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

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1963, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Taoiseach.

Before lunch, I had come to the point of drawing attention to the position so far as it affects us this year regarding the adverse trade balance. It shows £5,000,000 more in the first half of 1962 than in the corresponding half of 1961. We must remember that while the Taoiseach has mentioned, and we were all glad to know it, the increase in industrial exports, if we are to maintain any equilibrium, we must depend on agriculture. It would surprise many Deputies—at least this is the impression I got—that the Taoiseach should gloss over the fact that a comparison of the values and amounts of exports in agriculture, including cattle, for last year as against the previous year shows that the position is not as good as it was. In comparison with the previous year, as a percentage of our overall trade, agriculture exports dropped from roughly 29 per cent. to 25 per cent.

I cannot understand how a Government can be so complacent while admitting that because we know—this is a point on which other speakers have dwelt and I suppose it is essential to deal with it—Common Market problems will arise. The main problem that confronts us, assuming we become members, concerns how we will stand in relation to agricultural exports. We in the Labour Party cannot say we are satisfied with the information being imparted to the House by the Taoiseach and his Ministers as to what preparations are being made.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

We believe the Taoiseach and his Ministers should be able to give a little more help and, if necessary, a little more advice to the House on this subject. Some members of the Cabinet believe they know all themselves and have no intention of imparting any of that knowledge to those who may need it but when we realise that in the Common Market or out of it, for the economic well-being of the country, we must depend mainly on the export of agricultural products, we fear that our present policy on agriculture is tending to look more in the direction of cattle ranching than in that of the small farmers carrying on mixed farming in the south.

The Minister for Agriculture may not agree with that; the Taoiseach may not agree; but we believe that present agricultural policy is not helping, as it should, the small farmer in the south. Yet we are being told, and he is being told, to prepare for the day when he must face the withering competition from the countries in the Common Market. The present policy of West Germany seems to be to draw more and more from the land into industry and Germany is one of the leading countries in the Common Market. Surely that is being done because the West German Government realise that with the competition from France in respect of agriculture, it is not wise for them to concentrate even to the present extent on agricultural policy in Germany.

With the advent of the new era, and if Britain goes in, we are also taken in, then as far as I can see there is no help being given to the small farmer and to the families of the working farmer in the south who should be in the forefront of the struggle and who should be given instructions as to the dangers they will have to face if the French and the Danes have free movement into the market in Britain.

We are told by people inside and outside this Chamber that we are defeatists when we draw attention to the dangers that may arise if we enter the Common Market. We have reached the stage now when some self-appointed experts consider that they are the only people who are competent to advise us. I am speaking of people who are not members of any political Party, people who consider themselves experts in these matters. I read recently in a certain newspaper that one of these self-appointed experts on conditions in the Common Market said that any opposition to our entry into that body was based either on gross ignorance or on a highly significant reaction against the principles which inspired the new European union. In other words, you have a person setting himself up as an expert and going around this country like a peacock telling us what we should do. It is time these people learned that this country cannot be run on military lines.

The Labour Party has not at any time said that we should stay out of the Common Market. We know the dangers and we are not saying to the Government that they are the people who must take the risks, that if they fail, we will blame them and if they succeed, we will praise them. We believe that this is something in which we must all row together, in which we must all play our parts together and the sooner these people who attack us because we are being constructive, the people who are strutting around the country like peacocks, learn that they can be done without the better it will be for them.

The Government are inclined to leave everything to the survey teams set up by the Committee on Industrial Organisation. That is not right. I give full credit to the members of that organisation for the work they are doing. I pay tribute to the different survey teams for the work they are doing but it is not sufficient to leave the whole matter to them. The Government must lead. In view of the fact that the report of the survey team into the cotton trade tells us that there may be one-third unemployment in that trade caused by entry into the Common Market, we should look at the other industries. If that is going to happen to the cotton trade what is the Government going to do, before it is too late, to protect the welfare of the people who may be dismissed? If that is going to be so in the cotton trade, what is going to happen in the other branches of industry?

What are the reports of the other survey teams? What we are anxious to know is what the Government are doing now to allay the fears and worries of other workers, whether they are in the cotton trade or any other branch of industry, who may see the danger of unemployment following on Common Market competition facing them in the future. Questions have been asked here as to what the Government are doing towards encouraging the personnel of the different Departments to study Continental languages. What I am interested in is the language used in everyday conversation by the workers when they express their fears as to what will happen to their employment if we enter the Common Market. That is the language and the main theme of conversation of the ordinary man in the street to-day.

That is why we believe it is incumbent on the Taoiseach to give a lead in this matter. Both the Taoiseach and Deputy Dillon lauded the Common Market and pointed out the glorious future that may lie before our agricultural community if we enter it. Is that true? In the case of many agricultural products these countries of the Continent can meet up to 95 and 96 per cent of their own requirements. In such a case what advantage will be offered to our farmers? What reports are coming back from the survey teams on the Continent as to how conditions there are going to affect the agricultural community in this country?

I want to see industry prosper and we all know that industry is going to be placed in a difficult position. We know what the protective duties and tariffs, which are primarily imposed to protect our industries, mean in terms of revenue to the Central Fund. If all that is to go with the coming of the Common Market, what is going to take its place? Employment fell in this country by 62,000 between 1955 and 1961. If that trend continues on our entry into the Common Market and if we lose our income by way of tariffs and protective duties what are we going to get instead of it?

This is too big a question for us to gloss over or to simply decide at the start that we are on one side or the other. We of the Labour Party are anxious to support the Government on this issue because I believe myself that it is for us, those of the younger generation who were too young to take part in the events of 1921, the testing time. We cannot say that because we are in different Parties we are entitled to adopt different attitudes. We are compelled, as Irishmen, to face the issue as it must be faced, but we cannot do that unless the Taoiseach and his Government are prepared to put their cards on the table, are prepared not just to leave it to the survey teams and to the industrialists to work out some system.

The Taoiseach said that he is disappointed with results up to the present time because of the fact that so many industrialists have not availed of the offers given to them. Surely they should be dealt with? We should have the right to ask why no one availed of them. But if we do that, we are accused. If others remain silent, it looks as if they are on their side.

Let the Taoiseach not condemn the workers. Let him not suggest that the eighth round wage increase has been responsible for the rise in the cost of living. Let him understand that we in the Labour Party condemn him for the complete removal of price control, for lecturing the workers for seeking increases in their wages and telling them that they are the culprits. The Taoiseach, the Minister for Transport and Power or any other member of the Cabinet has not drawn attention to the fact that corporation profits tax has increased by 12 per cent, that the bankers are protected by a 13 per cent. increase, that, even though CIE are getting so much money to buy new equipment and their policy is endorsed by the present Minister, they are closing down railway lines all over the country, thus creating more unemployment. In view of all that, I think we have the right to say that during the past twelve months the policy of the Government and the Taoiseach has not been one which benefits the people we represent and has not been fair to the workers.

I suppose it has now come to the time when the Taoiseach can be held to be fully responsible for Government policy. In other years he might have had the excuse that he had just taken over and that it takes a little time for a Prime Minister to make his own impression on the life of his society. I think it can be said without any hesitation that the present Taoiseach has certainly left his own impress on society in Ireland.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

We have seen in operation during his time of office to a remarkable extent the activities of the PRO. The PRO is a new development in democratic politics, probably one of the most pernicious developments in democratic politics in the past 20 or 30 years. When Mr. Kennedy wanted to get his son made President of America he called in the American PROs and achieved that objective. The advertising corporations achieved their objective and the American people got Kennedy as President and 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 unemployed. When Mr. Macmillan wanted to become Prime Minister he brought in Prentiss and Varley, and the British people at the moment are suffering from the repercussions of all this. Equally, we see these people in action white-washing the dictators of Southern Rhodesia, Spain, Portugal and various other countries in order to create a completely false impression of the real life in that society. The approach of the PRO is based on that of the patron saint of PROs, the late and regretted Dr. Goebbels. That was that you keep on repeating the "big lie" through all methods of communication, the newspapers, the economists, the television, the radio, hypocritical and sycophantic political commentators— the integration of the whole machinery of communication in order to put across a completely false picture of any society.

We have seen this happening during the present Taoiseach's regime in a more remarkable way than ever before in the history of the state. The PRO certainly has earned his keep as far as this Government are concerned. Despite the fact that the real structure of society here is substantially unchanged—and I hope to prove that —and that the picture is as it has been over the past 40 years of an old society, falling gradually, steadily and, in recent years, more precipitately into decay, the wonderful achievements of public relations and the perversion of communications have created the impression that, in fact, we have a society which is bubbling over with prosperity, which is surging forward in a completely new and rejuvenated life, particularly in the industrial and in the economic sphere.

This is entirely attributable to the myth created by the commentators of one kind or another, acting as they must do, prepared to say anything, write anything or do anything for the person who pays them the most. But, in spite of their achievements, since the announcement was made that Ireland now faces the prospect of entering into EEC, we are at last facing a terrible moment of truth, a moment of truth when all the front, all the facade, all the fairy tales, all the mythology about industry, about our past and about our future will be completely, ruthlessly and pitilessly exposed, because we are now about to be dragged into the harsh glare of all the competition of European industry.

Here, at home, I do not think anybody has any illusions. I do not think any of the ordinary members of the public have any illusions that the Government have completely lost control over the prices of even the most ordinary articles of consumption. Any visitor from Britain, or anywhere else, will tell you that he simply could not live in Ireland on the salary he finds adequate in England, or elsewhere. That is because of the price of food, the price of clothing, the cost of transport, of boots and shoes, and of the various ordinary articles of everyday use. There has been a complete stripping away of all semblance of price control. That was the decision of the Taoiseach, a confirmed believer in the efficacy of the dynamic of private enterprise and so-called free competition.

As we heard here at Question Time, there is no such thing as free competition. Free competition just does not exist. Instead there are cartels, monopolistic practices, rings, and so forth, of all kinds, to which the consumer falls a victim, a victim in the fact that he has to pay artificially high prices in order to ensure that artificially high profits are made, and will continue to be made, by a minority. That is the policy, even when it comes to the provision of the simplest and most basic essential needs of the ordinary men and women in our society. This is the end result of the working out of the Taoiseach's faith in private-enterprise capitalism.

We see it all now exposed as it was never before exposed because of this fortuitous event, the Common Market. Every time I have spoken I have said many of the things I am saying now, and which I will repeat again, but this time the charges that I make will not be merely personal indictments of the type of society created by the Taoiseach and by the Opposition when they were in power. My indictments are today backed by the confirmation of inquiries and commissions, established perforce by the Taoiseach and by the Government as a result of this fortuitous event, and the decision that we must now go into the Common Market.

The remarkable thing is, as I said, this extraordinary euphoria, this extraordinary sense of well-being, this extraordinary belief that everything in our society is prosperous, that things were never better. This is a particularly wonderful achievement in a society in which the Government cannot find enough money to give a proper education to the vast majority of its citizens. This boom does not allow us enough money to give our people proper health services. This is the boom society which tells the aged person that he can starve to death on 32/6 a week. Surely all this is a negation of the proposition that this is a prosperous society.

It is a prosperous society. It is prosperous for a wealthy minority. The whole economic organisation of our society has, since the beginning, been dedicated to creating this wealthy minority and, having created it, to giving them all the privileges of wealth, access to the universities, access to the best hospitals and nursing homes, access to the best in everything, access to plenty, and old age, with dignity, when the time comes to grow old and retire. But all this is for a wealthy minority. That is the privileged society we now have. The Taoiseach is an extremely intelligent man and he knew what he was doing; this is the end product of what he had in mind for Ireland when he joined the freedom movement to create an independent society here.

We have quite clearly got a serious discrepancy between the standard of living of the wealthy minority and the standard of living of the mass of our people. In addition, we still have a considerable number of unemployed, fewer than there were but, as Deputy Dillon pointed out, it is very difficult in a small society, such as ours, for people to continue to emigrate from a continually shrinking society. It is very difficult, too, to keep up a high level of unemployment in a continually shrinking society. The important thing is the number of jobs now available, the important thing is the number of people now in work, and the number in work six or seven years ago.

