeed. There is the foundation of a good code of socialsecurity. There is the foundation of a magnificent code of health legislation. Industry is thriving and I think it will continue to thrive. Agriculture is improving and I hope it will go on to provide us with the real wealth by which we can redeem all these promises. It is easy for men to sit and criticise. It is easy for a person to indulge in the destructive type of criticism which we heard here last night and to forget the achievements. It is impossible for the younger generations in this country to imagine the appalling heritage that was taken over by our own soldier politicians 30 years ago. Consequently, we can only have some small idea of the achievements of the Fianna Fáil Government —the Government which has had control the majority of the time since the formation of this State.

Looking back on the foundations upon which the present state of society has been laid, I have no doubt in the world but that we can move on, gradually and reasonably, as our pockets allow us, to increase our opportunities for employment, to reduce emigration and to provide a code of social legislation of which we can be very proud.

I come now to the expenditure of money on things of a non-productive capital nature—things such as Government offices. We have given priority in the past to slum dwellers, hospitals and schools. Undoubtedly, civil servants should be and must be properly housed in their working conditions. I wonder, however, whether it would be possible for us to think a little more of the aged men and women in our county homes, many of whom have only a short time left to remain with us. I wonder if it would be possible to give a little more consideration to trying to improve or at least to rebuild some of the less desirable county homes that are around the country. I am aware that the Minister for Health is working very hard on that problem. If we are going to spend a lot of money, I wonder whether it would be possible to consider some of the county homes where so many of our old people must spend their remaining years. I should bevery pleased if it were possible to do anything to ameliorate and improve the conditions there for our aged and to give them a few more of the comforts which we all like and which, I suppose, we all think we will have for ourselves in our old age.

I am particularly gratified by the fact that the next item to be discussed is the National Fund Development Bill. The whole attitude of the Government is far from being complacent, as Deputy McGilligan alleged. The Government is fully aware and fully conscious of the situation. Anybody who has seen the legislation passing through this House in the past couple of years must concede that the Government has been working at a tremendous rate in order to try to provide different opportunities for improving the employment conditions, for improving the social conditions and for improving the living conditions of our people. This new proposition, the National Development Bill, is an added proof of the Government's intentions to deal in a radical way with the present unemployment problem. The Government has every right to be proud of its record and to feel that in the future it will continue to claim the support of the people because of the contribution which it has made in the past to the betterment and the prosperity of the community as a whole.

Mr. A. Byrne

It must be generally admitted that it is becoming more difficult, day after day, to pay our way in this country. The position is acute in the middle income groups and with the lowly-paid workers including the Army, the Gardaí, retired civil servants, pensioned teachers, postal workers, retired D.M.P. and so forth. Local government officials have held meetings recently because they cannot live or pay their way on the scanty pensions which they were given by the local authorities. We have the old age pensioners and the widows and orphans, both contributory and noncontributory.

We have the people on unemployment benefits, on home assistance and on sick benefits. It is becoming a real mental strain on all of those people,as well as on the mothers of large families, to try and pay their way. Because of that situation, I cannot agree with some things which are said in this House and some praise which is given here and there. It is correct to say that certain things have been done in the past. The fact of the matter is, however, that, these days, a very large proportion of our people are suffering from mental strain because their incomes or their scanty allowances are not sufficient to enable them to pay their way. It is not for me, therefore, to give praise to any Minister of any Government so long as these conditions exist. They are still suffering from the effects of the 1951-52 Budget. The Minister, in reply to a question on the price of bread, said that he could not bring the loaf back in price from 9d. to 6d., because it would cost £7,000,000, which means that people in working-class homes and tenements in Dublin and in cottages throughout the country who pay 9d. for the baker's loaf, have had taken from them a sum of £7,000,000 within the last year in respect of the loaf of bread alone. How anybody can stand up here and praise the Government for the existence of that state of affairs, I do not understand. Dublin Deputies are aware that butter, bacon and meat have gone almost completely from the tables of the type of people I have mentioned who are living on these scanty allowances and miserable pensions.

It is not my intention to enter into this competition to see who can make the hour-and-a-half or two-hour speech. I have always been satisfied with ten or 15 minutes, though it is sometimes difficult to keep to the point and one may occasionally drift a little over that period. There is discontent in this city because of the terrifically high cost of living. All the necessaries of life have gone up in price and allowances or wages have not gone up proportionately. Food, boots, clothing, rents and rates have all gone up and, as I have said, meat, butter, bacon and eggs have gone from the tables of the moderate type of lowly paid worker in this city. For that reason, I ask the Government to do more, if possible. They will have to do something quickly to stop emigration, ormost of our young people will have gone out of the country and we will be left only with people who find that, on reaching 60 or 70 years of age, they are not wanted by employers.

There is many a man in this House who has reached the age of 60 or 70 who is still capable of doing a good day's work with his brain. Many of them are doing valuable work but, in outside life, an employer does not want a man of 60 years of age and, unless that man has served 25 or 30 years with a decent firm, he has no chance of being kept on. We have many thousands of people in this city engaged in casual work—working one week out of three—but when they reach the age of 65 they do not even get that work, and they have to ask themselves what they are to do until they reach the age at which they qualify for the old age pension. Men of that type apply to the municipal authorities asking to be put on the watching system—decent, respectable citizens who have given their best in private employment—and that is what faces many people now. I appeal to the Government to get down to it and not to be satisfied with the record of the past. In the past, the cost of living was lower, and the loaf which is to-day 9d. was then 6d. In the case of the woman with a small family of two or three children, who buys four loaves a day, it means 1/- per day off her husband's wages, so that those wages are reduced by 6/- per week by reason of the withdrawal of the subsidy on flour.

There is one matter which has been talked almost threadbare here, but which I think will bear repetition. I refer to the question of housing. I am on the housing committee of the corporation—a splendid group of men who are doing great work, with officials who are as good as any in any part of the country. The corporation are now drifting outside the city and housing people on the outskirts where—in addition to the extra 3d. on the price of the loaf—bus fares are 6d., 7d. and in some cases 8d. I urge the Government to impress on the local authority the need for starting to rebuild old Dublin. The little grocer's shop at the corner,the hairdresser and the butcher around the corner, have suffered loss through the removal of people from these houses in the city. School attendances in the city are going down and large sums of money have to be spent on building schools on the outskirts. Many thousands more—if not millions—have to be spent on roads, sewers and other amenities necessary for housing. Yet, in the centre of the city—at Smithfield, around Hardwicke Street and up in Mount Street—we have all these services and it would be wise if the authorities decided—and the Government must take an interest in it because this is the capital city and a city we are all very proud of—that the city must not be neglected any more. It must not be left a city of derelict sites and gaunt empty tenements. They ought to come down and be rebuilt.

Further, when we make application to the Local Government Department for permission to take them down and rebuild, we should not have to wait for months for a reply. There ought to be more co-operation between the Department and Dublin Corporation, and, when we ask the Department to sanction our proposals, they ought to do so immediately, and let us put the men to work.

Last May, Deputy Tom Byrne asked a question about unemployment to which he got an answer, and, on the same day, he asked another question about the miles of lanes in the city on the concreting of which good work could be provided. At the time, nobody would listen to the suggestion, but then the unemployed took matters into their own hands and staged a demonstration, showing that they were serious, whereupon we all woke up. My colleagues in the corporation can tell Deputies that our engineers and our city manager tell us that they got the best possible value out of every man whom they recruited for special work. I think it is necessary to mention that. The 400 men who were fortunate enough to secure employment proved their worth. If we got speedier decisions from the Department of Local Government, we might be able to employ another 400 men. Itis hoped that we will be able to do that. I appeal to the Government and to all Parties not to be satisfied with what has been done but to keep on pressing for more and make the workers of the city contented.

I go down to the North Wall occasionally. There is a lot of consternation there at the present moment because of the slackness of work. Groups of fine young workers can be seen on the quays waiting and hoping to get work. I do not know why the sudden change has taken place. We in Dublin Corporation with the assistance of the Government are making efforts to encourage young people to build their own homes. Very often those people are frustrated. It is made difficult for them to get the supplementary grant. Then there are also delays in paying them loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. They are crippled with high ground rents charged by private landlords and by Dublin Corporation. I understand that is not the fault of the corporation. When land is acquired by them under the Compulsory Acquisition Acts they have to pay so much. If a person wants to build a house of his own, the corporation charges him £10 10s. ground rent. If it is a corner house with a moderate sized front garden he is charged £12. I have a list here which I will show the House. It deals with a scheme known as the St. Anne's Housing Scheme.

Every Easter, Dublin Corporation have a raffle in the Mansion House in respect of 10 per cent. of the houses which the corporation build. If they build 2,000 houses, 200 are put up for raffle among newly-weds—those married within a period of five years. These people could easily have two to three children in family. These people have been neglected by everybody so far as housing is concerned. The Government should do something to give that type of person greater encouragement to build a house for himself. If the Government did that they would do good work and would encourage the growth of a fine solid group of solvent citizens anxious to pay their way. They pay their way but, unfortunately, in many cases they are being put to the pin of their collars to pay high rents. They cannot pay for the accommodation let to them. If the white collar worker gets a site from the corporation he has to pay £10 10s. or £12 a year, that is, 5/- per week, for 40 years.

I heard it said in another place that in respect of houses costing £1,600, a man at the end of 40 years would have paid £4,000 for it. He has also to put down his deposit and pay the 5 per cent. interest. I think we ought to do something for that type of person. These people are being fleeced, and it is a pity. They pay 5 per cent. to 5½ per cent. and in some cases 6 per cent. interest on the money, and that is spread over a period of 30 or 40 years.