In addition to all this, we have seen here the mark of the Taoiseach on industrial relations. We had the introduction by him of the totalitarian fascist legislation directed against the electricians when they wanted to take industrial action and withdraw their labour. We well remember the complete debacle—again fortuitous—in which this effort ended. The TUC would not stand for it. They issued a statement to that effect and they made the Taoiseach, in one of the most humiliating episodes I remember in public life, climb down. He came in in the morning, a complete autocrat, thumping the table and threatening five years in jail for the whole lot of us; it was only the workers, but also the trade union representatives, and anyone who advocated strike action. At eight or nine o'clock that night, the legislation was thrown out. The important thing was that it did give most of us a window on the mind. It did give us some idea of his attitude.

We have this autocracy where it comes to the right of the individual to withdraw labour if he feels he is not sufficiently remunerated, the negation of this right where he is concerned, and then this absolute rejection of the suggestion at any time that there should be an attempt at price control, dividend restriction, profit restriction. That any of these people who make money out of other people's work should be asked to curb their income, their profits, their dividends, is unthinkable to the Taoiseach, his attitude being that they have a right to whatever they can get—whatever you can get is right. We see the development of a society here where there is no limit to the amount of money which a man can get, a society in which he is facilitated by the refusal of the Government to act in order to curb prices even in respect of essential commodities.

The attitude of the Government has remained unchanged in spite of the fact that the Government know full well that in regard to the circulation of essential commodities there are restrictive trading practices of one kind or another. No action has been taken in order to try to restrict inflationary trends at that stage by restricting prices, restricting dividends, restricting profits. The approach by the Taoiseach has always been to try to restrict what he calls inflationary trends by curbing the income of the worker.

Now we hear that, having made a serious miscalculation in attacking the trade union leaders with the workers at that time, he realises that is a serious miscalculation and he is not going to do it again and this time he appears to want to or intends to bring the trade union leaders along with him in order to try to bring in here restrictive legislation of some kind or another for the purpose of refusing the worker the right to withdraw his labour if he feels he is not being sufficiently well or adequately compensated for what work he is doing so that he will have enough money to pay for the education, the clothing, the feeding and the housing of his family. However, that is something for the future. It will have to be fought then.

We have seen also with the Taoiseach the attitude concerning mineral development where the general principle has been accepted that we will not develop our own mineral resources, that we have allowed foreign countries to come in here and to take whatever mineral riches we have and bring them to their own country. All we ask as our contribution is some compensation for the landowner and then employment at mining workers' wages during the period when these riches will be taken out, when the countryside will be raped of the small mineral resources we have. That is all that we ask out of it. He has played for Ireland, I suppose it would be right to say, the Mr. Tshombe, the stooge of the Union Miniére in Katanga. He has played much the same part, unlike some of the other emergent countries. God knows, we should no longer be called an emergent country. Algeria has done its best. There have been Nasser, Nkrumah, Nehru, Mrs. Bandaranaike. Most of these other countries have attempted to see that if they have any mineral resources at all, these mineral resources are developed for the benefit of their own people and not in order, according as the share rises, to give quick money to Canadians, Americans, Swedes, British or any other outsiders. These countries, when they look for capital abroad, have tried and have many times succeeded in getting their capital without strings and the first thing they set out to do was to develop whatever mineral resources they have for their own people.

We, surely, should not have continued to have the intinn sclábhaíochta attitude to ourselves and our own people, our own technicians and technocrats, our physicians, scientists, physicists and mathematicians. Surely we have got to the stage now where it is possible for us to take on any worthwhile enterprise? If it is worth the Canadian's trouble to come to Ireland and go down to Mayo and Galway and take silver, lead or whatever it may be out of it, why cannot our own people do this? Why cannot we find the money?

The Taoiseach has often said, the Minister for Finance has often proved, that every time he has gone to the people looking for money for any worthwhile developmental project his loans are oversubscribed. He has repeatedly declared, and has a certain amount of right to have pride in it, that his loans are oversubscribed. The public is ready to make this money available. The riches are there; the technicians are there. Why do we bring in these outsiders? Why do we not do these things ourselves? Why is it that we have to reverse the world trend, particularly the trend in the Afro-Asian countries? They are getting rid of the people who exploited them physically or economically. They are getting rid of them and we are inviting them back. The reoccupation of Ireland is going on.

But, all of this is of relative unimportance when we consider the decision of the Government to look for full membership of the Common Market. Our position is rather unique in so far as we are looking for membership of the Common Market. We are not members of NATO and we were not members of the European Free Trade Association. Consequently, it seemed to us that this decision must be one taken only after the greatest care, naturally, but the greatest care particularly to examine what would be the best bargain, putting it crudely, for Ireland and for our people.

We get the impression that the Taoiseach has not examined all the possibilities sufficiently carefully and we also get the impression that the Taoiseach has entertained this whole idea with an overwhelming inferiority complex. His attitude appears to be that, right or wrong, good or evil, success or failure, we are going into this Common Market and, what is worse, we are going into this Common Market on any terms and, what is worse still, with regard to the extension of the idea of the Common Market as an economic unit to being a political unit and a unit involving defence commitments, we are now accepting the second and third conditions unconditionally. As far as I know—and I have tried very hard to get as much information as I could from the Taoiseach on this—when we looked for membership of the Common Market under the Rome Treaty, we were simply committed to join an economic unit of unity in Europe. We now know that this has been expanded very considerably and in an underhand way, to include membership of a political unit and membership of some kind of defence pact.

Could we ask why we did not seriously consider the possibility of joining EEC as associate members? The Taoiseach made it clear in his White Paper that it was possible to become a member by association rather than to become a full member and in so far as the position is not completely clarified—there is no blueprint of detailed conditions of associate membership—he quoted the position in relation to Greece, an under-developed society which felt it could not accept full membership. I cannot see what objection we could have had to considering seriously taking membership on the Greek pattern. It is regrettable that we need it, but I think everybody will agree that we do need as long a period as possible before getting rid of all our protective tariffs. I may have more to say about that but, accepting the reality of the situation, I think we should look for the longest possible period for dismantlement of tariffs, even if it is only in order to protect the workers in their employment.

In respect of a special list of products which includes almost all the industrial products of Greece, they got an extended transitional period of 22 years. They were given certain rights in regard to the imposition of customs duties or increasing existing ones up to 25 per cent of certain imports from EEC countries. They had access to the European Investment Bank. They had certain conditions granted to them in relation to agricultural commodities. In the case of certain agricultural products of major interest to the Greek colonies, the Community would appear to have agreed to grant broadly the terms that apply to the same products in Member States. On this analogy, a new applicant for association might expect special terms for its more important products.

Perhaps the Taoiseach would be more specific about it, but, broadly speaking, if one takes our industrial and agricultural products and our right of access to the European Investment Bank, it would appear it is possible to negotiate some sort of agreement which would not interfere with our country or Greece, as the case in point, and which would create a viable industrial and agricultural economy. One of the important things in relation to associate membership of the EEC is the fluidity of the conditions. There is no clear-cut blueprint. In fact, that is one of the things the Taoiseach said about it, that it was difficult to say what would precisely be implied in associate membership, but it is clear there is scope for negotiating in regard to industrial and agricultural products and in regard to any loans we might want. It is capable of adaptation to suit our special needs and now that we have heard that Sweden and a number of EFTA countries have agreed to accept association, it is very difficult to see why we cannot accept it rather than complete membership, with all the very serious implications for industry and possibly for agriculture which may ensue from it.

The only one point which I think could be made is in relation to the voting powers in the EEC. The associated country has no voting powers but the position in regard to votes is that the three major countries, Germany, France and Italy—and presumably Britain when she becomes a member—have four votes each; Belgium and the Netherlands have two votes each and Luxembourg has one vote. I presume we would be in with Luxembourg with one vote. In regard to voting on matters of policy, economic, foreign or industrial policy, in the early stages the decisions must be unanimous, but as time progresses, I understand voting will be by means of a qualified majority. Therefore, there is very little likelihood that we shall have any real say in the formulation of policy by the EEC powers, and this apparent position of authority, power to vote, is merely a shadow or has little substance. It is hardly worth the other very serious penalties we are likely to have to pay, if we accept entry into the Common Market as a full member.

I should like to ask the Taoiseach whether having considered the question of associate membership, it would be possible to get the same conditions for Ireland in relation to agricultural and industrial products as it appears the British are holding out for on behalf of the other Commonwealth countries. Would it have been possible for us to have looked for and achieved a special position comparable with the position which is being bargained for in relation to the Commonwealth countries and would that have been a satisfactory position from our point of view? It is one which is apparently of great concern to the Commonwealth and presumably they will have to make other arrangements for the disposal of their surpluses. I cannot see why, if we were given enough time, we should not be able to make similar adaptations and why we should not get much the same sort of conditions if we look for them.

It is clear now, and it has become clearer since the interview given by the Taoiseach to the New York newspaper, that there are three different components of membership—one, economic, two, political and three, defence commitments. I do not think there is any doubt in anybody's mind now that this is the most serious decision we have taken probably in the lifetime of any of us, if we go into the European Economic Community. It is quite clear from the text of the Rome Treaty and the other agreements into which we intend to enter that we will accept for Ireland interference in the rights of this Parliament to decide finally in regard to its own economic policy—possibly its political and its defence policies, but certainly in relation to its economic policy.

We have recently seen an example of this when the Belgian Government was forbidden to carry out semi-nationalisation of its coal mining industry. They were told this infringed the Rome Treaty and their Parliament had to reverse the decision and had to become subordinate to the supra-national Parliament now being established under the EEC. Are we quite satisfied that whatever gains we get out of membership—a minority membership—of this organisation is worth the great sacrifices we shall have to make?

Already we have seen ourselves sacrifice our uncommitted position in the United Nations Organisation. It is quite clear now that Deputy Aiken, who is talking today and who spoke three or four years ago as our Minister for External Affairs, is a completely different man. He is taking sides pretty consistently nowadays with the former colonial powers. One of the things which created the aura of independence about our delegation in the United Nations was the fact that we were always found on the side of the newly-emergent countries—the peoples who were just getting on to their feet as a result of the evacuation of whatever colonial powers were kicked out of a particular country. We showed ourselves to Nkrumah, Mboya, Nehru—above all, the greatest independent politician in the world today —as people who could take an independent stand.

We took an independent stand with those people and when they took a particular stand, we sided with them. We could be accepted by them as not being tied as an old tin can to a dog's tail, to the dictates of the Americans, the British, the French or the Belgians who may be indicted before the United Nations at any time. Quite clearly in relation to the Congo, we did not take an independent stand in respect to the position of Patrice Lumumba when we allowed him to be harried, hunted, humiliated and finally shot by the Belgian colonialists.

It was clear afterwards there was positive action we could have taken at that time, if we had not succumbed to the pressure put on us by the Belgian, British and American financial interests in the Katanga copper mines. It was afterwards shown clearly that it was possible in certain circumstances to use force in order to deal with and bring to heel the quisling Tshombe. But we did not take any part in such an act until it was too late, until the only worthwhile leader the Congolese might have had, Lumumba, was shot. Then, we took action.

Again, it was quite clear that our troops in the Congo were saved probably from very serious results, possibly the death of a number of them, not by the action of Deputy Aiken as our Minister for External Affairs or of the Government acting under the Taoiseach, but by the action of Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien, an independent civil servant who had to resign rather than continue to follow policies which he knew were in contradiction to those which should have been followed by a society such as ours. Both the Minister for External Affairs, who was the Minister primarily responsible, and the Taoiseach stood over the sacking of this civil servant, one of the finest we have ever had, and saw the disappearance of Dr. O'Brien and Miss MacEntee from the Civil Service and later from Ireland altogether.

A country which can dispense with people of such high calibre is a country certainly which places a very poor value on people of integrity, people of honour, and it is a very poor comment on the Government that they allowed that civil servant to be humiliated in that way in the United Nations, without raising a single word in his defence.

I do not think anybody should have any illusions about the real meaning of the Common Market. It has its purposes, as far as I can see. The first of them is the fact that European capitalists, private enterprise, whatever you like to call them, found the national boundaries of their own countries did not allow them to take as great profits within their own boundaries as they might take if they could get us all into a nice consortium of nations in which they were free to rob and pillage as they saw fit under the rules of the Rome Treaty.

It is quite clear that Imperial Chemicals Incorporated, Courtaulds and all the other British, German, French and Italian monopolies are not in the slightest interested in creating a society in which the mass of the people will get a better life. They are interested in profits; they will sell anything for profits. They have shown that in the past. They make war for profits; they make explosives for profits; they make guns for profits; they kill people for profits. This is not an idealised version of this group of central European industrialists get- ting together and saying: "We can make things better for our people". What they say is: "Let us get together and make things better for ourselves. Let us get into a tidy, neat cartel through which we can have access to the whole of Europe for markets and can protect ourselves by cartelised arrangements".

What is happening in the Common Market and what is going to happen there is mirrored every day in most of our towns and villages—the supermarket. The supermarket is gobbling up, one after the other, the little gombeen shops which admittedly never had competition anyway because they were subject to restrictive trade practices. The unfortunate consumer is under the impression that this is in his interest, that it will mean lower prices, cleaner and quicker service and be an administrative improvement on the gombeen shops. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is a trade-war, a cut-price war, going on but only for the simple reason that they wish to put these people who are possible competitors out of business. That achieved, a monopolistic position will be reached and the prices will go back to the former high level and the public will then be the hunted animal, fair game, open season all the year round, any price you can get. We heard this at Question Time today: it was fair enough to buy at 15 and sell at 50. That was a fair profit—a fair profit was whatever you could get.

This is the so-called private enterprise capitalism. But returning to the comparison, the little gombeen shop in the Common Market happens to be us, Ireland, because anybody with a grain of sense knows that none of the fiddling industries—and the majority of them are fiddling—which we have here will be able to stand on their feet against the competition of international cartels. When you see ICI and Courtaulds huddling together for safety——

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

They are economically frightened of Eastern Europe and they have a right to be frightened about the industrial expansion there. They try to get together in order to get a little help from the members of this concern. That is the sole purpose of it.

The Taoiseach has very much wider knowledge of all these things than I have, and greater experience. He must know this is happening also. It is beyond me to understand why the Taoiseach is continuing to carry on as he is, why he has not examined every possible alternative because he must know that—while there will be marginal expansion here and there and some of the British parent firms may hang on in Ireland—the general body of them are too frightened of their own position in Britain to bother about what goes on in a subordinate factory here. It is inevitable that most of our industries will go to the wall. I get no pleasure in saying this. That will happen mainly because somebody has said—not a person on my side of the fence but some economist of the Government—that redundancy rates would be something in the region of 100,000 of the population, or 60,000 redundant and 40,000 normally unemployed, within a ten-year period of adaptation.

This is very frightening. The Taoiseach does not appear to have given it any serious consideration. Neither have we seen any serious reference to it by any of the committees set up by the Taoiseach. What is to happen to the people who become redundant? Have the Government become so complacent about emigration at a high level that this is their secret weapon, that they are filtering these people out continually through the mail boat to be used as cheap labour in countries with a labour shortage such as Germany and that by doing this, we shall conceal the fact that the nation is dying, that it is going completely out of existence and that it is all due to the fact that the Taoiseach personally in the '30's made the great miscalculation, the great blunder of saying in regard to a number of industries: "We will accept the principle of public ownership and control"?

May I, in parenthesis, explain the difference between public ownership as he knows it and as we want it. Public ownership, as the Taoiseach likes it, is where the public pays for the particular concern he is operating; as we want it, is where the public not only pay but control the operation of the particular industry.

The Taoiseach decided in respect of a few public utilities that we should accept the idea. In these cases it may have been thought it was not possible for private enterprise to make a profit quickly enough. I do not think he regrets it, and to the extent to which these industries are good, efficient and prosperous undertakings which he started, I give him full credit. But he made the big blunder of deciding that our people could not provide the personnel and the know-how in order to start off in private enterprise in the textile industry, in the ordinary sort of consumer industry. He handed those over to private enterprise capitalists. This development followed. It was resisted. The people who did go into Irish industry did so reluctantly. They had been associated with the Ascendancy class, they were agents, perhaps, of British firms and were making a nice, easy living and having a good time because they had their houses and cars and everything they needed. They did not want to change.

We made them change and they did it reluctantly but they also did it in a particular pattern. The pattern was that instead of buying the stuff and getting 6 per cent. for distributing it, they set up subsidiary factories and distributed from them instead of from the quays. They really carried out the same business as before, except that they called it an industry instead of a warehouse. Most of our industries were subsidiaries of British companies and we had this particular kind of wealthy individual running them who was not associated with the nationalist movement and who was now in complete control. Of course, they took in puppets, the Tshombes, the Quislings, the Paddy Murphys and so was established Irish industry.

They said that if they were to establish Irish industry, they should have complete protection from outside competition. They got that. Then they said that they would have to have complete protection on the home market and they were allowed that. The consumer was charged anything these people wished to charge. The Restrictive Trade Practices Act has been talked about by the Government but as far as the consumer is concerned, the Restrictive Trade Practices Act has no visible affect on restrictive trading in Irish industry. The consumer is at the complete mercy of these people who can charge anything they want to charge for all their commodities.

The result is alleged to be the creation of a viable industrial arm. That is not so and that is now being said by the Minister's investigators. These people did not have to become efficient and they are much less efficient than outside concerns. They did not have to worry about outside markets or about competition. The question of creating an industrial arm in Ireland which would employ all our people did not enter their minds. It did not worry them. So we had the stagnation of industry caused by neglect, by protection, by inefficiency, by not employing anything like the total number of people who should be employed, whose numbers were increased by the large numbers of people coming from rural Ireland because of the change in our system of agriculture.

This is the Taoiseach's creature. He must see that. I wonder does he accept it as that? I grant that he has been successful with some concerns, Aer Lingus, Bord na Móna and the ESB. They are outstanding successes, a feature of public ownership, State capitalism, if you wish. But surely these are the only concerns of which he can be proud in the slightest way, now that we have come up to the moment of truth in Ireland, to the exposure of the mythology of the past 40 years. These State-sponsored bodies are well staffed and well managed on the whole. I say that although I may occasionally criticise their activities. They give good service and are amenable to a reasonable extent to us in this House. They are far superior in every way one looks at it to the truncated body of so-called Irish industry.

The Taoiseach made his mistake then and we will now pay very dearly for it. I do not think the average Irish industrialist is the slightest bit anxious to go into the Common Market. The average Irish industrialist should be terrified at the prospect of competition in the Common Market, except for those who, because of their financial association with outside companies, will not suffer in any way because they will continue to draw dividends and make profits from their association with these outside companies, even though the Irish company may have closed down and the Irish worker be thrown on the street. That is one of the reasons why they are not greatly moved by the prospect of joining the Common Market and of 100,000 unemployed workers. They do not have to worry.

I have said that for many years and the Taoiseach cannot have got much comfort from the Commission which he himself established in order to examine the position. We have the statement of the position in that Commission's report or are they, too, being unfair to Irish industries? Are these industries all the things the publicists and economists tell us they are, all the political commentators tell us they are, all the Taoiseach and his colleagues tell us they are?

The report of the Committee on industrial organisation, in page 4, deals with the problems now facing us on the eve of entry to the Common Market. It says:

The problems that can be classified under the heading of preventative adaptation are posed by small size of firms, short production runs, under utilisation of productive capacity, lack of vertical integration, inadequate mechanisation, relatively high costs per unit of output, poor design of Irish goods, lack of marketing organisation abroad, cut-throat competition between Irish firms in foreign markets, and transition to more specialised production. These causes of uncompetitiveness may be removed, or made to operate with less strength.

Why were they not removed before now? If you are concerned with selling a cheap quality article in the European market, why could you not have taken steps to do that before now? If they are to be asked to do it now, why were they not asked to do it before now? Why did we allow and continue to allow the home consumer to be mulcted by these people's inefficiency, selfishness, failure to modernise and to increase production? Why is it that they now have to be kicked into it by the imminence of competition from the European cartels in the Common Market? These people entrusted by the Taoiseach with the creation of a just and prosperous society here, these private enterprise capitalists, are now faced with redundancy in the region of 60,000 or 70,000 of our people having to be thrown out of their jobs and with the prospect of factories closing down. On investigation, to find out what these people are doing, the Committee on Industrial Organisation go on to say at paragraph 10:

Is additional aid needed? If by this question is meant: could the changes be effected without additional aid, then the answer may well be “yes”. A more important question is: would the necessary changes be undertaken by a large enough proportion of Irish industry and in good time without additional aid, and the answer to this question is, in the Committee's view, “no”.

These are the fellows who have been feather-bedded for the past 40 years by the taxpayers, apologies being made for them, defended here by every Minister in every Government Department, whitewash applied with unlimited liberality at every possible opportunity —rotarian dinners, chambers of commerce, openings of factories—nothing but paeans of praise for these people.

Now they are faced with being put out of business and with redundancy at an unprecedented rate. Will they do something about it? According to a Government inquiry, published by the Stationery Office, set up by the Minister for Industry and Commerce—not damn likely! This is private enterprise for you. They have no intention of doing a thing, not unless they are aided by the taxpayer—this unfortunate, hunted animal, whom they have raped and robbed over the years through the protection of Government policy, subsidised by means of tariffs. Now the public are to be asked once again to come to the rescue of these people and to provide them with aid, further subsidisation, further financial assistance. These people certainly have had jam on both sides when it comes to the activities of the Taoiseach and the Government.

Another committee on industrial organisation, the committee dealing with the cotton, linen and rayon industry, had this to say: "Production costs of Irish firms are higher than in Britain and higher still than on the Continent." Of course, everybody knows British industry is incompetent and inefficient. It is private enterprise and capitalistic, too. In fact, we have all the inherent inadequacies of British capital operating here in Ireland. They were invited in by the Taoiseach. It is no surprise to any of us to find they are inefficient. They are inefficient over there as well. That is why they are terrified of the Common Market, even with their great factories. Anyway, even here they do not operate as efficiently as the parent firm. Why should they? They are protected here against competition in the home and export markets.

The Committee found that export prices are lower than home prices. Why should that be? Why is that, will the Taoiseach say? Profit margins from exports are smaller than those on home sales. Why should they be allowed to overcharge the home consumer? Then, I suppose, in some form they subsidise their exports from profits made on their home sales. They say that one of the difficulties facing us in the Common Market was that our exports to western European countries were not on any appreciable scale and are not likely to be within the competence of Irish mills. Again, that is published by the Stationery Office, a report of a committee set up by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. That committee certainly could not be accused of any leftist or socialist ideas. I certainly was not a member of that organisation. That is what responsible committees established by the Government tell us is the state of Irish industry on the eve of our entry into European competition. These are the facts exposed by these people and supported by argument.

For fear that is not enough, we have added evidence. One of the decisions taken by Córas Tráchtála was to ask an independent body of Scandinavian experts to come here, look at Irish industry and tell us what they thought of it. These were people utterly outside any home influence, people of completely objective view, people of the highest international standing. This was conceded by the Minister for Industry and Commerce himself. There could be no question of any bias or any attempt on their part to condemn Irish industry just for the sake of doing so. They went to various industries and, as experts, examined them rapidly. But they did examine them and they found in relation to woollen woven fabrics, suitings, textiles, textile printing, cultivation machinery, glass, graphics, printed books, packaging, furniture, souvenirs, metal work—in relation to all of these things, the comment was the same: standard poor; low standard; neglected; no worthwhile designs; chosen from the parasite patterns of Europe. I will not weary the House by reading the report of these experts from Scandinavian countries. It was a most forthright and frightening condemnation, covering practically any worthwhile industry in the country. They had nothing but contempt and condemnation for everything they found.

These are facts which the Taoiseach simply has to read. He does not have to listen to them from me. He has them from his own people and he has them from outside. Yet as I said at the beginning, we have been subjected to a persistent, unending barrage of praise for the upsurge of prosperity and expansion in Irish industry. It is supposed to be throbbing with activity and dynamism. There is no limit to what it can reach. That is all demonstrable rubbish. It is the Taoiseach, who knows this better than anybody else, who has contributed to the creation of this myth of Irish industry and who has done nothing to expose it—nothing to tell these people, not today, tomorrow, or the day after, but five, ten or 20 years ago, that they were to operate in the best interest, not of themselves as individuals or family firms, but of the bulk of the Irish people and that, if they did not do that, we would operate these things ourselves, as we have shown we are competent to do in regard to those few companies to which I paid tribute to the Taoiseach for having started.

Surely nothing exposes better than anything else the complete fallacy of the view that private enterprise capitalism could be successfully operated here in Ireland. It has been operated here in Ireland under optimum conditions. Its promoters had every protection; they had every support. There was no question of any interference of any kind with them, except for the short period of the war years. Yet, this is the end product of their 30 years of activity. We are now in the position of going into this highly competitive market without a viable industrial arm. It is quite clear we have not got one. An economist has given it as his opinion that 60 per cent of our industries will go to the wall after we enter the Common Market. That seems to be a reasonable computation. It is a sad computation in many ways, but saddest from the point of view of the men and women who will be thrown out of work because of this failure on the part of industry here, because of this great blunder committed by the Taoiseach in the thirties in entrusting industry here to these people, people who had no real interest in the furtherance of the welfare of our people or the establishment of a viable industrial arm.