It is no use telling me or the people concerned that the £ of 20 years ago is worth only 10/- to-day. When a small housing scheme was completed, the valuation commissioners put a value of £25 or £30 on the houses whereas we thought £16 or £18 would be more equitable. Many of the Deputies know to what scheme I refer. The Government and the corporation are making efforts to house people and are helping them to house themselves and make them independent, and the valuation commissioners should not put up a high local rent. The valuation should not be £25 or £30 on such houses. It should be £16 or £18. I know houses upon which a valuation of £18 or £20 was put and which should have been £14. Fourteen pounds as against £20 may seem very small but there is a difference of £6. The rates are 30/- in the £, if not more. That is an additional burden on a person and along with that there is an interest charge of 3½ per cent., 5 per cent. or 5½ per cent. which in the case of a man occupying four rooms works out about 12/6 per week extra. I hope that when the new housing Bill appears next March the Government will consider the points I have just mentioned.

I have already touched on unemployment at the North Wall, but unemployment is rife in the City of Dublin. Everywhere you go you will be stopped by a man or a young woman seeking employment. You will meet a mother with a family of four or five boys of ages ranging from 16 to 20. She will tell you, perhaps, that three of them are idle, that she does not want them to go to Canada, and pleads for a job for them. So long asthose conditions exist in the City of Dublin I cannot join in the praise which has been given so lavishly by the last speaker. Most Deputies have letters in their pockets from the very people I describe asking if they can get a son or a daughter or maybe a young husband a few weeks' work, especially coming up to Christmas.

It is well I should mention a matter which has been referred to by Deputy Briscoe and one or two other speakers, that is, the housing programme of the Dublin Corporation. I am not sure what the figure is but I think it is £300,000 a month the corporation is spending for that purpose. That is a very noble achievement and great credit is due to all the Parties concerned in it. I earnestly hope that they will make plans for the centre of the city instead of drifting any further than we have gone, out as far as St. Anne's, and so on. It is all right for people who can afford to live in outlying districts but there are a great many people who would like to live in the city near their work thus saving bus fares and other high expenses and finding opportunities for their children in the centre of the city.

I was tempted to avoid raising the question of Partition but it was mentioned within the last week. Somebody said that the Treaty was responsible for Partition but let me tell those people who say that that Partition was in operation 18 months before the Treaty was discussed. The abstention policy was in operation at the time and there were 80 seats vacant at Westminster. Lloyd George and company saw the opportunity and gave a Parliament to the Six Counties.

Mr. Traynor

You are merely trying to justify yourself.

Mr. A. Byrne

People are not going to get away with blaming those who went to negotiate 18 months afterwards—Griffiths, Collins, Barton, Gavan Duffy and Duggan. These gentlemen went over faced with the fact that Ulster had a Six County Parliament in operation, with its police force and set of civil servants.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is going back a long way andI cannot see that his remarks are relevant.

Mr. Traynor

He is trying to justify himself for being in the Westminster Parliament.

Mr. A. Byrne

This matter is being misrepresented and history is being misrepresented. I would like some day that people without dimmed glasses would write something about that period and tell the youth of to-day that Partition was effected 18 months before the plenipotentiaries were sent over who, under the threat of terrible war, came back and said: "We had better leave the Six County Parliament——"

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should come to the Estimate.

Mr. A. Byrne

"——and take the Twenty-Six Counties."

The question of Partition was discussed by other members. I had better leave the subject.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It was not mentioned in the detail in which the Deputy is referring to it.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

The Treaty was not mentioned; the 1925 agreement was.

Mr. A. Byrne

I am 31 years in this House and this is about the second time I mentioned this matter. I merely did so to correct the misrepresentation of T.D.s who go outside this House and lie to the people.

The question of the right of audience of the Six County parliamentary representatives was referred to. I discussed this problem with some of them and I told them I would vote for the right of audience but I would not allow them to take sides with any of the political groups. I would give them the authority to come and present at the bar of the House a statement of their case in order to have on the records of this House what they want done. We could then base our arguments in the future on what the official elected representatives of the Six Counties tell us. Let me pointout that the Dublin Corporation had the right to present memorials to the bar of the British House of Commons. I know of three occasions on which the Dublin Corporation did so. Hansard records that on the 23rd February, 1813, they were allowed to present their case on the Catholic demand.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What relation has this to the Taoiseach's Estimate?

Mr. A. Byrne

In 1881 they went there on the franchise and in 1916 the Dublin Corporation presented a memorial at the bar of the British House of Commons demanding an inquiry into the North King Street shooting. The Six County representatives are not asking too much and they would not be obtaining any great concession if they were permitted to come into the House and present their case.

Finally let me come back to the question of unemployment in the City of Dublin resulting in people emigrating in thousands. Only last week a family, most of the members of which were engaged in one of our leading trades, left Dublin and went to Canada. Surely, that is a terrible loss, to see these splendid citizens having, through unemployment, to leave their own country. If the Government or private people carrying on industry could do anything to encourage and increase employment, then in my opinion they would be doing a great work. I have nothing more to say. I had not intended to speak so long, but having heard so much lavish praise from all Parties, I got up to say that I do not believe in lavish praise when things are so bad and so rotten in the City of Dublin at the present moment.

Mr. Donnellan

The discussion on this Estimate has gone on for a long time. It has been debated at great length, particularly by Dublin Deputies. As a representative of the rural areas, I propose to take 15 or 20 minutes in giving the views of those who live in the rural areas. I was delighted to hear Deputy Dr. Browne speak about agriculture. It was quite a change from the last time I heardhim speak. I fully agree, however, with his attitude to-night when he says that, while there have been increased yields and matters of that kind, things could be better. Probably they could, and it is on that line that I propose to speak on this Estimate.

Deputy Dr. Browne is now a member of the Fianna Fáil Party. I am not saying to him that there is anything wrong about that. He is entitled to his views, but it is well that, as a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, he should now put this question to the Taoiseach: what have the Fianna Fáil Party against the farmers of this country? I hope that the Deputy, now that he is a member of the Party, will ask that question.

It is not very long since we had a statement from Deputy MacEntee, the Minister for Finance. I may say that I am delighted that he is recovering and that he will soon be back with us again, but I think that in his last Budget statement he said that taxation lies lightly on the land. That was a very good hint that something was going to happen, that some attempt was going to be made to screw more money, through taxation or otherwise, from the agricultural community, from the section of the people whom Deputy Dr. Browne says should be helped financially or in whatever way it is possible to enable them to increase agricultural production which that Deputy referred to as being our real wealth. Not long after we had that statement from the Minister for Finance, the Tánaiste, like the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, also took it upon himself to speak about agriculture. He began by referring to the agricultural industry as a feather bedded industry. That statement, coming from the Tánaiste, was also a hint to the agricultural community, to the tenant farmers, that they were in a feather bedded condition and were quite comfortable. It was a hint, too, from the Government that something would be done or should be done to squeeze more taxation from that section of the community.

It was, therefore, no surprise to me when the Minister for Local Governmentcame into the House with a Bill misnamed a Relief of Rates Bill on Agricultural Land. Under that Bill, even though some farmer-Deputies were inclined to praise it and say it was a good Bill, the sum of £120,000 is going to be squeezed out of the ratepayers of the country. That is the first step—following the statements of one Minister that taxation lies lightly on the land and of another Minister that the agricultural community is in a feather bedded condition—towards the so-called relief of rates on agricultural land—the taking of £120,000 out of the pockets of the ratepayers.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

We are providing £5,000,000 for the relief of rates.

Mr. Donnellan

Is it not the farming community that provides it all? You do not provide anything, or any other section in the country. As Deputy Dr. Browne said, one doctor and more doctors, one solicitor and more solicitors, one teacher and more teachers, but it is the land that pays all the doctors, the teachers, the Ministers, the T.D.s, the civil servants and all the rest. But, no doubt, that was the first step, to take £120,000 out of the pckets of the ratepayers. We had farmer-Deputies foolishly enough saying that this was a sum by way of relief that we were getting. There was never any relief given by this Government, the last Government or any other Government. They never gave anything until they got it in first. The Parliamentary Secretary, for whom I have a certain amount of respect, says: "We are giving the farmers £5,000,000." Did anybody ever hear such nonsense? Is it not the farming community, the people who work on the land and produce from the soil, who give to the Government to pay all others out of what they produce? That is the position, and the Parliamentary Secretary should not think otherwise.

After the statement of one Minister that taxation lies lightly on the land, and of another Minister that the agricultural industry is in a feather bedded condition, our Minister for Agriculture will be meeting the representatives of the British Government early in thenew year in connection with the drafting of a new trade agreement. I wonder does the Taoiseach, or the Minister for Agriculture himself, realise the very awkward position he will be in by reason of the statements of the Minister for Finance and the Tánaiste when he faces British Ministers to try and make a case for our live-stock trade and for the agricultural industry generally which may be described as providing the lifeblood of this country?

I want to give a warning to the Taoiseach that when his Minister goes to England with the representatives from the Department of Agriculture to draft an agreement early in the new year, his job is to tell the British that there is no cheap food of any description for the British at the expense of the Irish producer. I may say that I speak on behalf of the people who produce from the land of this country and I want to make it plain that even though the position has been made very awkward by the Tánaiste, who talked of the feather bedded position, and Deputy MacEntee, Minister for Finance, who said that taxation lay lightly on the land, at the moment the agricultural community is in a very difficult position as regards livestock. People are not inclined to buy stock at the fairs because they do not know what the outcome of this agreement may be, knowing well that through the attitude of the present Government and the statements of the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance, the hands of that poor, timid man, the Minister for Agriculture—bad as he is—are tied, and he is not in a position to make the bargain he should be able to make. I would say to the Taoiseach, when his Minister for Agriculture goes across to England with the representatives of the Department of Agriculture, that we want it made plain to the English people that there is no cheap food for them at the expense of the producers here.