Everybody makes mistakes. What has been the theme song all along? "We have not got the know-how; we have not got the marketing ability; we have not got the export contacts." Surely that, if anything, demonstrates the intinn sclábhíochta, the slave mind approach where our own competence was concerned. Surely that should come to an end now. These people had everything. They had the know-how. They had the capital. They had the export contacts. They had access to the foreign markets. They had everything, and here they are, to-day, in decay, under-mechanised, no automation, with out-of-date machinery, and, everybody is agreed, grossly inefficient. These are the people in whom the Taoiseach put all his trust. Will he continue to do so? Are we to continue going around the world, to the Canadians, the Americans, the Swedes, the Danes, the Dutch, the British, and all the others, asking them to come over here and run our affairs for us? Is it not time we said we could do that ourselves?

Let me remind the Taoiseach of the old Sinn Féin idea—self-sufficiency. It was very wrong in many aspects, but basically it was instinctively right. If we had tried, and failed, at least we would now have the satisfaction of knowing it was we who had failed and that the failure was our own fault. But we cannot even say that about ourselves. Those whom we invited in failed on our behalf. They betrayed the people. They helped in large measure to create a society in which it is not possible to give every child a proper education, the sick proper health services, the aged more than 32/6 a week. This is not fortuitous. This is not an act of God. This is the result of the failure of our industrial policy over the past 30 years. The Scandinavian countries have shown that it is possible to create in a free society a social and economic pattern which allows people to retain many of the things they like, the democratic ideas they cherish, and, at the same time, which ensures to the people that they do not suffer in consequence of adopting that particular economic and social pattern.

It is quite clear now that the Taoiseach's greatest blunder was his failure to exploit to the full our natural resources of land, labour and capital, his failure to accept full responsibility for our own people to do things for ourselves in every aspect of our economy and our society. It is quite clear now that most of the emergent African countries are implementing just such a policy—some form of socialism, some form of public ownership, in order to reap the optimum value from the exploitation of whatever natural resources these countries have.

I want to deal now with another aspect of our membership of the Common Market. It arises out of the admission by the Taoiseach concerning defence. We must now face, in this proposed membership of the European Economic Community, certain defence commitments. I do not want to take up the time of the House going through the many questions asked here by Deputy McQuillan and myself, and by Deputy Corish also, in order to try to elicit what the precise position would be in regard to defence commitments. The Taoiseach was, to put it as its very mildest, less than frank with us.

The general belief we had was that we were joining some kind of economic organisation and that that would probably lead to certain political commitments, but that all we were asking for was membership of the EEC under the Rome Treaty, subscribing to the provisions of that Treaty. We now find that the Taoiseach has given an undertaking, an undertaking he refused to give at any time up to this here in this House, as reported in the New York Times on 18th July of this year: it is the report of an interview. The Taoiseach is reported as saying:

We are prepared to go into an integrated union without any reservations at all as to how far this will take us in the field of foreign policy or defence commitments.

As far as the Taoiseach's public statements are concerned, he never went as far as that in any of his statements to this House.

He was asked directly on a number of occasions by many of us, right up to and including today when he was questioned on the Spaak statement that defence commitments were indispensable or inevitable in the European Community; Dr. Birkelbach made much the same charge. Yet, at no time did the Taoiseach make an unequivocal, clear-cut statement such as that reported in the New York Times, an undertaking that, no matter what we are asked to do, we will do it without any reservations. It may be the positioning of nuclear bases here, polaris or land bases; it may be the provision of military installations; it may be to provide training facilities for British, German, French, or any other troops of member countries of EEC; it may be to provide facilities for rocket bases; it may be to provide facilities for aircraft establishments; all these things, without any reservations, and in anticipation, as far as one can gather, of any request from EEC or the Member countries.

The Taoiseach has given an undertaking now that we are prepared to enter into defence commitments. These will, of course, include the sending of our troops to Europe, should they be needed in furtherance of a defence commitment entered into in relation to our proposed entry into the Common Market organisation and in anticipation of such entry. I believe this —I have believed this all along—that the Taoiseach has—I do not want to use harsh words—certainly given undertakings which it was not within his competence to give at this stage. The Taoiseach has said that he discussed the proposal in relation to the Common Market during the election. He has given us to understand that because he discussed the proposals for the Common Market in the general election, he has now a mandate for any decision he proposes or intends to take.

He has considerably exceeded any authority which he has from the Irish people by giving any of the undertakings which are implicit in this statement made to the New York Times that without any reservations at all as to how far this will take us in the field of foreign policy or defence commitments, we are prepared to go. He has no authority whatsoever for making that statement. He at no time in the general election discussed in detail the political commitments involved in the Common Market and at no time at all during the election did he give us to understand that we are now bound, or would be likely to be bound, to accept certain defence commitments as members of the European Economic Community.

In reply to a series of questions by a number of us here, the Taoiseach said—Volume 195 of the Official Report:

The Government will accept nothing that it does not know all about.

Deputy McQuillan said:

The Taoiseach has already said that he accepted the political and defence objectives.

The Taoiseach replied:

I did not say that.

I said:

The Taoiseach has already said that he will accept the political and defence commitments in the Common Market. How will he get out of that now?

The Taoiseach replied:

I did not say that.

He is asked again in another question in relation to nuclear weapons— Column 1165, Volume 194—would he be prepared to accept the positioning of nuclear bases in this country and the Taoiseach said: "Certainly not." Then he went on:

Indeed, I understand that fixed nuclear bases are now obsolete.

And he got a titter from the back benches for that.

He will accept what he is told from now on anyway, when he gets in.

Clearly we believed all along that the Taoiseach had sold out this country in exchange for a commercial transaction. It was completely clear to us that he had without authority betrayed the people to these defence commitments I have mentioned, a most scandalous betrayal of his position as Taoiseach, for which we will ultimately, I hope, be able to make him answerable because I do not believe that in any suggestion that we should enter into defence commitments involving the provision of polaris bases, nuclear bases, the provision of troop facilities, training facilities for troops, air force establishments of one kind and another, he has any authority from the people to give these undertakings as he now has given them to a newspaper man outside this country and in direct refutation of every attempt we have made here in the House to try to make him admit this. We believed it to be true. We tried to make him admit it but he refused to do it on every possible occasion. That is simply a clear betrayal of his position as Taoiseach.

The only real inkling, I suppose, that we have had in this regard came from the speech of the Minister for Lands in which he made it fairly clear to us that we must join NATO if we were to get membership of the Common Market. He pointed out that the EFTA countries were not members of NATO and consequently could not get full membership, that we must accept the general commitments involved in joining with a group of nations who were themselves members of NATO. This implied that we must also become members of NATO. Then he tried to create the impression that our country had decided that we must take a part, that we must abandon this position of neutrality in regard to world affairs, this position of deciding on the merits of an issue as we saw it and not be biased by adherence to one or other side in the cold war, that we must abandon this position and must now take sides in Europe.

I do not think that it is a decision taken out of any finer impulses whatsoever. It is a completely hypocritical pose on the part of the Government to pretend that we are now determining to take sides in the cold war against Russia, that we believe that we must throw in our contribution in order to halt the onrush of atheistic communism. I think this is so much humbug, hypocritical humbug of the highest order I have heard for many years in listening to concentrated hypocrisy in this House and outside it from speakers on both sides of the House on this particular issue.

We are proposing to join with a number of nations in a defence act which is aimed against the Eastern European states and the Communist States. I have no brief for either side but I can tell you that if I were in the land mass of Europe and had facing me across my frontiers the German people who on no less than two occasions have raped and plundered and pillaged Europe and its people, I should be very slow to withdraw my arms, dismantle my defences and feel that I am perfectly safe with these people, that having done it twice in the past 40 years, they will not do it again. Why not? Who thinks they will not? Who has a right to think they will not? We are joining with France, the torturers of Algeria. These are the crusaders on the white chargers threshing their way across Europe to hunt the barbarian. We are joining with Belgium— Belgium that murdered the unfortunate Lumumba on his knees saying his prayers, blowing the back of his head off—Belgium!

We are going to liberate humanity with the Belgians and the French and the Germans and the Fascist Italians and the British of Suez. These are our new allies. Whom do the Taoiseach, the Minister for Lands and others think they are fooling? The record is against these people. If there are atrocities, there are atrocities on both sides. It there is Hungary, there is also Angola. If there are the atrocities of Suez, there are the atrocities of Algeria, the atrocities of Salazar, his prisons full. Franco, another of our fellow crusaders, has his prisons full.

Surely nobody will have the temerity to suggest that this union of European States is designed to further democratic freedoms or the Christian ideal in Europe? If this is the Christian ideal in Europe as practised by these people in their day-to-day lives with the people depending on them in Angola, in Egypt, in Africa, in India, in Ceylon, in Ireland, in Algeria, no wonder the world is turning its back on Christianity.

Nobody can tell me that when I join with these people, I am joining people whose hands are clean. These people are steeped in blood, steeped in tyranny, steeped in torture. They are rotted with decadence. They can offer us nothing, and to put forward this NATO alliance is anything else is a complete prostitution of the truth. I say that to these crusaders here, the Taoiseach and his friends who want us to join NATO and the Opposition who want us to join NATO.

I should like to pay tribute to one man in this House—he will probably be surprised—Deputy Dillon. Deputy Dillon was the only man who has been consistent in this House in the past 30 years. In 1939, he was pitched out of his Party because he wanted to fight Fascism. I do not know whether he wanted to fight Fascism or not or whether he was merely pro-British. I shall give him the benefit of the doubt. At least he wanted to make a stand and he thought we should make a stand. What I am saying is that when we got the chance to fight the barbaric excesses of Nazi Germany—six million people of all kinds incinerated, children, men and women depraved and humiliated—we got together and, with the exception of Deputy Dillon, to put it in Christian terms, we passed by on the other side: Let Hitler get on with his gas chambers. Let him roam Europe and let his soldiers get on with their butchery and savagery.

Cumann na nGaedheal, Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and, I understand, the Labour Party all got together and said: "We shall take no part in this." Indeed we were particularly conscientious in the exercise of our neutrality. Take the censorship of publication. If an Irish boy died fighting against Nazism and Fascism, we were not told he was shot by a German—no: "He died." We did not want to recognise the nonconformists who were defending the name of Irish people on these foreign battle fields. Now Deputy Lemass and all his Cabinet colleagues who were there at the time are asking us to join in a European campaign against whatever barbarism there happens to be now, Communism. They should have some little regard and respect for the intelligence of our people.

What has happened in between? Did we believe in Nazism? Are we all neo-Nazis? Does it add up to our concept of Christianity? Now we are to join with the Germans who had a lunatic dictator whom they followed for so long, with the Italians who only a few years ago castrated before they strangled the dictator who led them and whom they worshipped for years, and the French, the Belgians, the Portuguese, the Spaniards and the rest. Let us have no more talk of a holy war. If you go into this NATO alliance, let us make it clear to the people you do it because it is a damn good bargain—remember that phrase? You used not to like it—and that you think it is all right to trade Irish property, Irish land, Irish people's lives, for some commercial undertaking. Tell us the truth. Tell us in fact what you are doing and do not, as you have so often done when it suited, shelter behind the croziers when you are under pressure and when you want somebody to pick your chestnuts out of the fire and undo the damage of your own stupid mistakes over the past 30 years.

The Taoiseach has created as no other single individual has created, this decadent, perverted materialist society in which the only values are the values of the market place. Whatever you get away with is right. Look at the decay of active public opinion, the poverty of old people, the hardship of their living conditions, the exploitation of the workers generally, the disparity between the privileged and the underprivileged the reduction in the general level of political freedoms and standards as we, the two of us, see it in our own day-to-day activities here. This certainly is a moment of truth for Irish industry, for all of our social and economic policies, and they will not survive the experience. The tragedy is that the results of the failure of the Taoiseach's policies over the past 30 years will cause very great hardship indeed to our people in the next three or four years. Now, in addition to trading the political independence of our country, he has decided to hand us over, tied hand and foot, to the decisions of this European consortium of nations to do as they will with us in respect to the military future. It seems to me he has played the final betrayal of all.