Again, I agree with Deputy Dr. Browne when he says that so far as the people on the land are concerned, everything should be done to help them. I want to point out that agricultural production is the life-blood ofour country. There is one item in which I have always had an interest. That is the fact that over 1,000,000 acres of our land are subject to flooding. For three and a half years I had the honour in the inter-Party Government to be in charge of the Department which dealt with arterial drainage. During those three and a half years I am proud to say work was started on three arterial drainage schemes, and surveys were started on others. Next June, the present Government will be three years in office and during that time up to now—over two and a half years—not one arterial drainage scheme has been started. In my heart, I do not blame the Parliamentary Secretary who is now in charge. I believe if he had his way he would go on with the work and keep the push on that was kept on in my time.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Three was no good. Why only three?

Mr. Donnellan

You did nothing.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

We thought it would all be drained overnight.

Mr. O'Higgins

It was one a year, was it not?

Mr. Donnellan

I will deal with it, do not worry. The present Government are in power now for nearly three years—unfortunately for this country and unfortunately for the people in the flooded areas, because before that they did nothing from 1945, when a Bill was passed in this House, until 1948. For the three and a half years the inter-Party Government were in power, three arterial drainage schemes were started, and for the two and a half years the Fianna Fáil Government are in again, no arterial drainage schemes have been started. Work has been slowed down on schemes that were in hands. The machinery that was bought by the inter-Party Government for arterial drainage is now lying idle on the banks of Brosna and on the banks of Feale catchment area in Kerry.

I want to know from the Taoiseach Some of it is up in Inchicore. I am told they are painting it.

is it the policy of his Government that that important work of arterial drainage should be held up in this country? I take up the Dáil Debates and read here in Volume 143, No. 12 at column 2237 where the Parliamentary Secretary made this statement:—

"I have made it clear on various occasions that I am not dictating in any way to the commissioners—nor do I intend to dictate to them."

I can tell the House if that is the view of the Parliamentary Secretary —that he is going to leave it to the commissioners to do what they like, when they like, how they like and where they like—nothing will be done anywhere. I read a statement appearing in the local paper by the Parliamentary Secretary recently regarding a scheme that was left in my time and which should have been started for the past two years. The Parliamentary Secretary said that that scheme would take roughly ten years. There are 28 major schemes listed. If my memory serves me rightly, and if each of them is going to take ten years according to the precedent set up, it will be 280 years before arterial drainage is finished in this country.

Therefore, the prospect now held out by the present Government as regards arterial drainage, is that it will be 280 years—ten years per scheme—before it is finished. Say it takes even five years per scheme—I know well the Parliamentary Secretary is not serious in saying ten years—it will be 140 years before arterial drainage is finished. If that is the outlook as far as arterial drainage is concerned, all I have to say is that the people of this country need not hope for very much so far as the present Government is concerned.

Mr. Davin

They will not be here to hope.

Mr. Donnellan

Mr. Donnellan

Fools walk in where angels fear to tread. I do not mind Dublin Deputies making their case for Dublin City.

Mr. Davin

And Dublin Castle.

Captain Cowan

Is not that their duty?

Mr. Donnellan

They are building castles in the air. Dublin Deputies seem to think that Ireland consists of a few square miles around O'Connell Bridge. It is the area outside that that is keeping the area within five square miles of O'Connell Bridge. Itis proposed to spend £9,000,000 on Dublin Castle to accommodate the civil servants. The Government believe it is right to undertake that expenditure. There is no doubt that people change their spots, because I read in the Official Report last week that Deputy Burke, who is now a city man, says a new Parliament House will be undertaken after the castle scheme is completed. The result will be that millions of pounds will be spent by the present Government on Dublin City. They think that that will help the country. I appeal to the Taoiseach to carry out Deputy Dr. Browne's suggestion to improve the county homes and to provide work in rural Ireland. Money spent in that way would be well spent.

There is a great deal of talk about tourism and the millions that it is worth to the country. While I do not condemn tourism, I think there is a lot of boloney attached to it. Very few of the people who come here are tourists in the ordinary sense of the word. The majority are people returning home. Important strangers are met at Rineanna or Dublin by the Taoiseach, but not long ago a few plane loads of Irish people arrived in Shannon and they were not met by representatives of the Irish Government. The Aga Khan or some person of that description would be met. We make very little of our own people while we give the impression to other people that they pay us a compliment by coming. Many people come to this country to get away from the hustle and bustle of the world they live in. Ninety-nine per cent. of them are Irish people returning home.

Irish people abroad, especially in America, love their native land and follow closely Irish affairs. Some serious attempt should be made by the Taoiseach and the Government to organise the Irish and Irish-Americans in America. That would be a great help to us at home. That is why I throw out the hint that they are very displeased about certain things at home. If they were organised, they would be of great advantage to us in many ways. They would have a very big effect on the issue of Partition. They would not allow an Irish Governmentto sleep on that matter. They would be a great guide to the people of this country and to whatever Government would be in power.

Captain Giles

The debate on the Taoiseach's Estimate is an important debate and gives us an opportunity to discuss the events of the year. Last night Deputy M. O'Reilly expressed the opinion that things were never better. I do not believe that Deputy O'Reilly means a word of that. He and I come from the same locality. If Deputy O'Reilly was referring to a minority of the people it might be correct to say that things were never better but, if he studies the conditions in the county that he comes from, he will be satisfied that never in the history of the country did the poor and the weak suffer such trials and tribulations as they are suffering to-day. Sons and daughters have left the small holdings and there is no one at home now but the mother and father and perhaps a crippled son or daughter. Deputy O'Reilly knows, as I know, that the position is very critical, that the cost of living is bearing heavily on our people. Deputy O'Reilly and I move in the same circles, among the middle and lower classes. I do not understand how he can say that things were never better. There is perhaps a minority for whom things were never better. I would ask Deputy O'Reilly to face facts and to tell the Taoiseach the real position.

Over the last 30 years the Taoiseach has made every effort to be a leading light in this country and to secure leadership. He has been leader for nearly 30 years. He is right to be a leader if he can get the votes of the people. I would ask him what is the result of his leadership. Is he not back where he started? He started out by saying that he wanted to make some of his dreams come true. He dreamed that he would stop emigration, that he would solve unemployment, that Partition would be solved almost overnight if we gave him control, that he would change financial control and put our finances under the control of an Irish Parliament, that the Irish language would be a living language inour lifetime. The five black points in Irish history and the five black points now are emigration, unemployment, Partition, financial control, the restoration of the Irish language. The solution of these problems is as far away to-day as it was 30 years ago.

What progress can the Taoiseach indicate? Absolutely none. He has proved a dismal failure. I would ask him, 30 years after taking control of the destinies of this country, what he intends to do. Will he not try some new plan? It is not a question of economics. Partition is the curse of our country and the cause of our ills. When one speaks of a national issue in this House one is regarded as a traitor and a blackguard. One must follow the beaten track and discuss only economics.

At all times the farmers have carried the country on their backs. I am satisfied that a day has been reached when we must take a turn and see how things are. This country is either ours or it is not ours. If it is ours we must work it for our own people and work it as a united Ireland. I speak as an old Republican soldier, and I am proud of it, but I see in this country the same things as I saw 30 years ago, before we got our freedom, and that is the tout and the Southern loyalist. Those have never gone out of this country, but are doing well, while the soldiers of Ireland and the people of Ireland who bore the brunt of Irish nationalism and the fight for freedom are as poor to-day as church mice, and the sons and daughters of many of them are emigrating to try to make a living. I say that there is too much mean, dirty politics in this country and over this country, and until we stand up to consider the position and face it, not as a divided people, but as a united people will we get anywhere.

This nation is slowly bleeding to death. There is an open sore in it and we have never tried to stem that but it is flowing away, yet we come in here and talk about economics and high-falutin nonsense. Why not face the real issue, the reunification of Ireland? Why not unite our people in one genuine effort to right the wrongsthat have lasted over a long number of years? We must face that reality, and the people are clamouring for that. I would ask the Taoiseach when he replies to make a clear statement on Partition and not to be sidetracking about the position as it stands to-day, to tell us where he stands and what he is going to say about the imprisonment of a good Irishman, a member of Parliament in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Traynor

Will the Deputy tell us what he will do?

Captain Giles

I will tell him that it is his duty to give a lead, and if he gives us a lead I will be one of the first volunteers and I will not be afraid or ashamed to do what I did 30 years ago. I say that we want a lead given again to give Ireland her birthright, a chance of raising her head again, but politics, cheap politics, are being bandied out in this House morning, noon and night. What do we say about emigration, unemployment, Partition, all the evils we came in to solve 30 years ago? They are the real issues to-day and nothing is being done about them while we play here. What is being done over the last five or six years? Are we not playing a mean, low Party game, playing to the small minority here for their benefit? What is our duty to the small minority? Is it not to speak plainly to them? They have got all the privileges, all the rights and all the wealth that we can shower on them, and they are living snugly in their homes and getting a good living. I do ask the Government to speak up to them and to show that they are getting more than their share of what is going in this country; but the Taoiseach is too afraid, too politically minded, to ask those people to do their share in the bringing about of the reunification of this country. The unity of Ireland stands with the southern loyalists, those people who have got all the rights and privileges. One word from them can do more for this country than all the Taoiseachs we can ever put up here. Why does he not ask them to do it? I say thatin the name of God it is time to ask them to do something about it. But no, we still play for their votes. That small minority is able to put in Governments here and throw them out year in and year out.

I say the Taoiseach should take the chance and face up to the realities and let Ireland get her proper place. Let the question be asked and let those people tell us where they stand. Are we going to stand and see insults hurled at our comrades in Northern Ireland over the last 20 or 30 years? Is the puppet Government of Northern Ireland to be allowed to imprison a member of Parliament, a man who is prepared to fight for his principles, to lie naked in the cell for his principles and, if need be, to die for his principles, while we are told that we should sit silent and quiet? We will not sit quiet and silent. We see our country bleeding to death. We know why she is bleeding to death. We see the manhood of Ireland being dispersed to the four corners of the earth because they cannot get at home the rights of the ordinary people of this country.

I ask the Taoiseach on those benches, as a follower of his at one time, and a follower of him to-morrow if he picks right, to realise that we will not stand for this much longer. I do not speak as a Fine Gael Deputy in this bench but as an old Republican Army man, as one who is not afraid to do it. I would ask him in God's name to speak from his bench in this House on behalf of the Irish people and to warn Northern Ireland that if they carry on in their two-faced way and delay the unity of the Irish nation we will have a different step to what we have taken. Do not think that because we are not in the position of fighting Britain or fighting Northern Ireland in the field of battle we are to sit quietly. There is hardly a country in the world to-day that is not fighting for its rights. India is fighting for her rights, Egypt is fighting for her rights, and so is Korea. Why are we sitting smugly and quietly here and not opening our mouths about our rights? There are many men sitting in this House to-day who do not want to trouble themselvesbecause of the nice way they are living, and that is why we are not hearing the plain facts of the situation in this country.

I would ask those men who are smug and nice to either get out or do something on behalf of this partitioned country of ours. Until Partition is removed it will be a running sore and this country will never solve its economic problems. You will have Partition, unemployment, emigration, no restoration of the Irish language, strife and trouble, and increased taxes year after year. How can this small, insignificant island keep two Governments, keep two parliamentary institutions, two sets of civil servants, two or three armies, two or three sets of police forces of all types and touts by the score, North and South, to carry on the Partition of this country? Do we not know that that is the real tragedy of this country? That can be got rid of by a vigilant and manly people standing up to it. I do not care whether we have to go to the field of battle or to the council chamber, it is our duty to face those issues. Thirty years have gone by since we were told in 1922 or 1923 that our difficulties would solve themselves. This is as far as we have got to-day. We are in as good a position to-day as we were in 1918, 1919, 1920 and 1921 to assert our rights and even to fight for our rights. Why should not the Taoiseach speak in this House to the Irish people and ask them to take a noble stand? If he wants to be the leader, let him give the voice of a leader and let Ireland be united by the Irishmen of to-day. Let us take our stand, come what may, for the defence of our island, that we will have this country free from Belfast to Cork and Dublin.

Do not think that because I am speaking strongly here I am not speaking the mind of the people. People are still left in this country, the old Republic Army and the I.R.A. men, and we should do our level best, in this House, to help those who are working outside to unite the country, by giving a call to the people. I ask the Taoiseach and the Government to lead the call inside this House to reunite theIrish nation in defence of its rights, but they will not do it because cheap, mean, dirty bitter politics pays them better and when all their politics are over they can go out with a real, big fat pension for the remainder of their lives and educate their children for the highest positions in the State, while the ordinary men, the ex-soldiers and ex-I.R.A. men, see their sons and daughters beggared and in misery and in hunger and many of them forced to send their children abroad to try to get a living.

Where are all my old comrades of 1920 to 1924? Do they write to me from Belfast, Cork or Dublin. No. They write from New Zealand, Britain, Canada and all over the world, to say: "I left Ireland in disgust. What is left in it only a band of pension-hunters and nothing more."

One of the greatest curses that I see in the country is the smuggling on the Border. There is smuggling over the Border morning, noon and night, and bribery, rottenness and corruption on both sides of the Border. Lorries are going across and cattle are being smuggled into Northern Ireland and decent people are being made criminals because it is an easy way of living. I would ask the Taoiseach to face up to the position that the whole centre of Ireland is becoming corrupted.

If you mention Partition in Cavan or Monaghan, you would not have two more words out of your mouth until your jaw would be broken. It would be as much as any Deputy's life is worth to mention Partition amongst the people there who are amassing wealth by smuggling. Is it not time that we ended that dishonest traffic, either by closing the Border or opening it altogether and putting an end to a state of affairs in which many decent people have been brought down to degradation? I do not want to see honest men being made "crooks." I know honest men in my own locality who have become "crooks" as a result of this traffic, yet they believe they are Christians and do not think that they are doing anything wrong by making thousands out of smuggling. There are occasions when they come along with an old conveyance whichthey allow to be captured but when there is a really valuable load eyes are shut to the big business that is going on. When an old lorry that is scarcely worth anything is captured there is a great deal of noise about it but tens of thousands of pounds worth of stuff is allowed to pass through both ways almost without hindrance.

I ask the Taoiseach, as a man who has sought leadership for 30 years and who has got it for many years, to tell us where he stands in regard to the ending of Partition, or what steps he is going to take in regard to the imprisonment of a parliamentary representative, who should be in this House speaking on behalf of his constituents in the North of Ireland. I would not be afraid to take any steps necessary to ensure that these people should be allowed to come into this House. They are part of the Irish nation and they are carrying on a fight that many people are too cowardly to carry on. It is time that we did something practical, relinquished our smugness and ceased to use all the grand language we frequently hear about economics in this country. The reunification of the nation should come before all other questions. It is time that we consulted our people and acquainted them of the fact that there is a job to be done which cannot be burked. I say that it is almost 30 years too late to take action but let us get about doing something effective now.

On the economic side, agriculture, of course, supplies the key to success, but I am not at all satisfied that agriculture is organised in this country as it should be. If we continue the policy that has been operated up to the present, with financial control as it is, I am satisfied, as a representative from the Midlands, that this country in a short time will be nothing but a ranch prairie for feeding John Bull. At the present time John Bull has us in the hollow of his hands to make any damned agreement he likes. I challenge contradiction on that. Any agreement that suits him he will make and if you do not sign it you can go home again. I would urge the Minister for Agriculture, if he intends going over there to negotiate an agreement, that he shouldbring some real experts with him. He should not go over, simple farmer that he is, thinking that he is going to put one over on John Bull. Let him bring some experts, not drawn from the Civil Service, with him. These are the men who will enable him to drive a hard bargain. These are the people who can fight our battles, who know the hard road and how to circumvent the tactics of those who will be opposed to them. These are the people who should be consulted when the necessity arises for making a new agreement.

The Minister is a decent man, but like myself he is merely a simple farmer, untrained in economics or in the art of making a trade agreement. He is no technician; he is a simple countryman like myself. I am proud to see him on the Front Bench. At least he is an Irish farmer, but let him not try to match himself against British economists, who are past masters in slipping it across the Irish people and, indeed, across the people of almost every country in the world. I would ask him if he intends to drive a hard bargain to bring with him the best agricultural experts he can find.

Mr. O'Leary

In regard to policy here, surely any responsible Government or any responsible group has to look at the problems and attempt a coherent solution or a coherent move in the particular direction they think, in their judgment, to be the best line of approach. In any line of approach there naturally will be arguments, and I have not the least bit of quarrel about that, as it is the duty of an Opposition to put up other points of view and of argument. What I am complaining about is the seizing on everything at every opportunity to exploit without reference to what went before or may come afterwards. It is not enough here to point out the problems in general terms—the question is to solve those problems. It is very easy to say what our problems are. Certain concrete problems need no saying— they are only too evident. To anyone who has the least bit of interest they must cause concern, and that will be so to the end of time. The problem is to find the solution. What practical workable solution can you get to these problems? How can you find a way of getting over these problems?

In recent years we have had a number of problems to solve. Some of them are problems that normally arise, unfortunately, for every community from time to time. Amongst those problems in this country we had to face—I am leaving the causes aside for the moment—a certain unbalance in trade and particularly in the balance of payments. There is no use talking airily or faerily about that. That is a matter of very considerable importance and interest to this community, since it is on the trade pattern and on the external funds that a country is able to maintain its economy, in so far as that economy depends on essential imports—but no more than that.

We must recollect that, even at this stage, we have been dependent on imports for human food—too much so, and that is the reason why all the emphasis, on our part, has been on the efforts to stimulate food production. Some of the imports are in the nature of things unavoidable—such as oil and tea supplies. If we are to maintain these supplies over a continued periodand if we are to maintain the present standard and keep our economic freedom at the same time, there is a problem of conservation there in the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

The unfortunate circumstances, of course, are that on the trade position we clearly come out more on the deficit side than on the other, in times of peace. That fact has to be faced and that problem was the first thing. I am going back on old ground now, I know; but that, unfortunately, is a basic piece of background to the present picture. That problem was there. It is unnecessary to quote from Deputy McGilligan when he was Minister. If necessary, I can do it. It was quite clear to him in the warnings he issued even in May, 1948, what the position was. He said, very shortly after he took office, that it was "impossible to view with equanimity a continued reduction in external assets on last year's scale".

Mr. Rooney

The 1947 scale.

Major de Valera

He said: "These assets can be consumed now only at the expense of a reduced standard of living for the future." In May, 1951, two years later, at the end of his term of office, he said:—

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

In his Budget speech of the same year, he said:—

"Deficits in the balance of payments cannot be sustained for more than a short period."

An Ceann Comhairle

Would the Deputy give the references?

Major de Valera

The first was from Volume 110, column 1053; the second was from Volume 125, column 1883, and the third was from Volume 125, column 1880, part of the Budget speech of 1951. That problem is there. It was there for a variety of reasons and the fact that it was there makes, to some extent, the reasons secondary, except in so far as those reasons maybe a pointer where correction is concerned. Of course, it has suited Fine Gael expediency to pretend that the situation was completely different, when it came to their being in opposition.

On top of that position there were certain consequences at home from the situation as it then was, quite apart from the imbalance in Government expenditure and Government revenue. The economic situation at that time was such—again no matter what the causes—that there was a large tendency for imports to come in here. That dumping, associated with the stockpiling, to a certain extent on account of the Korean war, had an adverse effect on certain categories of employment here at home. It very definitely had that effect and saturated the demand, which meant a continued adverse effect on employment. It was necessary then to take corrective measures to meet that situation. That situation has been corrected. I think there would have been no safe road for the country for the future if that situation had not been corrected. The question is now that having been corrected, to find out where you were in regard to the situation that arose. Incidentally, new problems very often arise in such a situation. When you correct one thing you find there is something else that has happened. One of the big problems, apart from emigration, was the employment problem. The discouraging thing was to find that, although it was possible to correct the disemployment that resulted from the dumping at the 1951 level, and although it was possible to get certain types of factories going again, particularly in the soft goods line, you still had, notwithstanding that, a definite unemployment problem.