I have listened to Deputy Dr. Browne with some interest. At the outset he talked about Goebbels, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and all the rest, but his speech today was reminiscent of Goebbels at his best. Back in the 1930s, we remember Goebbels when he set out to denigrate his Government, to denigrate his people, and——

And the Minister for External Affairs was a great friend of his, as were a number of the Deputy's Party.

He did everything and anything to play the politics of everyone but his own country. Deputy Dr. Browne is not as foolish as he pretends and I should like to know from him what he professes. Is he a watery socialist; is he a full-blooded Communist; is he a straight socialist? He has left me in doubt.

Left-wing socialist.

I shall be surprised if Deputy Dr. Browne continues to get away with that brand of politics with the electorate here. No doubt the Taoiseach's Estimate gives us wide scope; we can dabble in foreign politics and back again to the home front, but Deputy Dr. Browne covered a very wide field indeed. I do not propose to follow him. I am amazed that an ex-Minister of this House and a man of Deputy Dr. Browne's intelligence should stoop to the rather dirty politics he displayed here this evening because it is a dirty political trick to set out to denigrate the efforts of one's own people.

The Government here are as good or as bad as the people who elect them. Bear that in mind, and if Deputy Dr. Browne wants to supplant them by either a watery brand of socialism or full-blooded Communism, I think he is mistaken. In the next election, the best he can do is go before the electorate and say the things he said here. If I felt as Deputy Dr. Browne feels about our system of government, that is what I would do. I would ask a mandate from the people for a full-blooded Communist Government. Before Deputy Dr. Browne leaves the House, I would remind him that if he were on the far side of the Iron Curtain, he would be queueing up now for his bowl of rice. I see Deputy McQuillan also leaving the House. Let him run down to his Roscommon constituency and postulate either full-blooded Communism or a weak brand of socialism. He will not do it because he knows very well that if he did, he would not come back to this House. I say that without prejudice.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

I was dealing briefly with the philosophy of Deputy Dr. Browne and his Party and was wondering if the Deputy and his Party in the morning received an invitation from behind the Curtain—be it iron or bamboo—to join an alliance there, would he give us in his next speech here an indication of his attitude in that respect? There is no use in condemning the Common Market here because as we well know we have not been accepted as members of the Common Market. When one comes to think on the subject, when one realises that traditional enemies have lined up, have buried the hatchet and are prepared to come together, I do not think we, as a small country with a Christian outlook, should object to it.

Deputy Dr. Browne and, to a certain extent, Deputy Dillon, referred to the efforts to promote industrial activity here. Deputy Dr. Browne went all out to blame Fianna Fáil for the drawbacks and the disadvantages in that respect from which this country suffers. When I hear such objections voiced here, I am always in doubt about the philosophy and the intentions of the people who voice them. From the pre-1930's when the industrial drive commenced, we must realise that the people who at the beginning undertook to promote industrial activity had no easy job. From the earliest days, we were living in the shadow of free trade and it was the modern idea in the early 30's for every country, large and small, to try to promote its own industry. It was therefore small blame to any Government here to endeavour to start industries. No blame could be laid at the door of any Government, of any Minister, for that.

When one looks back one remembers that not merely had the Government of the day to impress on the manufacturer that we could make the goods but they had also to impress on the consumer that he could buy goods manufactured here as good as any that could be made in any country in Europe. There is no use in our starting off here with an inferiority complex. One becomes tired listening to the halfbaked arguments and statements we hear about the Common Market.

The Taoiseach's Estimate gives us an opportunity of discussing the country's economy in general. It hinges mostly on the Budget. It is generally accepted that the last Budget was a complete success as a budgetary exercise. It has been said that a Budget may be used as a brake or an accelerator. If the economy is growing too fast, or if something goes wrong, it can be used as a brake; if it is too slow, you can accelerate. Either way, the last Budget was as an exercise carried out correctly. Some Deputies said we did not provide sufficient social benefits; others said that the small farmers were suffering the most cruel form of slavery, due to pressure of Government policy. Some said we were not spending enough; others said we were not devoting enough money to the industrial drive.

In general, the emphasis seemed to be on spending but when talking of spending, one must think of where the money comes from. Our efforts in supporting the Government in any given year ensured as far as possible that revenue and expenditure would balance and that there would be no unfavourable balance at home or abroad. That was good policy and if it is pursued, the economy is on the right road.

The rate of growth must be watched. In the past five years it was favourable. In its last report, the Central Bank said that we might expect a period of expansion. Britain, where we sell the bulk of our primary produce, seems to be expecting a period of buoyant trade; European trade and production are expanding at the same time and it therefore seems that the immediate prospects for our exports are reasonably good. In the circumstances, I do not see why there should be such despondency about our entry into the Common Market. All the economic indicators suggest our economy is buoyant, that there are no factors that can damage it, provided we do not get into debt at home or abroad and provided we can always balance expenditure against income.

The Central Bank report which was recently issued also referred to the survey made by the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation and Development. Here is a brief quotation:

The general position has recently been stated as follows: In 1961, for the third year in succession, total national output expanded at a rate much higher than that postulated in the White Paper on Economic Expansion issued in November, 1958. Over the third period the average annual rate of growth exceeded 4½ per cent. The major contribution to the increase in 1961 was again made by the industrial sector.

Would the Deputy give the source?

I am quoting from the last report of the Central Bank. If I might continue and finish the short quotation. It says "Current external assets and payments showed a small surplus."

Acting Chairman

Is there no particular page?

I am quoting from the Central Bank report. I am not giving the page but it is embodied in the last report. It continues: "Capital inflow combined with this surplus did produce a substantial increase in external savings." I am sorry I did not take the page but I will furnish it later on, if required. That is the report of an outside organisation which may be deemed to be objective in this matter and has nothing to gain by painting a gilded picture of our economy. It can be said, therefore, that that organisation deemed the management of the Government to be good and sound in general regarding our economic position.

If we look at any of the various publications with which we are issued either before or after the Budget, we shall see at a glance that all the indications are that the country has made substantial progress. I might go back for a moment and refer to a small publication known as Economic Statistics which was quoted here today and which was distributed with the Budget. It set out in general and clearly the economic position of the country. It shows that there was a favourable trend in the balance of payments, that the national income had increased by eight per cent., that fixed capital formation rose by 15 per cent. from £89 million in 1960 to £102 million in 1961. What is of more significance is that total savings increased by about £9 million.

Acting Chairman

From what is the Deputy quoting?

I said at the outset that I was quoting from Economic Statistics.

Acting Chairman

By whom issued?

Issued prior to the last Budget.

Acting Chairman

There is no reference other than that?

No; I will take up the quotation again. I said that the total savings increased by about £9 million to £68 million, the highest yet recorded. The average index of weekly industrial earnings increased by 7.8 per cent and hourly earnings by 11 per cent. The report states that those economic trends were satisfactory. That brings me to the difference between the various Parties in this House. Fianna Fáil believe that the annual Budget was balanced and therein lies the secret of the success of the administration of the Government of the past five years.

The Taoiseach said, when speaking on the Budget, that the aims of the Budget were not to reduce purchasing power but to secure a transfer of purchasing power within the community, to balance the position so far as was possible in the interests of equity and social justice. It is evident, therefore, that the desire of the Government in recent legislation was to promote the common good.

We have all heard arguments advanced here regarding what the future may hold for small farmers and small businessmen. Anyone can assert at the moment that it is not easy to assess the likely developments of the coming decade. We have seen a great many changes since the last war and we are likely to see more in the next 10 years. Some people seem to be perturbed about the future of the small farmer and the question of his survival. What the critics overlook is that Europe is made up or based on the small farm economy. I know that matter is the subject of widespread comment at the moment and that many people hold that the pattern of our Irish agriculture will have to change if we are to survive.

The small farmer has many disadvantages, I admit, but if he has, he has also many advantages. I am not going to go fully into the advantages or disadvantages, beyond saying that he is not always in the best position to buy his equipment or to sell his livestock. Nor is he able to equip himself with modern machines. But when it comes to considering this matter in general, as related to the farming community in practice, the small farmer can be said to be free of many of the modern affictions that affect larger farming units—afflictions such as strikes and lock-outs. He can always resort to co-operation, especially from the point of view of production. He can always have available to him the most modern machines, provided at that point he is willing to bury his individual interests and co-operate with his neighbour. I often think that the critics who bemoan the plight of the small farmer are not too genuine. We know that the average-sized farm here is much higher than in European countries. Rather than bemoan the position of the small farmer, we should instead consider him as somebody who will be of immense value to the economy in the future, especially if we are accepted as members of the Common Market.

It was said here to-day—I do not altogether agree with it—that the farmer's love of the land was demonstrated by the fact that he would go out to the field, lean on the gate and look at the land. If that be so, I am at a loss to understand why so many farmers—I am not speaking of really small farmers either—who have a fair rent, the right of resale and fixity of tenure, lock up their doors and move out. I am referring now to bachelors who suffer at no time from economic pressure. It cannot be said that economic pressure is driving that type of man to emigrate.

I am tired of listening to Deputies opposite talking about the wholesale clearance from the west and north-west. That simply is not true. There is not a wholesale clearance, but there is a changing pattern, a pattern which has been changing gradually for the past 30 or 40 years. It is not changing at so great a rate, either. In our conditions in a relatively open-ended economy, it is bound to change at a faster rate than in a semi-closed economy. I can quote figures to support my point of view, if the House will not agree with me. For the record, I am taking these figures from the Free Press, and I am not giving the reference, either.

Acting Chairman

If the Deputy purports to quote, he should give the reference.

I am quoting from the Free Press.

That is hardly the Irish Press.

Acting Chairman

If it is a short quotation, I shall allow the Deputy.

It says that the percentage falls in employment in the primary industry in each of the following countries, taking 1870 as the base year, was: the United Kingdom from 15 per cent down to 4.5 per cent; the United States, from 50.8 per cent down to 11.6 per cent; Germany, from 35.5 per cent to 11.8 per cent. I am sorry I did not give the relevant year for the lower figure. When I gave 1870 as the base year, I should have quoted also 1950. Therefore, you can take the base year as 1870, going up to 1950. I could go on and give other figures: Sweden, 55.5 per cent down to 19.3 per cent; France, 43 per cent. down to 20.2 per cent; Japan, with its huge population, 76.4 per cent down to 36.2 per cent.

Do not go so far away from home.

I am not going any further away from home than some of the Deputies who spoke here this evening and who went around the North Cape and back to Moscow. When we come to criticise the Government and the Department of Agriculture, we must have facts and figures to back our claims. I submit that some of the wild statements made here to-day would not stand a fact-finding examination. Last week, the Minister for Agriculture introduced his Vote. He was subjected to a barrage of abuse for his failure to meet the demands of the various sectors which compose the farming community. I submit that, in the circumstances, he can feel satisfied that for the past five years he has administered the affairs of his Department wisely and well. I should like the critics to take note of the fact that in a critical period, when production was falling elsewhere, we were increasing production here, even primary production.

Where was it falling?

It was falling in many parts of the world.

Not in Europe.

Oh, yes. It was increasing here when marketing conditions did not favour agriculture in any shape or form. The report of the Department of Agriculture denotes good progress. We would all like to see even greater progress in our agricultural sector but, when we come to consider the position, we must admit that we live in highly competitive times, in times when agricultural produce is being dumped at cut prices in our best market. I am sure the severest critic of the Department of Agriculture will readily admit that it was difficult in recent years to dispose of food surpluses, either in the British market or outside it. That was due to many causes. In the case of certain products, as this House is very well aware, it was due to causes outside our control altogether. It is very difficult at the moment to market butter, bacon and eggs. A seller in an overcrowded market has to take the best price he can get. This House is aware of that because of the fact that we have to subsidise the sale of both butter and bacon in our traditional market.

Would it not be better to subsidise it for our own people so that they could eat it?

That raises another argument, one on which we have fought and won many elections. The Deputy should not forget that.

The Taoiseach told us we will not have an election, whatever else we may have.

I am not wishing for one.

We are though. We want to put out the Deputy and his Party.

We disposed of that point some few years ago and I do not intend to go back on it here. The policy adopted by the Minister for Agriculture and the Government, and the price support system, have proved to be good. That is all I shall say on that point.

It was said here that the farmers' income should be greater. The people who make that claim should recognise that, even with difficult conditions obtaining abroad, production expanded here. Incomes rose during the year. Incomes may not have risen as much as we would like, but they certainly did rise.

The Deputy must be wearing magnifying glasses.

I can produce evidence to support my argument.

Can the Deputy produce evidence of any real value?

I need only refer to the remarkable rise in agricultural exports. I will give the Deputy the figures. Agricultural exports have gone up in the past five years by more than £40 millions, or roughly 53 per cent. In 1956, cattle realised £36 million odd; in 1961, live cattle brought in £44 million odd. Beef and veal in 1956 realised £3,600,000. In 1961, the amount realised was £19 million.

Has the Deputy the figures for the cost of production?

Would Deputies kindly allow Deputy Carter to make his speech in his own way?

Deputies opposite will have plenty of time to flay my speech to pieces between now and 11 o'clock.

Not at this rate.

Statistical evidence is available of the export drive by Fianna Fáil. If the Deputy does not want to listen to the figures, he need not do so. In 1956, mutton and lamb realised £1,500,000; in 1961, the figure was £1,800,000. In 1956, butter brought in £200,000; in 1961, the figure realised was £3,800,000. Other foodstuffs, in 1956, fetched £2,300,000; in 1961, the figure was £3,300,000. Cereals and foodstuffs in 1956 realised £600,000; in 1961, the figure was £3,800,000. That shows the excellent agricultural progress in this sector of our economy.

The Government's policy in relation to agriculture is under fire. Yet it is striking that one of the foremost steps taken by the Government is the generous price support system adopted. I assert that that price support system has contributed towards the marked rise in exports from this sector of the economy.

That brings me to the last point I want to make. The fact that 80 per cent of the store cattle exported from this country were attested indicates the good work accomplished in the drive to eradicate bovine TB. It has been asserted that for the period under review the elimination of bovine tuberculosis and the attestation of the various areas has been rapid and well accomplished and has been carried out, bear in mind, without any major dislocation of our export trade. All the time the Government are under fire for their agricultural policy. Also bear in mind that the Government had to find the money to eliminate reactors and to pay the owners.

One last point before I conclude. A few Deputies asserted—it is not of course a fact—that nothing was being done to promote better grass husbandry, which in turn reflects in better finished livestock and higher exports. We assert that for our period we have done more to promote better grass husbandry than we will get credit for.

There have been various aids. The decision to subsidise ground limestone, the decision to increase the subsidies on phosphatic and nitrogenous manures, the decision to reduce the tractor tax—all those decisions were taken with the calculated aim of promoting better grass husbandry. We on this side of the House are prepared to assert that but for having experienced a bad autumn or an early winter and a bad spring the usage of fertilisers would have been much greater. We are also prepared to assert here and now that that policy will pay in a seasonal period later on and that farmers will then readily appreciate the advantages of the price support system initiated by the Government.

I am sorry Deputy Carter did not continue to discuss the small farmers. I should like to supply some of the gaps he left—I will not say "unwittingly". He tells us that there is a lot of grousing from this side of the House and amongst people who do not seem to know their business and that all this grousing about the small farmer is so much ballyhoo. Before Deputy Carter leaves the House——

He has gone.

I should like him to read the record. Perhaps it would give him something to think about. I quote from agricultural statistics for the year 1934 in his own county of Longford.

That is far enough back.

There were 10,963 males engaged in agriculture in County Longford in 1934. Last year, even though the Deputy tells us everything is all right with the small farmer in Longford, the number seems to have dwindled, according to the Statistical Abstract. That number of nearly 11,000 has dwindled to 7,102—a decrease of 4,000 during a period in which Fianna Fáil were in power four years out of five. Would the Deputy explain where the 4,000 have gone? Have they gone on permanent holidays or what has become of these 4,000 of his constituents? I will not mention any other county. Looking at the country as a whole, we find a rather alarming situation. We find the total number of males engaged in agriculture has dropped since 1934 from 579,400 to 421,000.

I read in to-day's paper a statement from somebody in the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association asking a question which I have put several times to the Government in this House, that is, what is the Government policy with regard to the small farmer? The Government cannot plead that they are completely unaware of what is happening. They cannot plead they do not know that the small farmers are being forced out in pretty sizeable numbers. The small farmer is a vanishing member of the community.

If it is the intention of the Government to create a situation whereby the country will return to 200 or 300 acre farms, to the ranches that caused all the trouble in bygone days, the decentest way to treat the people is let them know at once that that is the policy, that, in the opinion of the Government, that is the best thing in the long run for the people, and that the sooner the small farmer finds other occupation, either in this country or by emigrating, the better. The small farmer is being forced out. It is not good enough to allow the exodus of anything up to 20,000 at least per year. Of the 40,000 emigrants, 20,000 at least are heads of households, their wives and families.

There were only 20,000 altogether last year.

They are being forced out of the country. It is not right or democratic to allow that exodus year after year. It may be playing into the Government's hands. It may be the sincerest wish of the Government here and of the Taoiseach that these people should go out quietly without any fuss being made about it. I believe that is the policy.

There is one thing for which I admire Fianna Fáil, that is, the method by which they gull the people every time there is an election. Every time there is an election, they tell them that emigration will cease, that there will be plenty of work for everybody. Everything short of bringing back the emigrants is promised to the people. Every poor devil who is out of work will have full and plenty, if he votes Fianna Fáil back to power. The election is over and Fianna Fáil get back to power. What is the tune then? If you say there is unemployment, if you say there are people forced off the small holdings or that working people are forced, through unemployment, to emigrate, you are shouted down and blackguarded, and every underhand trick is tried, down to writing anonymous letters about your friends, even to the extent of having old age pensions, dole money or stamp money taken from them as I know happened in Mayo, and what happened in Mayo must be the case all round. Any person who opens his mouth to criticise is told he is anti-national. He is accused of not speaking Irish, of wearing the Union Jack for a shirt, a Swastika or some other emblem. So much for the nonsense and trash.

Deputies

Hear, hear!

For a full three-quarters of an hour, Deputy Carter tried to cover up every failure that Fianna Fáil have brought about. He very carefully avoided the drop in population. He even praised the Minister for Agriculture notwithstanding the fact that the Minister for Agriculture himself had to admit there were 132,000 fewer store cattle in this country this year on the 1st January than there were in January twelve months. In other words, the farmers have to sell £132,000 worth of their capital. They are living on their capital and because they do not keep on doing that Deputy Carter and other Deputies blackguard them.

I want to tell the Taoiseach—I do not think he has any enmity against the farming community—that the farmer under £25 valuation who has no part-time employment is not able to make a living on the land. There is very little employment in the rural areas. There is little or nothing doing in forestry. There are one or two spots of arterial drainage.

There is a lot more than when you were in the Forestry Division.

If I am telling falsehoods, the Deputy can easily refute them.

There is more being done in forestry than the Deputy did.

During my time as Minister for Lands, with the help of other Ministers in the Government from Fine Gael, Labour and Clann na Poblachta, I put forward a forestry programme. In a few years I doubled the planted acreage whereas you were fooling with forestry for 30 years. You just left a few scrubwoods all over the country and you call that forestry. During the inter-Party Government time the planted acreage was doubled and a programme was laid down that no Fianna Fáil Minister dare go back on because if he could go back on it he would have done so. Deputy Carter spoke about ground limestone. The only thing his Party ever did in regard to ground limestone was to increase the price from 15/- to £1. The inter-Party Government started that scheme and Fianna Fáil tried to kill it.

There are three inseparable problems facing the country, unemployment, emigration and our entry into the Common Market. Deputy Dr. Browne was deploring the fact that we might have to subscribe to NATO. If we do not join the Common Market, it means the end for this country, complete stagnation. Under the Rome Treaty very high tariff barriers would be raised against our products. If we could not export to England I do not see where we could dispose of our goods. We would have no business exporting it to Australia and other remote places where we are not known.

I should like to get for this country all the benefits that membership would confer without the penalties but it is absolutely essential that we face up to the responsibilities which are involved in our membership of the EEC. If we do not join the Common Market we should be as isolated as a shellfish on the seashore. If we must join NATO in order to get these benefits let us do so because that would be preferable to being outside and having our so called neutrality.

I do not think it is beyond the power of the Government to create more employment. With the abandonment of the Local Authorities (Works) Act and the chiselling down of small drainage through the Special Employment Schemes Office, road works and various other activities, there are very few employment opportunities in country areas. It is very unfair because these people are paying their taxes and contributing their share to run the country and are as much entitled to consideration as people in other areas. One of the main causes of emigration is that people cannot live at home. No man is going to leave his house, emigrate with his wife and children to England, Canada or Australia just for the love of travel. He has to go due to economic circumstances.

Anyone with an ounce of experience or common sense knows that the small holding which gave a fairly frugal living, but a living, to a family in the past, on £10, £12, £15 or even £20 valuation, no longer provides such a living. If the farmer who owns that small holding does not have some part-time employment for at least three or four months of the year he cannot survive here. One of the signs of his honesty is that he does not get into debt or refuse to meet his lawful obligations to the State in the form of taxation; instead he clears out. He has to go for no other reason than an economic reason. With this flight from the land, our towns, both big and small, are very badly hit. This is a reaction from the thinning out of populations in the countryside. The policy pursued by the inter-Party Government was to spend more and more money in rural Ireland.

Where was the money spent?

However, I have no doubt the Taoiseach will get advice from high places, from his so-called financial wizards, that the pursuing of such a policy would cause inflation, that it would create a purchasing power that would throw our balance of trade out of equilibrium. The money should be spent as it was spent during the days of the inter-Party Governments.

They raided the Road Fund.

Any Deputy who thinks anything I have said is not correct has a duty to get up after me and say so. A falsehood or an incorrect statement should not be allowed to pass in this House. This is the place to correct it. Of course the object of these interruptions is to try to put me off my trend of thought.

I repeat that more money must be spent in rural Ireland, if the flight from the land is to be arrested. I do not advocate the giving of free money. I do not know what method can be employed to increase the incomes of small farmers, but employment could be provided and that seems the obvious way to increase rural incomes. However, for some reason, the Government oppose that policy. They seem to think such a policy would cause an upheaval, that things would get out of control. It must be done if the flight from the land is to be stopped, if we are to stop the shutting up of house after house, week after week throughout the countryside, if we are not to let the country go back to the ranchers, which seems to be the policy of most Deputies in the House.

There are not half a dozen voices in the House who back me in this; there are not half a dozen Deputies who are prepared to get down to an all-out attempt to stop this flight from the land.

Does the Deputy think the farmers are such fools as to follow him?

Deputy Blowick must be allowed to make his statement.

I am putting the case of the people I represent and I do not care whether that puts me out of the House or not. I am not a political coward who makes promises and is afraid to follow them up afterwards. As I said earlier, there are three main problems facing the country—emigration, unemployment and our possible entry into the Common Market. I was not here when the Taoiseach introduced his Estimate this morning and therefore I do not know if he gave us any information on the cold shoulder we seem to be getting from the EEC. If he has not dealt with that matter, I hope he will do so in his reply. I should like him to know that any action he is taking to secure membership of the Common Market for this country will have the support of the majority of Deputies.

Any person who has any common sense can see that our future is tied up with the European Economic Community, should Britain join. If Britain joins and we do not, we will be no better than an isolated island like one of those inhabited places off the Galway or Kerry coasts. I come again to the unemployment problem in the rural areas and its reaction on the towns, big and small. I would ask the Taoiseach to take that matter up seriously, particularly during the recess when he and the other members of the Government will have plenty of time on their hands.

Another pressing problem is that of rates. This affects both farmers and business people in towns. Any person who has the ill-luck to live in an urban area has to meet two sets of rates, the county rate and the town rate. It puzzles me how they are able to carry on. In Mayo, we have three urban areas—Castlebar, Westport and Ballina—and how the people bear the two sets of rates in those towns, I do not know. It is a most appalling burden, even if business is very good. A lot remains to be done by the Government and I trust that by the time the Dáil reassembles, they will have made a good start.

This is the Taoiseach's Estimate and I want to say that I have been a political opponent of the Taoiseach for nearly 40 years. I want also to dissociate myself completely from the speech made by Deputy Dr. Browne this evening. He described the Taoiseach as a Quisling, as a Tshombe and as a man selling the country. It was a deplorable speech and I want to register my wholehearted opposition to it.

You could not expect anything better from him—the RIC man.