It is a pity that certain people— again I am afraid they are mostly in one quarter—have concentrated on trying to exaggerate the nature of that problem. An effort was made to alleviate it. One of the results of those efforts to alleviate the problem was the bringing in of a large number of people on to the register who had not been previously on the register.

These two factors, between them,certainly significantly increased the size of the register. When you take into account, as well, the numbers that are actually unemployable, the figures that have been quoted and the figures that have been pressed in many cases have not been a true representation of the position. That is rather a pity. It is better to have the true position because then it is easier to see in what particular way you can find a solution —rather than to have case-making by bulking in everything to try and make the thing look big. That is what happened.

In facing this unemployment problem, you have to take a number of factors into account. Although some of us may not have talked as much as others about this matter, we have given serious thought to it and we have tried in some way to make a serious contribution towards the solution of this problem. In the case of Dublin, anyway, the picture seems to be this. You had to find what was your unemployment position in Dublin, even taking the gross number. It was this. In the first instance, you had what I would call a net increase in unemployment to be handled. You had unemployment there but you had to segregate and to ask about the other categories. A considerable proportion of people on the unemployment register are virtually unemployable and, mind you, that is a problem in itself. There are many people who have been on the register for a long period.

I have in mind anybody who has been on the register and who has been continually unemployed since, let us say, 1946 or 1948. We know that in that period there were both unfavourable and favourable periods in regard to employment. You will find people on the registers who have never been able to secure employment for one reason or another and they must be classed as unemployable. It is important to examine their problem and to see what one can do with it. One cannot take a completely hard view of it but, from the other point of view, they are obviously a category that cannot be benefited very easily by supplying of work. There is a category to beconsidered and to be looked at in examining the problem.

The second thing you have to look to is—and this applies more in the country than in the cities—how many people have been added to the register, and who are the people who have been added to it, because they were under-employed rather than unemployed. These are the people whose addition to the register very largely give the impression of a large increase in unemployment. One could easily jump to the conclusion that there was a much higher incidence of unemployment than is actually the case, if we ignore that factor.

In regard to Dublin, there is the problem not only of trying to get industrial activity going, but of seeing how far it is possible to provide employment for the casual labour force. This problem was examined by a number of Dublin Deputies. We put our heads together to see what was the solution and one of the problems we found in trying to break it down was the difficulty, under modern conditions, of getting schemes or proposals with a high employment content relative to the total expenditure. That is the hard fact of the problem—how to get schemes which will not be too fantastically costly. Remember that the whole community has to pay for them; it is not a question of the Government paying for them. We must take into account the repercussions on the man in the street through prices and so forth and the question is how are you to get schemes which will have an employment content and which will justify the amount of money going into them. The Dublin Corporation have set up an organisation—they have got the support of the Government—to push this matter, but, even so, it is somewhatdiscouraging to find the difficulties that are in the way of providing employment for a large number.

Mr. Cafferky

Did the Deputy, in trying to decide that, consider the morale and physical well-being of the unemployed man in relation to capital expenditure?

Major de Valera

Of course. These are all things to be considered.

Mr. Cafferky

Is it not the primary thing?

Major de Valera

Down along the whole line, there is the question of the payments made to a man when unemployed. It would be much better, if it could be made economic at all—and the trouble is that you are not able to work it on the present system—to pay him a little more and keep him working, even on a purely relief scheme. Pure relief schemes, however, in the long run, do not bring very much benefit to either the worker or the community. To the community, they represent a loss and to the worker, they are an insecurity, because they cannot continue for ever.

I mention these matters from the point of view of pleading for an objective approach to some of these problems. We are going along a certain line of development and we are going to be faced not only with problems like that but with problems of financing the development work, leaving the employment position for the moment, with this final remark that it is necessary to try to do what we can. The obvious thing is to try to advance along every avenue where there is a prospect of giving work. That means industry, agriculture or any other sphere and I would even suggest the advancement of capital projects ahead of their time in order to give employment. On the other hand, one has to see what financial problem is involved in it. Already we have had an experience in 1951 and 1952 which, I think, nobody wants to repeat. In 1951 and 1952 we had to take the impact of the corrective measures which were necessary, but we also had to take the impact of theinflation that followed the trends after the Korean war.

Again, the cost of living was talked about a lot. If we can find a solution to that problem or if we can in any way adjust it, it is a proper thing to talk about, but the fact was that from the beginning of 1951 onwards—in fact, it was in November, 1950, that some people started to point to the warning signs—the inflationary spiral started and prices went up continually until they flattened out again some time ago. That was not an unrelated thing. It was related directly to all the other things that happened and, unfortunately for us all, it was related to an external situation over which there was no complete control.

In that situation we have to face the problem of how we are to finance these schemes. We are spending about £40,000,000 per year on capital works and savings are not sufficient to meet that in the ordinary way. It now seems to be a question of credit with all the dangers involved. If one tries, as it were, to create more money suddenly or inflate the situation suddenly beyond the general level of savings, one will run certain risks. One of these risks is precisely the risk of repeating what happened in 1951.

We could quite easily embark on a development programme on a credit basis. You would do something for the employment problem, undoubtedly, and you might hasten purchasing activities, but you would also inevitably stimulate a situation where prices would rise and up would go the cost of living again. That is one of the real problems. I am not suggesting that one should run away from it but one must weigh it very carefully. In addition to all that, such a situation would also involve, more or less naturally, an increase in imports.

One of the troubles in a situation such as that is, that there would be a tendency to increase imports to bring about a serious deficit balance in trade and balance of payments again, and then you would be back in the old vicious circle which in the long run is more to the detriment of the country than to its advantage.

The question which the Government has to face in the coming year is how to maintain and finance the capital development programme, how to meet this employment problem and, at the same time, avoid the pitfalls that lie in these other directions. Any responsible person who looks at that problem will certainly conclude it is something that cannot be rushed at and that there is no simple bull-headed solution for it. That is the point I want to stress. It will take all that we have got in us on all sides of the House by way of co-operation to get any kind of a solution.

The policy roughly as I see it for the coming years ahead must be to go on with development. Unfortunately, we have had to spend at least one year more or less trying to recover from an impossible position, and now we have the problem of trying to forge ahead again and get our industrial and agricultural development going. One of the Deputies quite rightly remarked that agriculture was fundamentally at the basis of our economy. To make all that happen there is then the question of finance.

As far as agriculture is concerned, I would specifically like to see a big enough view taken of this problem. I know the trouble is that sometimes when a big view is taken of things you get many small people to talk about squandermania as they did in the past. The fact is that many aspects of agriculture will have to be tackled in a big way. We will have to take the whole supply of the services that agriculture requires in regard to fertilisers, ground limestone and many other things of that nature.

That is really in essence a very big project and unless it is tackled on a big enough scale it is not likely to be economic. I hope it will be possible in the coming years to deal with these particular problems. In the meantime, it is a pity that we have not heard one definite proposal in all this debate from the other side as to something that should be done. We are used to that position now. There was plenty of criticism in the way of pointing out what was wrong. That is easy. We allsee that and, perhaps, some of us are perturbed about it really and have tried to do more about it than some of those people who talk so much about it.

It would help if we could have concrete and constructive discussions and then get co-operation. I think it would help a lot. For many years the principal Opposition Party have been dominated by the gospel of expediency. It will do whatever seems to be the expedient thing at the moment irrespective of what comes before or after and, perhaps, what I am asking is too much to expect.

Mr. Cafferky

Deputy de Valera, a few moments ago, said that he did not hear one practical solution offered by the Opposition as regards the country's set-up and the evils which confront it. He also said that it would take all that we had in us on all sides of the House to meet the situation. Some time ago I suggested that in order to deal with the problems which confronted us a national Government was well overdue. If it takes all that is in us on all sides of the House to meet the situation, then the obvious conclusion from Deputy de Valera's contribution is a Government comprising all Parties giving of their best. Having that, you would then have what I consider honest criticism in relation to the evils which confront this nation.

In time of war great nations and empires come together in order to wage battle and secure victory over the enemy. In that part of Ireland over which this Government has jurisdiction we have many evils facing us at the present moment from a national, social and economic point of view. The national evil, of course, is Partition which for the first time over a period of years was discussed in a serious way. The question of Partition may have been referred to by the Taoiseach in replies given to questions put down by some Deputies but in general there has been more said about Partition in the past three months than was said in the past ten years.

I listened carefully to Deputy Giles, just as I listened to Deputy de Valera.While I admire his courage and his outspoken approach, I do not agree with everything he said. I do not agree that this is an insignificant State. I do not agree that we would not worry about Partition if we could secure our objectives here as regards the eradication of social and economic evils. Whether we succeed in remedying those evils in this part of Ireland we are going to continue the fight to end Partition. I do not think any Irishman would be prepared to allow that problem to be shelved if we were able to secure the removal of those evils about which we talk so much from day to day. Neither do I think that the present head of the Government is a coward. Even though I differ from him politically I would not wish to describe him as such. I do not think the leader of any Party is a coward, nor is the humblest Deputy in this House. We all have the same desire, namely, the reunification of our country and the establishment of political, social and economic independence. That was the aspiration of the men who went out and fought from generation to generation and will be, I hope, the aspiration of this nation whether we achieve our other objectives or not.

If, as I said, we had a national Government, we would be able to deal with many problems, with the foremost problem of Partition, the problem of the Irish language, of unemployment, emigration and the development of the country from an industrial and an agricultural point of view.