He referred to the Taoiseach as a Kruger. That was a deplorable effort. The whole speech was worthy only of a Hyde Park soap-box. That Deputy is completely detached from Irish life himself but as he is unique, it is not a matter of great worry. This is an occasion for stocktaking, for the examination of problems and of consciences. The wider aspects of State policy have been dwelt on by the Taoiseach and by the Leader of the Opposition and I shall try to deal with some of the narrower aspects. No matter what side of the House we sit on I think our main object is to see things go well, to try to ensure that progress is maintained in the country and that the trends causing uneasiness are observed and checked.

There are disturbing trends and there are good trends. We had a very good report today from An Bord Fáilte on tourism. It shows the big advance the country has made in this field but we were all disturbed by reports that there is a decline in tourism this year. It seems to me there could be some truth in the allegation that hoteliers in this country have tried to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, that they have raised prices too quickly and too much. A few years ago, I thought we could have a fair target for tourism in this country of £100 million a year. A great investment was made which should lead to that most important development. It would be a very bad thing if we are to see this fine export— that is what it is—being destroyed by those who are engaged in tourism. Bord Fáilte said this morning that it does not single-handedly undertake all the jobs of tourism. There are others involved and they should not be allowed to injure the progress and growth already obvious in this business.

In Cork city for instance, the growth of heavy industry is obviously a durable thing which will, I think, outlast any of the difficulties of entry to the Common Market. There is a shortage of certain skills in the country. I hope the last round of wage increases will be sufficient until we catch up with the injury done to our economy by that round. A lesson should be learned from it. No matter on what side of the House we sit, we should observe the trends that are dangerous and encourage things well done, no matter by whom. The manner in which criticism is offered and accepted should be a desirable, established pattern from this on.

This morning, the Taoiseach said next year would be a very important year. I think the next five years will be very important and that living in Ireland for at least two generations will be influenced by what we do in that period. Most of our past conceptions must be—this is happening— discarded. We may even change direction or even go into reverse in some cases. Such things are a mark of the times we live in. Old catchcries that helped to fill this House are now useless, if not harmful—which is what they are if they prevent any kind of keen examination of our problems.

All these problems could be covered in one question: how are we to make the country's economy a lively, working thing in which every activity will add to every other and the whole spell nearly full employment in town and country? If we go in that direction, things like emigration, inflation, even our Border trouble, our relations, economic and political, with other countries will fall into place; progress will be made if we realise that no group has a monopoly of patriotism. None of us has a solution for our present difficulties beyond the solution we would apply in our private affairs.

Many of us would try to work reasonably hard and intelligently, balance our accounts and save. We would seek to educate our children, in the things of God and the world and try to direct them into useful and profitable channels. We would try to ensure that they would be healthy and well-clad. Above all, we would try to see that none enjoyed advantages at the expense of others. Eventually, the training and education of each and the hard work of all and the consideration of each for the other and the profitability of the work of each would add to the whole and the family would prosper. I am convinced there is no other solution for human problems in progress than those and that they apply equally to the family and to the nation.

This nation is facing great changes and whatever great difficulty we had in the past in adjusting the balance between agriculture and industry will diminish into insignificance compared with the problems that will come with our entry into the Common Market. Neither arm of our economy is I think fitted for the shock of free trade at the moment. Too many of our industries are unfitted mentally for the challenge. They have only prospered through the exercise of pressure on the community for favoured treatment. The Taoiseach called it feather-bedding. That is very bad preparation for the harsh realities of the world. We must give priority to training for independence, an independence much more exciting and stimulating than what we meant before by that word. It means the opposite to dependence. Therefore, I think training and teaching are the most valuable investments that the country can make.

First, I think we must have close liaison between agriculture and education and industry. Every child over a certain age must proceed to his real education and this must go on and add to his work in the factory, the office or on the farm. The world is jumping into a new age of technical skills and we must jump with it. Those at the bench, in the workshop, on the farm, in food-processing plants, in hotels and in the transport service must all have technical competence. The secretary, the accountant and the salesman must come from the top educational drawer. This adds up to an enormous expansion of our expenditure on technical education. Even now we must run to catch up. Nothing else is so well worth doing and nothing else will permit us to survive at the level we would wish. Our job is to provide a living for our people within our shores but if they have to go abroad to ensure they would not have to hew wood and draw water, it means completely streamlining our whole system of education to embrace technical skills, crafts, accountancy and languages.

Great stress was laid to-day on the need for at least one Continental language being taught to every reasonably educated person reaching adolescence, but every workshop, every craft or trade, every manager, employer and trade unionist should have a part in this development. The local authorities must ensure that such teaching and training is provided, fully equipped and housed and in a form suitable for the local needs. The State must pledge the credit of the people to get this great move forward in technical training. This is a time to reorganise and stocktake. I have directed my criticism to what I consider to be our greatest lack and our greatest need in 1962.

I was not exactly surprised when the Leader of the Opposition attempted to launch a counter-attack after the opening of this debate by the Taoiseach. Nor was I surprised at the way in which he did so. He opened his attack by stating that the speech of the Taoiseach was entirely without value and attempted to prove this by making a comment about the faces of the Deputies on this side of the House. I do not say that the faces of the Deputies on this side of the House are any more notably attractive than those of the Deputies on the other side, but if one has to criticise on that basis, it is a matter of considerable significance.

It is worth noting that in this rumbustious counterblast which seemed lacking in anything of importance, the leader of the Opposition could count on the support of only four members of his own Front Bench at most and of six of his backbenchers at most. The support from the back benches was reduced to three at one stage. If the situation in this country is so catastrophic as the Leader of the Opposition will have us believe, I should have thought that his own supporters would have come in to back him up in this connection. If the Government have been so criminally incompetent, one would imagine that the Fine Gael Party would have been so incensed that they would have been flocking to the support of their leader and trying to get into the fray themselves.

This is not what happened. The supporters of the Leader of the Opposition did not seem to be crowding over one another to come in and hear what he had to say. I may add that any of those on that side of the House who did not hear what he had to say did not miss very much. He went so far as to claim that he was either the author or co-author of the speech delivered by President Kennedy in the Independence Day celebrations in the United States this year. He stated that he had made a similar speech in Washington 14 years ago. Deputy Dillon has made so many speeches and has held so many different political views from time to time, mostly contradictory, that on the law of averages, he could almost certainly claim to have said at one time or another something similar to what anybody else might say today. The effrontery of the suggestion that he had helped President Kennedy with his speech left even me gasping.

He criticised very much the figures given and the inferences drawn from the increased national income because he stated that owing to the decline in money values, the national income is entirely illusory. He was working on the false assumption that whilst our currency might be deflated, the currency of all other countries remained constant which, I am sure, he must realise is entirely unsound. The inference to be drawn from the figures of national income is that, compared with similar figures prepared on a similar basis in other countries, the rate of increase of our national income is something which gives very good reason for optimism. These statistical figures are all produced on a similar basis and our rate of increase does compare favourably with those of other countries in Europe at the present time. Granted the increase has only just recently started, but it is growing.

Deputy Dillon also dealt with the position of the farmers. I can never understand his attitude and that of his Party in this regard. He has stated both on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture and again today that our land is not nearly productive enough. I think all of us will agree with that. Much of our land which is under cultivation of some sort is not nearly as productive as it should be. He goes on, as usual, to say that the greatest need is for the re-introduction of Part B of the Land Project. In his speech today, as a third and last point, he referred to better marketing techniques.

While we all agree that the productivity of our land is not nearly as high as it should be, we are not agreed as to what the next step is to deal with this problem. Deputy Dillon has made some reference to the increased use of fertilisers and here again we are in agreement with him, very much so. But the question is what is the highest priority. The view of this Government, with which I must say that as an uneducated city man I find myself in agreement, is that the top priority should be to bring the land already in production up to the peak of its productivity. If we relax in any way in our efforts to encourage the increased use of fertilisers, we are doing a bad day's work. If we spend more money on Part B of the Land Project, instead of putting that money into fertilisers, we are putting the cart before the horse.

I have never seen, and I believe there are not in existence, any figures to show what increased production has resulted from land reclamation. I have a horrible suspicion that much of the land which has been reclaimed has more or less lapsed into its previous condition.

Nonsense.

I am sure that if that were nonsense, we would have facts and figures to prove it, but as we have not any facts or figures to prove it, there is still that suspicion in my mind.

Then why have you not dropped land reclamation?

When it cost up to £300 an acre, it was no longer economic. When the bleating at the other side of the House has stopped, I will continue.

Fianna Fáil started land reclamation in 1932.

That was before your by-election.

These interjections from the Opposition have left me no more enlightened than I was before. The fact remains, however, that the farmer who pays more out of his own pocket for land reclamation under Part A is much more likely to keep the reclaimed land in production, once it has been reclaimed. All the facts and figures show that land reclaimed under Part A does stay in good heart. There is no denial of that. Deputy Dillon has therefore pretty well agreed with the facts but he does not agree with the policy. He still pleads for an increased emphasis on land reclamation, but from the facts he has given himself, it is quite clear the Government's policy is the right one and that what we must first do therefore is to subsidise the use of fertilisers to the very maximum so that the standard of productivity in the agricultural industry will be considerably raised. If we can do that, it will mean not only that we will increase our production but that we will reduce the costs of production.

When we have been able to make more progress with that, it is obviously, and, I think, correctly, the policy of the Government to put marketing as the next priority. The farmers in this country are no different from the farmers anywhere else. They have all suffered from periods of over-production when prices have collapsed. They are very naturally suspicious of any efforts being made to encourage them simply to produce more. I thoroughly agree with them in that. But Deputy Dillon made the call today: "Let us get more production first." If he can sell that one to a farmer, he is a right good salesman. I cannot think of any farmer who would be thick enough to accept such a suggestion. We have got first to get better productivity and reduce the costs of production. Then we have got to get our marketing at a much higher level. Only when we have got our marketing much more secure and scientific, can we in all conscience encourage our farmers to go in for a substantial programme of increased production.

We have not got control over over-seas markets. We discovered that to our cost when Deputy Dillon produced what at the time looked a fairly reasonable proposal for increasing our production of eggs. The only thing he did not take into account was the fact that the British Government might take similar steps to encourage British home production. When the British production of eggs for the home market was tremendously subsidised, we found we had no market for our eggs at all, or virtually none. That was no fault of anybody, but it did illustrate very fully that over-production can be extremely dangerous when you are supplying a market over which you have no control.

In the general picture of gloom and decay which has been painted by members of the Opposition, reference is always made to the cattle population and to the fact that it is not rising as rapidly as it should. I never heard any reference in this particular connection to one feature which I believe deserves considerable attention, that is, that the number of cattle slaughtered because of being TB reactors is very considerable. A number of cattle never reached maturity because they had to be slaughtered in order to deal with this TB problem, and the rate of slaughter is continuing. It is extremely difficult to have a rapidly increasing population of cattle when you are destroying them at that rate. The TB Eradication Scheme is one of the most valuable undertaken in recent years. It is already paying off as far as the export market is concerned. But to say that we have reason to despair because the total number of cattle is not rising is just nonsense. Purely from the statistical point of view, it appears that, once the TB Eradication Scheme is successfully concluded, the rate of increase will be very considerable.

I react—and I think the Government generally reacts—very much against overemphasis on the question of beef production. Just as in industry, it is very dangerous to put all your eggs into one basket—I know there is an equivalent danger of being jack of all trades and master of none —certainly in business there is an increasing move towards diversification of activities, because no industrialist is prepared to confine himself just to one line of business. I certainly am not and Deputy Dillon certainly is not in his business. The same applies, or should apply, to our agricultural policy. If we were to say the main purpose of our agriculture is to breed increasing numbers of beef cattle, I cannot feel for a moment that that would be sound. We must, by all means, try to raise to the highest possible standards each facet of agricultural production. But if we are to increase the number of cattle and have plenty for export, dead or alive, we are then faced with the problem of the disposal of the milk. I understand it is very hard to produce cattle without producing milk at the same time. Even I have got round to seeing that. That means that if we continue to regard cattle as producers of meat, milk and butter, we are obviously heading for trouble.

Dried milk and cheese.

I thoroughly agree. We must therefore open up and develop dried milk and cheese.

And chocolate crumb.

And other forms of production. But with some of these products, I find that it is only when some of these matters are raised directly from this side of the House that Deputy Dillon and the members of the Fine Gael Party show any great enthusiasm.

Go bfhoiridh Día orainn !

I am not quite sure whether that was an interjection——

That means "God help us".

I thought it was wind, actually.