I do not know what can be done regarding the ending of Partition. I do not think there is any Party prepared to advocate physical force. There is general agreement, I think, that that is out of the question. Therefore it is no use talking about ending Partition by that method. As far as I can remember different Governments in this country have all in their own way done their best to bring about a reunification of the country. I do not think any fiery language or any irresponsible expressions of opinion are going to bring that day nearer. We may criticise the Taoiseach because he had, perhaps,reason to meet the Prime Minister of Great Britain. I personally feel that social intercourse of that kind would be much better than any flamboyant language or any excited talk here or elsewhere without taking into consideration the dangerous effect it would have. As regards our diplomatic relations abroad we should see that those who represent us are given every assistance in bringing the case for the unity of the country before other peoples. They should be assisted financially so that they will be able to entertain and to bring together people who would be of importance in the nation to which the representatives are accredited, America, France, Germany and other countries.

Although I was not a member of the Dáil at the time the Irish News Agency was established some years ago by the inter-Party Government, I was in full agreement with that step. It enabled them to present first-hand and truthful news to the outside world so that they could bring to heel the misrepresentations of other big newspapers that seemed to have some reason or other for misrepresenting our views and the general set-up within Ireland. I refer to the Press Association, to Reuter and the other Press combines who constantly print Irish news upside down. Although the Irish News Agency may not be showing a profit and may be in debt, I believe it is doing a good job of work and we should maintain and encourage it; eventually instead of showing a debt I am sure it will show a profit.

We would all like to see Partition ended. I remember during the term of office of the inter-Party Government on the occasion of the passing of an Act by the British House of Commons a big rally was held in O'Connell Street in which the then Taoiseach declared that we were going to hurt the British in their pocket and in their pride. I did not hear of anybody hurting them since and I do not think we could hurt them very much. That kind of talk will not do any good. Friendly association would be more effective. We should try to convince the British Government that if the unification ofIreland is brought about they will have on their side a friendly nation, a friendly nation from a business point of view. Because of the thousands of young Irish men and women who are married to thousands of English men and women, we would be a very peculiar neighbour indeed if we wished the British nation any injustice or evil. If we did, we would be wishing that to our own kith and kin.

If it could be brought home to the British Government that reunification would be a great advantage to her as well, some action might be taken. If the fact could be brought before the British workers that there are thousands of Irish people engaged in employment and perhaps taking employment away from them, there might be a different attitude. If the same circumstances existed here I wonder would we be as nice as they are? I worked in that country and I often thought that if a few hundred Englishmen were working in Mayo, and there were some hundreds of Mayo men idle, what would the situation be and would they take it complacently and easily? The point that needs to be emphasised is that if the Partition problem were solved there would not be such a great reason for emigration; that the cause of our not being able to build up the country economically is that the industrial arm is cut away. By being left with an unbalanced economy we are being asked to achieve the impossible, to build up in a totally agricultural section of our country an industrial section.

This heavy exodus of our people to Great Britain is due to Partition and to the fact that the industrial part of the nation has been severed from its main body. I think that whenever our statesmen meet British statesmen, whether it be over a cup of tea or at a trade conference, they should refer to this matter which is so important to everyone. The oftener they do so the better, because I believe that it is in that way Partition can be brought more speedily to an end.

No doubt every member of the House regrets that there is an Irishman, a member of Parliament, inprison at the moment. I do not see what we can do, no matter how loudly we may shout about it. I say that because I think that if a plebiscite were taken the people would not consent to any Government taking up arms to attempt to achieve the unification of the country. None of us wants to see bloodshed again. If we can get the people in North-East Ulster to join, so to speak, the parent body in a peaceable manner it will be much better for the country generally, even if we have to wait another eight or ten years before the achievement of that. There is nothing to be gained by forcing them in. If they were forced in they might become hostile and perhaps could not be trusted in the event of an emergency in the future. It would be far better to get them to come in as peaceful citizens to take their place in building up the nation and in making this a united country. I think that would be the greatest achievement of all, even though it means that we may have to wait for another few years before it takes place. That is my outlook and approach on this subject.

The question of unemployment and emigration is a very big one. In dealing with it, we must take into consideration the internal division of the country. I do not think myself that any Government in the future, whether it be Labour, Clann na Talmhan, Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil is going to bring about a solution of that problem, not to a 100 per cent. anyway. While that is my opinion, I still think that we could reduce considerably the number who emigrate, particularly from the West of Ireland. We hear a great deal about the City of Dublin. It is a great city. I entered it first as a young lad, away back in 1932, but it has grown considerably since then. In fact, if I had not been in Dublin since then, I would hardly know it to-day, it has grown so much. I imagine that in 1932 the population of Dublin was about 300,000, but to-day, when we include Dublin and Greater Dublin, the population must be between 500,000 and 600,000. That is a big jump over a period of 21 years. At the same time, as we know, the rural population is onthe decline. Many people hold that the City of Dublin, if it has not already become top heavy, will do so in time, even if the country were united. At the moment we are depending on a population of something like 2,500,000 to support the country, apart from the City of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and a few other provincial towns.

How are we going to solve this problem that I speak of? I believe in decentralisation. The Taoiseach talks about decentralisation, but what is happening? Whenever new factories are established we find them in Dublin and its vicinity. It is rarely, indeed that we read of a factory being opened in rural Ireland. While I am prepared to attach a whole lot of importance to agriculture, I often think there is the danger that Deputies attach too much importance to agriculture.

It may seem funny that a Deputy who claims to represent a section of the farming community should say that. You have Deputies saying that everything comes from the land. I admit that an awful lot does come from the land. There are some facts that we must bear in mind. Take it that the average family in rural Ireland is composed of seven persons. One remains on the land, so the other six have to seek employment elsewhere. How are we to provide employment for them? My argument is that there is a necessity for a balanced economy and for the development of industry. The only remedy that I see is in the establishment of heavy industry, for which we have not the necessary raw materials.

It is questionable, I think, whether a proper survey was ever carried out in regard to our mineral deposits. I do not believe an honest survey has ever been carried out. I wonder if we could rely on, and trust, those who were accredited with the task of carrying out those surveys, even within the life-time of the Governments that we have had since this State was established. Maybe I am wrong, but I have reason to believe that it is doubtful if we can rely on those surveys. I do not want to speak disparagingly of thegentlemen who carried out the surveys. but yet I am rather doubtful. I cannot understand why this country, as well as England and Wales, should not have the iron and iron ore which are needed for heavy industry. If we had such an industry we would be able to provide employment for our men.

When one travels through the County Mayo and the Province of Connaught one has not to be told that he is travelling in the West. You know that the moment you cross the Shannon. You know, because you can see how backward it is compared to other parts of the country. You can see immediately that it is a neglected and distressed area. The roads are very poorly constructed. There has been a lot said about the West—how its beautiful scenery attracts tourists. If the roads in the West were properly reconstructed the work would provide employment for thousands. At present the work is carried out in a haphazard manner. Machinery, such as steamrollers and crushers, is brought to a certain point, where a sum of in or about £2,000 may be spent on reconstructing a section of a road. The work stops, as no more money is available, and the machinery is taken away a distance of ten or 20 miles. Perhaps in three months' time it is all brought back again to finish the job when another £1,000 is allocated for that purpose. I suggest that method leads to a great waste of money, time and fuel. When a road reconstruction job is undertaken, it should be completed and not have all this moving of machinery from one place to another. I am of opinion that road reconstruction in the West of Ireland is being carried out in a wasteful manner. There is the wastage of fuel, the wear and tear of machinery and of capital outlay. If this work were properly organised it would provide considerable employment for workers in rural areas, particularly in the West.

I often wonder how it is that the British Government an employ hundreds of Irishmen on the reconstruction of roads while our roads are so poor in comparison. There is no comparison between the standard ofour roads and the worst type of road that you get in England or Wales or Scotland. I have travelled in all three of them by road and rail.

Then we come to drainage. Look at the number of men you would employ in drainage. While I am prepared to respect the opinions of engineers and to recognise the fact that they have been in the university and given particular study to drainage, I think that the Government should also have a little say in things, and should not be swayed and led by the decision of the engineers. I think it was Deputy Giles who mentioned that when the Minister for Agriculture goes across to Great Britain he must bring his experts with him, and we have often been told here that the Ministers have no say and that it is the civil servants who do it all. What are we going to do? I think the Minister should have the final say in any agreement. If a practical farmer like the present Minister for Agriculture or his predecessor would not know what the farmers require in the way of a trade or an agricultural agreement, how would a man from Merrion Street know? He might be able to supply the Minister with statistics and returns but from the practical point of view I think the Minister should know best.

I was told only a short time ago, in reply to a parliamentary question which I raised on the Adjournment— and on which I am not going into detail now—concerning this question of drainage in an area in which I am very much interested and where if it were carried out it would make available for production thousands of acres of rich fertile valley—I was told it cannot be done, that the engineers said that it could not be done and that it must wait.

I asked the former Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon: "Who advised you to spend £60,000 on Lough Gara? Was it the engineers?""No," he said, "it was myself. If I waited for them, the Lord knows when it would be done." I who live adjacent to Lough Gara know that the blowing-up of that rock and the underpinning of the bridges opened up the way fortaking away all the water that was flooding West Roscommon and East Mayo, and there was no danger of flooding the valley down below Lough Gara. It is now very questionable, after hearing the Parliamentary Secretary, whether or not that catchment area will ever be drained. Apparently it will not happen until the Shannon is done. There is no hope of doing the Shannon at the moment, and it would cost between £10,000,000 and £15,000,000.

The question of the flight from the land arises, and is affected by Government policy. The flight from the land is due wholly to the fact that the land is water-logged, and no longer economic, and incapable of enabling people to eke out a living. The young men who are growing up now are not going to try to work land that is not productive because when you sow seedoats it heats, and does not produce; when you sow potatoes they become rotten; the water cannot get away from the seed. Anything they do will be in vain. The cattle will not do well because they are eating sedgy grass and they get murrain and other diseases. This is all for the want of drainage. I cannot see how it is that this Government—and I believe there are Deputies behind the Government's Front Bench who are as anxious to see this country prospering and going forward as any Deputy on this side of the House because I meet them and I know that they come from small farm or small business stock. I cannot understand a strong, organised Party like Fianna Fáil with very determined Deputies in its ranks not pressing the Government—and I would not mind what threats they would use on the Front Benches—to expedite drainage on a large scale, and in a much lesser time than what has been happening in the past four or five years. It is essential and they know it if we are to save the situation.

The flight from the land is no doubt a very big question. I remember speaking over there in 1943 or 1944 when I had the honour of first being elected to this House as a comparatively young man. I gave my reasons for the flightfrom the land. One was drainage; another was farm out-offices; another was dwelling-houses. I advocated rural electrification then. I advocated bathrooms and toilets in rural dwellings, because, having been away from home, I knew what drove people like me out of Ireland. It was not because we loved John Bull but because the condition of things at home forced us out of this country. There are thousands of Irish people in the suburbs of London, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Cardiff to-night who would be only too willing to come back if conditions prevailed that would give them reasonable security, even at a much lesser wage than they are earning at the moment. But the conditions they desire are not here. They are forced to remain where they do not wish to be and where they are insulted day after day, in the factories, in the mines and in the coalfields. I experienced that and put up with it. Many a time I had to hang my head in shame.

I advocated, back in 1944, the need for adequate dwelling-houses, designed and constructed from a modern point of view. I know that the girl who goes to work in the factories in Great Britain or in a factory in Dublin before she marries is not going to go to a thatched cottage in Mayo. She expects her husband on the land to provide all these modern amenities to which she became accustomed in the city. That is where we are lagging considerably behind. Let no man in this country tell me that we have not the capital. The money is here. In relation to population and size this is the richest country in the world.

Deputy Major de Valera talked about the problem of financing capital projects. He is one of the Deputies who seem to have given the matter keen study and he knows that all this talk about problems of financing capital projects is tommyrot. There is no need to talk about money at all. It is a very simple business to finance these projects which will provide employment for our youth.

I have said that we must speed up drainage, road construction, land reclamation and the division of land. As I was travelling between Ballymahonand Mullingar with another young man who did not talk a lot, I could see thousands of acres of land that could be divided. Yet I heard Deputy Blowick tell some of his executives in Mayo that the land pool was getting small; I heard Deputy Derrig, the present Minister for Lands, and even Deputy Seán Moylan, when he was Minister for Lands, also talking about the scarcity of land. When the present Minister for Education, Deputy Moylan, was on the run, while fighting for this country, and Deputy Derrig also, they must have travelled much of the country. They know the country. They know that if that is the view of the inspectors and of the Land Commissioners, it is not our view, and though that may be the view of their advisers, they do not really believe it themselves. There are thousands of fertile acres that can be divided and there are thousands of men who would be only too glad to come back to 50 acres of land, a nice home and decent out-offices. Those young people would be a benefit to this country; they would be a potential source of wealth. They would help the present Government and the present Minister for Finance in relation to the finances necessary for capital projects if they were here cultivating and working the land that is now derelict.

Every Sunday the Sunday Independentpublishes details of a big castle somewhere in Ireland, with a big estate attached, and all they are worrying about is for fear these castles would be destroyed. Who built these castles? Who lives in them? The heirs of the men who made the tenant farmers of this country eat out of their hands and suffer every indignity which a human being could be forced to suffer. Now there are some who mourn the passing of these castles with their thousands of acres of fertile land. Why are not those lands divided amongst the men who would be glad to cultivate them? Did we ever think that an Irish Government would sit idly by and permit what is happening to-day? Is not all that contrary to the ideals of the men who fought and died so that we could keep our youth at home and provide them with decentlivelihoods in their native land. That is a question to which I would like an answer.

What has brought about the change of mentality on the part of the Taoiseach and those who constitute the Government? I remember as a young boy back in 1927 reading the papers and listening to the speeches and I honestly believed then that this nation would be a worthwhile nation and a worthwhile country in which to live when I reached manhood. I admit the Government has made efforts in certain directions, but there are many things they have failed to do. I think they realise that themselves, and in their declining years they are more apologetic than anything else because of that failure.

This Government will have to take some steps to arrest the trend of emigration by the division of the big estates and the parcelling out of the land available amongst those who will work it. Steps will have to be taken to make it possible for farmers and prospective farmers to cultivate the land and increase production by the provision of cheap fertilisers. Ours is a small little Party. It may be insignificant in the eyes of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, two big Parties that have a lot in common and who are battling for the reins of Government day in and day out. I often ask myself if these two Parties are really serious about the things they advocate or is it merely a battle of wits to see who will sit on the left-hand side of the Ceann Comhairle? I would not like to sit in judgment on either of them, but time will show where sincerity lies.

When I was first elected a member of this House I felt it was a great honour. I am the son of a migratory labourer, a small tenant farmer. My only educational qualifications were seventh standard in the national school. I did not think I would win, but I did win. After ten years here I am disappointed to-day to hear Deputies still arguing day in and day out as to what happened in 1922, opening up old wounds, when there are big problems to be solved.

What is happening to the youths whowill have votes to-morrow? I think most people now would be glad if this House got together irrespective of political affiliations. Would it not be a good thing if men of the calibre of Deputy Larkin and Deputy Dunne, with their social views, associated with the present Government just as they successfully associated with Fine Gael and Clann na Talmhan and Clann na Poblachta not so very long ago. What is to stop us forming a national Government, truly representative of the people and the country as a whole?

We have five problems confronting us. We have the problem of Partition; the resuscitation of the language; unemployment, emigration and the division of the big estates. If we solved these problems we would go a long way towards achieving the ideals for which the patriots of the past fought and died. Surely, we are men enough to combine in order to achieve those objectives. It is sometimes said that if we united there would be no Opposition and there would be no criticism. That, of course, is an utterly false premise because it is then we would have really constructive criticism. The business of the House would be conducted then in an atmosphere of reality instead of in an atmosphere of make-believe.

This is a season of peace. When I talk to my constituents they tell me that it is all right for me because I have a good screw coming in every month; if I point out to them that something has been achieved in the last 30 years, they tell me I am a fool; they ask me have I got into the same rut as the other representatives.

What is there to the credit of the Irish Government? "The shirt I wear, the suit of clothes on my back, the bicycle between my legs, the money I pay for the dance, the pint I drink were all earned in Great Britain." That goes for numbers of young men in Galway, Mayo, Sligo, Roscommon and a big portion of Leitrim. They have lost hope in this country. They have very little respect for an Irish Parliament or a member of that Parliament. They treat members withcontempt because they see very little being done to help them out. They are waiting anxiously to reach 18 years of age so that they can get permission from their parents to go away. We are doing nothing to change that position.

The Taoiseach may ask me what do I suggest. I regret he was not here during the course of my speech but there are a few things I have in mind which might help to remedy the present situation. Capital should be provided at a cheap rate so that the small farmer will be in a position to equip himself with the essential machinery and purchase fertilisers at an economic price. The present price of fertilisers is exorbitant. Every effort should be made to reclaim the land through the medium of drainage, the removal of rock and fencing. The land rehabilitation scheme should be speeded up. There are 8,000 applicants under that scheme in County Mayo. One-eighth of them have been dealt with. The balance, 7,000, are still waiting. In the neighbourhood where I live there are thousands of acres. The Government are embarking on a policy of re-division of these town-lands. It is waste of money. When Deputy Blowick was Minister I drew his attention to the fact that he was building Land Commission houses in a certain barony where there were not three acres of Grade C land, never mind Grade A or Grade B. Each of the house was costing £1,300. I told the then Minister that in ten years' time the houses would be empty.

I would suggest that model villages should be created in these areas and that the land should be taken over and used for forestry purposes. There are thousands of acres in Costelloe and adjacent baronies where the land is useless. The young men will not settle down in those areas. I meet these men at dances and at the cross-roads and in the pub. I am a mixer. One has to be a mixer to get this information. That land, if it can be described as land, is suitable for afforestation. We are building houses and providing grants out of public money. It would be much better to create model villages, having modern amenities, and to embark on afforestation on a largescale. That would be more economic and would give security of employment in these areas. If that were done, the young men in these areas would plan to marry and plan for a future.

I suggest as a means of helping the people in these districts, afforestation, migration to the Midlands, re-division of estates. There are thousands of acres of Mayo land in the hands of the Land Commission. Deputy Blowick, when he was Minister for Lands, acquired thousands of acres in Mayo.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

These are matters that might be raised more relevantly on another Estimate.

Mr. Cafferky

I agree. Not one perch of that land has been divided as yet.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy agreed that that was not relevant.

Mr. Cafferky

I wanted to finish the sentence. I know it is not fair to go into detail on the Taoiseach's Estimate. I am indicating ways and means by which we could provide employment. Unless these ways and means are adopted I see no future for the country. I implore the Taoiseach and the Government to consider the points that have been made. I am not speaking for the sake of scoring political points. I consider that there is a certain responsibility upon me as a Deputy. I do not make these points merely to embarrass the Taoiseach or the Government. They have a very difficult task to perform and anything that I say is intended to be helpful. I believe that afforestation on a large scale would help.

I have advocated the establishment of a Department of Forestry time and again. I qualified that by saying that the Government should appoint a Parliamentary Secretary to the Forestry Section who would treat afforestation as a whole-time job. I know that the Taoiseach will smile and say: "I wonder, if Deputy Cafferky were Minister for Lands, if he would be able to convince the farmer in theWest of Ireland to surrender his land." The West of Ireland is changing rapidly. The old men and women lived on sentiment. They would beg and crave their sons to take up where they left off. That idea is dying fast. The sons may listen with respect to the plea of parents to follow in their footsteps but when the parents are dead, the sons turn the key in the door because they see no hope in a life on the land and refuse to be the slaves that their forefathers were, trying to live on a bit of rock or a farm of 50/- valuation. The men and women who are left—they are not young; some of them are 40 years of age—will not marry because there is no future for them. One cannot blame them. They are just waiting to go away. They may cherish the old home but I have no doubt that they would be prepared to relinquish their title.

If model villages were built and forestry undertaken on a large scale there would be security of employment for these people and a bright prospect for those who come after them because of the development of industry which would automatically flow from the forests in 20 to 25 years time. That is my suggestion to the Government. At present the outlook is dark and depressing. The price of cattle and pigs is dropping. I hope that the Minister responsible for negotiating a renewal of the trade agreement will do his utmost to get a good agreement. I am sure he will be as anxious to do for the farmer what his predecessor did. The position may not be as easy now. The shoe may be a little tighter than it was on that occasion. The farmer will not tolerate being made a footstool for any other section of the community, as he used to be in days gone by. The Government should not imagine that the farmer can be put in the front line of trenches again or will tolerate a reduction in the price of his produce while the cost of living and the cost of production remain at present levels. The farmer has awakened to a sense of his own importance. The war taught him his importance. He demands consideration just as the industrial worker demands it through his unions and the strike weapon. The farmer, too, will demand it and will be supported bythe Farmers' Party in this House and those who represent the interests of the farming community.

Mr. Dunne

While going through the very painful process of waiting to be called in the last few hours I took the opportunity to look at last week's debate on this Estimate. I am particularly struck by the contribution made by my esteemed colleague from North County Dublin, Deputy Burke. I intend at a later stage to refer to Deputy Burke's remarks, but meantime I think it is more apposite that I should advert to the statement which, I understand, was made here by a speaker earlier this afternoon in regard to the general trend of Government in this country and the nature it is likely to take in the future. I am told that a statement was made to the effect that we are progressing towards a condition of Government by the mass of the people, towards a more democratically perfect form of Government. I would suggest to those who are in the House or within earshot that anybody who accepts that proposition is out of touch with the situation in Dáil Éireann and does not appreciate the direction in which, as a Parliament, we are proceeding. In my view, we are fast becoming an Assembly of the representatives of special interests. Quite recently questions were addressed to the Leader of the Government or to the Tánaiste—I am not sure which—on the question of parliamentary allowances, and a brief perfunctory reply was given. I did not happen to be a party to the questions but I took an interest in them for the reason that a number of Deputies in this House took an interest in them, though they were not vocal, but at any rate for very sound reasons. It was indicated that the Government had no intention and no plans and, apparently, no inclination to give consideration to this important question of parliamentary allowances.

That is the kind of mentality that existed in the British House of Commons until, I think it was Lloyd George, brought about a change, a mentality that barred out of the House of Commons in England representativesof the working classes, the kind of point of view that ensured that only special interests and only those who were well looked after and well catered for with worldly goods, only those who could afford to engage in politics as a light recreation or on behalf of the particular group of people from which they sprang, such as the landed aristocracy or the industrialist employing classes, would gain entry to the councils of Government and the councils of the country. I am afraid we are reaching that condition of affairs in this country now. I think it can be truly said that there are many persons of eminence in this country, persons with special qualifications which would well befit them to belong to the National Assembly—experts in various lines of industry and commerce and art and other directions—who will not bother their heads with politics for the simple reason that if they were to depend upon it for a livelihood and have no other ancillary method of living they would be in a sad way. I think it is only right that when a statement is made here that we are progressing towards a more democratic form of Government, Government by and for and on behalf of the mass of the people, that statement should be contradicted. We are doing nothing of the kind. Rather are we going in the opposite direction. I can well foresee the day, if this outlook persists in so far as the Government is concerned of turning a face of complete unreason to the representations which have been made not alone in this House but among the semi-private committees of this House in regard to this unsatisfactory state of affairs, that only privileged sections of this community will have representation here. It would be far more honest if that were so. It seems to me that that situation is with us even at the present time. I would ask the Taoiseach when replying to say something on this important matter.

I do not think that considerations of political expediency which very often influence Governments or Parties or political groups in so far as matters of this kind are concerned should be allowed to superimpose themselves upon what can well be described as the national good. Do we or do we notwant to attract into politics in this country the best brains and the best ability that exists within our nation? If we do then we should be at least prepared to provide in return for such services as may be afforded by such people sufficient to enable them to live, and I assert here now that the ordinary Deputy of this House who has to depend upon the stipend he receives from this State and who fulfils his duty with a sense of rectitude, who attends to his constituents and to the demands and claims that are made upon him in the varied and many forms that they are made, who replies to his correspondence, will not do so and will not maintain his dignity, his own personal integrity, or uphold his own personal independence on the basis of the present allowance made to him. I think that in saying that I am expressing the view of the majority of the ordinary members of this House regardless of what Party to which they belong.

Most people were perturbed to learn of the developments which have taken place recently across the Border in regard to an elected representative of the people in the person of Mr. Liam Kelly. It has been said here this evening and cannot be denied that Mr. Kelly gave expression in his public statement for which he is now enduring a prison term to exactly the same sentiments as were given expression to by the Taoiseach, by all the members of the Fianna Fáil Party, by many members, if not all, of the Fine Gael Party and of all Parties in this House 30 years ago. The words may be slightly different, the sentiments are exactly the same, and they are sentiments with which every one of us, though we might comment upon the phraseology used, cannot find ourselves in disagreement, because they spring from the historic wish that this nation has cherished always for independence, for freedom, for unity.

Is there no obligation upon the Government to take cognisance of this situation, to take some steps in regard to the position of this man who is, as I say, an elected representative of the Irish people, and in so doing to reviewonce more the entire question of Partition? To-day I heard one of the Government Ministers by way of an interruption rhetorically inquire of an Opposition speaker whether or not he had any plan to end Partition. I recall hearing the Tánaiste when he was in opposition as Deputy Lemass being asked a similar question in relation to a different subject—I think it was some problem relating to industry and commerce—and replying that it was not the duty of the Opposition to provide remedies, that that was the duty of the Government, that the purpose of the Opposition was to criticise. A Government assumes Government by virtue of the proposition that it has the answer to the problems and that its members had persuaded the majority of the members of the House to vote them into office as a Government because of the fact that they had those answers. However, if the question is asked of us, those of us who belong to the Labour Party, whether or not we have any answer to the problem of Partition we would say this—that we condemn the acceptance of Partition by inactivity, and that that is what the situation is at the present time.

I have not seen any concrete steps, any determined effort, being made to resolve this question for several years. There have been, of course, lecture tours in different parts of the world. Many of us have travelled across to Britain at various times and spoken at demonstrations, mostly of our own people, speaking to the converted most of the time, on this problem. Prominent individuals, political leaders and others, have travelled across to America and again met our own people and spoken to them on Partition— again merely pushing an open door and preaching to the converted, but nothing concrete has been done. No steps have been taken which we could say would bring about a definite result favourable to the national good. Indeed, I think we are now coming to realise—and it is sad experience— a bitter truth, but one which we have to accept—that the influence and the strength of our people overseas have been exaggerated somewhat in our own minds, so far as Partition and other problems are concerned. Eventhe historic position of the Irish race in the United States of America, their strength and position, has diminished in the last 30 years, not to speak of the last half century, so that the impact of the Irish vote on the American political scene has little or no influence in determining American Government policy in relation to Partition.

Therefore we are thrown back to ask ourselves what can be done by us, by those who are elected at the head of this nation? Surely there is one obvious step. We believe that negotiations should be opened directly by the Taoiseach and the Government, and by the representatives of all Parties in this House, if necessary, with the British Government to come to grips once more with this problem of Partition, and that we should press the policy of negotiation to the very last possible extremity we can. According to my reading of history, the Taoiseach in other years gained a reputation for himself as a negotiator. I would suggest to him now that he should apply the talents which have been attributed to him in another effort to see how far this position, which is growing harder each year, can be softened. If eventually we are forced to the point that we must recognise that negotiation and other means of that kind have been exhausted, we are left with very little alternative. Those who speak now of the use of force to restore the integrity of this nation are often condemned as hot-heads and foolish young people. I suppose 30 or 35 years ago there were politicians sitting in high places who spoke similarly of those who are now using the very same words in relation to almost exactly the same situation. I think the imprisonment of Mr. Kelly by the British Government, or the Stormont Government, has brought the problem of Partition again into the limelight, very much into the public view and, I think, into international notice.

I think one of the tragic things about Partition which has resulted from our policy of inactivity has been the growing apathy amongst our ownpeople here in the South in regard to Partition, an apathy which has been of very considerable growth over the last decade or 15 years. It is a very sad development that the youth of our country, by and large, do not seem to take the interest in Partition that other generations took in the general question of the independence of this country. I think the blame for that situation must be laid at the doors of our political leaders, particularly the heads of our successive Governments. I suppose because of the fact that the Fianna Fáil Party ruled this country for a longer period of years than any other Party, the preponderance of blame must be placed on the shoulders of members of the Fianna Fáil Party.

I would appeal to the Taoiseach when he is replying to this debate to consider this whole matter along the lines I have suggested. I assure him he will have the support—I do not think I need assure him; I think he is aware of it—of this Party and every Party in the nation if he takes immediate steps to approach the Premier of the British Government on this question of Partition. Partition will be solved. It is not an easy problem to solve but it will be solved, if not by the present generation, by another generation because it is an injustice which cannot be left to fester in the way in which it has been festering since it first came into existence.

I want now to refer to the problem of unemployment, specifically as it affects my constituency and generally in relation to its effects on rural areas in the country, as distinct from the large industrial centres. I have serious doubts as to whether the Taoiseach really appreciates the position in relation to unemployment. The more one listens to statements by Ministers and to arguments bandied across the floor of the House wherein figures are quoted, the more obvious it becomes to one that unless one moves about freely amongst those who are affected by that problem one does not feel that problem. As the sean-fhocal has it: "It is easy to sleep on another man's wounds." The measure of success of any Government must be the measure of its success in relation to this problem of unemployment. Judged bythat standard, no Government we have seen yet has completely succeeded here. Why should that be? Is our problem of unemployment so insoluble? Are our abilities so limited or circumscribed?

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until Thursday, 17th December, at 2.30 p.m.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 16 Dec 1953