I do not blame the Deputy for not recognising his own language. It would put a strain on him and his antecedents.

The point I was trying to bring out was that some diversification in agriculture is essential. I have yet to hear Deputy Dillon make that statement, but I am glad to find that he now agrees. He is so accustomed to saying that we have learned a lesson from him that it is nice to find now that he is learning something from us. He is always pointing out—this is something Fine Gael seem to hold as a matter of Party policy—that Ireland is primarily an agricultural country. That is the sort of remark that goes down extremely well in certain quarters, but it is one that needs careful analysis.

Were Ireland to remain a primarily agricultural country, we should have to face the fact that a falling population is inevitable. Very often, when this matter is raised, our attention is directed to another primarily agricultural country, Denmark, where agriculture has reached a very high level indeed. Denmark is constantly being held up to us as an example. What so many people either do not know, or prefer, perhaps, to forget, is that the rate of industrialisation in Denmark is far higher than it is here, and continues to develop at a high rate simply because Denmark realised, before we did, I think, that agriculture alone cannot support a reasonably sized population; industry, whether or not strictly applied to agriculture, is absolutely essential.

There is this constant complaint of the flight from the land, as if this were a problem unique to ourselves. There is a flight from the land all over the United Kingdom, in France, in Germany, in South America, and, indeed, all over the world. It is something which cannot be halted. It is due to increased wages. It is due to greater mechanisation in agriculture, and so forth. Indeed, the flight from the land is inevitable, unless industries can be set up in rural areas to hold the people in these areas.

I cannot understand this constant effort by some people who, simply because they are politically in Opposition, seem to feel it incumbent on them to use every possible means of increasing a sense of inferiority complex in this country. I cannot understand these people who persistently say that everything is dreadful here; we are suffering from a flight from the land; our small farmers are in dire straits; we are suffering from emigration. So is every other country.

Where are the people going?

Talking of small farmers, it must be remembered that in the six countries of the European Community, the average size of the farm is well under 50 acres.

Hear, hear !

I think it is somewhere near 25 acres. In fact, our small farmers therefore are not half as small as some of the farmers with whom they will be in competition. Our farmers, too, have many advantages which continental farmers are still dreaming about. We have a far better system of land tenure. There are parts of France in which the system of land tenure is quite mediaeval. As we fly over the Continent, or pass through it in a train, we sometimes get the impression that the agricultural areas are composed of enormous farms. That is an entirely wrong impression. In actual fact, there are large areas without hedges, ditches, or any other physical features to divide them up, but the fact is they are divided into very small strips indeed. These are the farmers with whom we will be in competition. Yet there are people on the Opposition side of the House who try to spread alarm and despondency, for reasons apparently best known to themselves.

Alarm and despondency about what?

About the chronic deficiencies in our system, which are alleged to be the root cause of the flight from the land, emigration, and the plight of the small farmer.

That is all quite true. It may be unpalatable, but it is true.

I am open to conviction. Nobody has convinced me yet. There was a tremendous amount of abuse today of Irish industry. Deputy Dr. Browne made a very long speech; I only hope he is feeling better now that he has got it out of his system. His speech was the greatest nonsense. It is a pity really that he would not try to confine his remarks to something he knows something about. His idea seems to be, and he is generally joined by the Opposition in this view, that this country is dotted all over with tinpot industries, feather-bedded by the Taoiseach personally for his own personal reasons, and that none of them will be able to stand up against the ruthless competition of Continental Europe. In terms of political abuse, I suppose these remarks have a certain value, but I wish that people, before indulging in such abuse, would try to inform themselves of the facts.

I admit that the Committee on Industrial Organisation have made very critical observations of Irish industry generally. I think it is very salutary that they should have done so, but to say that the result of the deliberations of that Committee is that Irish industry is utterly condemned as inefficient is the greatest nonsense. If the general over-all quality of our industrial products was so utterly appalling as Deputy Dr. Browne would have us believe, and if our prices were so out of line with prices elsewhere, how is it that our industrial exports have risen so steadily and, in many cases, so rapidly?

I would be the first to admit that there are grave deficiencies in industrial design, that the standard of our management is probably not as high as it should be. I admit that we need a much greater sense of urgency and adventure, but the fact remains that, if a certain amount of industrial development had not taken place in this country under the shelter of some protection, we would now be out of the race for membership of the European Economic Community even before we started. A high proportion of our industrial exports has already been contributed by these feather-bedded, tinpot industries. That in itself gives the lie to the criticism which has been made in this House today.

It is no harm to remember that when the Treaty of Rome was under consideration and the industrialists of France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries were considering what was going to happen, they were all mortally afraid of one another also. It is only natural, human nature being what it is, that any industry which is based mainly on the home market feels nervous about having to engage in an export market while being subjected to competition which it has not previously had to suffer.

It is well worth while reading some of the comments in the British press at the moment where they are criticising their own industrialists for sheltering behind protection. Very often as I read those papers, as I do for my own education, I find it very difficult to believe that I am not reading an Irish paper speaking about Irish industry because the criticisms in British newspapers are exactly the same. I have taken the trouble over the years to keep an eye on the developments in Europe and I find that the same situation obtained amongst the Six before they came together. Their industrialists were afraid of one another just as to a considerable extent we are rather afraid of this competition also.

I do not think we should ever feel that we are the only people with problems. All the members of the Six have had their problems and a number of those problems still remain. So that our proposed membership of the Community does not mean that we as complete amateurs are going to become associated with high pressure professional business tycoons with whom everything is at the moment going magnificently.

Take Italy, for instance, at the moment. The rate of increase of production in Italy has been very considerable indeed but she still has a very large problem of emigration. I think about 1,000,000 Italians have already emigrated to Germany since the termination of hostilities in the second World War and she has had the same trouble as we have had on the question of migration within the country itself. There has been a very high rate of migration from the poverty-stricken areas of Southern Italy to the more prosperous industrial areas of the North. So that Italy has her problems all right.

Take France on her agricultural problems alone. Our farmers have had their troubles, they have had their protests, they have held their protest meetings but the French farmers have not been as gentlemanly as our own; they have become extremely violent, blocking the roads, throwing produce around the streets and becoming extremely violent and troublesome. For any French Government, the problems of French agriculture must be a very great headache and of course France has her political worries in Algeria, not to mention in metropolitan France itself.

Germany has made a remarkable recovery since the war and her people have worked extremely hard to get the country back on its feet, but now there is growing labour unrest because the employees have begun to feel, and I must sympathise with them, that they have worked for the Fatherland long enough, long hours at low wages. Now they feel it is time they got some greater share of the prosperity they have restored to their country. Strikes are beginning to break out; demands for increased wages are being made; and in recent months the rate of increase of production has considerably slowed down.

All that means that when we join, as I hope and believe we will, this Community, we will not be joining people who have everything running their way already. We will be joining partners who have had troubles in the past and who still have troubles. To say that our worries and our difficulties are far greater than anybody else's is just not true, for which I think we should feel devoutly thankful. I admit there is no ground for complacency in the present situation but that does not mean we should be indulging in a policy of spreading despondency. It is very right that the Opposition should criticise the Government all the time to try to keep the Government on their toes but merely to moan about everything being so dreadful is very unconstructive, most unhelpful, not in the public interest and I do not think it is even going to give any political advantage.

There are many signs which give us ground for confidence. I was speaking only yesterday to a member of a large building contracting firm in this city whose activities are entirely devoted to building industrial premises. He told me his firm had never been employing so many men and that they were unable to accept any more contracts for building to commence earlier than 1964. Their entire labour force was fully booked up to 1964. I cannot imagine for a moment that hardheaded business men are putting hundreds of thousands of pounds into new factory building if the situation is even half as dismal as the Opposition would have us believe. Granted, the rate of increase of production may fluctuate from time to time. That is only natural. The fact remains that industrial production is increasing steadily.

There has been some criticism of our development of the tourist trade. It does seems that possibly bookings for this year were not quite as high as had been hoped, but I certainly could not follow Deputy Dillon in his contention that all the tourists who come here are returning Irish who have had to emigrate and are just coming home for holidays. Certainly, if they are all Irish, they have picked up Cockney, Lancashire and Welsh accents remarkably quickly and judging by some of the cars I see coming ashore at Dún Laoghaire, they have done amazingly well since they emigrated. Some of them appear to have emigrated as far as France, Germany, Switzerland and have come back here with cars bearing the registration numbers of those countries. Really that is nonsense. The great proportion of the tourists are genuine tourists. One has only to stand on the side of the road at the Airport or at any of the seaports to get confirmation of that.

We cannot undertake that the rate of increase of tourism will be absolutely uniform because here you are dealing with the tastes of people which vary very much from year to year. All sorts of outside circumstances over which we have no control may send a greater stream of tourist traffic to the Continent one year, to the United Kingdom another year and to us in another year. Here again, if the policy was unsound of supporting the tourist traffic by increased grants to hotels for expansion, how can we explain the investment of a considerable amount of American money in hotels in this city alone, not to mention the investment of German and other moneys in other hotels around the country?

Can you imagine an organisation such as the Hilton organisation, with its hotels all over the world, seriously considering building a large hotel out at Santry, unless and until they had made a very careful analysis of the tourist potential of the country generally? We can rest assured they would have been very careful indeed and the fact that they are developing that hotel and that so much American money is going into the other new hotel at Ballsbridge should give us confidence in ourselves, if we need it. I cannot see why we keep on losing confidence in ourselves. It is time we began to build up our morale and realised there are very few things, if any, we cannot do just as well as anybody else.

All this talk about technical know-how is of some value but of a very limited amount. We heard exactly the same thing being said at the time of the Suez crisis, when it was clearly laid down that the running of the Suez Canal was something which only the white man could understand, that once the European control and European technicians were taken away from the Suez Canal, it would become completely flooded, it would become silted up, all the ships would crash into one another or that some other dreadful thing would happen. It took the Egyptians about half a day or a full day to find out how the thing worked and it has worked extremely smoothly ever since. There is not half the technical know-how needed as some bigwigs would have us believe.

There is one matter on which considerable progress has been made, although in this regard there has been some criticism of the Government also, that is, the question of labour relations. The Government are often criticised for being reluctant to intervene in labour disputes and the cry goes out: "The community must be protected; somebody should do something." To any Government, that must be a temptation when they find the community being held up to ransom in a way which the Government feel is entirely unjustified. The way in which it has been tackled by this Government is the right way, and it is beginning to pay off.

There was a certain amount of irresponsibility on both sides in the matter of labour relations but the reaction of the public has been so solid, so unmistakable, that at last the trade unions and the employers have seen that the time has come when they must keep constantly in consultation with each other and not wait until some crisis has broken out. There is a lack of discipline which is very obvious in the trade union movement but there is an equal lack of discipline which is not nearly so obvious amongst employers. I would hope that this new movement which is developing satisfactorily will gain strength and that the unions will be able to impress on their members that indiscipline is a source of weakness to the trade union movement and that the employers will be able to convince their members to the same effect.

How much better it will be if success can be achieved by mutual consultation rather than by Government interference. The Government could at any stage, with the requisite majority, make lightning strikes illegal and there are many people who feel that would be a good thing to do in the interest of the community. However, that would inevitably build up resistance in the trade union movement generally and, I think, rightly so. If the unions themselves can convince their members that the whole basis of the strength of the trade union movement is the ability of a trade union to negotiate collectively with the employer, then a great step forward will have been taken.

The employers must also realise that it is in their interest to join an employers' organisation so that better negotiations at a high level can be carried out constantly on questions of wages, conditions of employment, and so forth. Employers, too, should be encouraged and in fact more than encouraged, forced, by their own fellows to a situation where once an agreement has been reached between the employers' organisation and the trade union, the employers will stand over that settlement to a man. Unfortunately, cases do take place when a dispute arises that negotiations take place and an agreement is accepted and then when one employer decides to get ahead of his competitors, he breaks that agreement and tries to get some advantage from doing so. Therefore criticism as regards indiscipline is not one which applies to one side only. It definitely applies to both sides.

The Government have given a lead in this matter and every possible encouragement to the unions and employers to come together and to stay together. I only hope that in due course the results of their negotiations can be made evident to us all. If the employers and the trade unions wish then jointly to ask the Government for some statutory recognition of any agreement which they may reach, I am sure the Government will be only too pleased to grant it.

There has been some criticism of the policy of allowing subsidiary companies to operate here. Deputy Dr. Browne particularly has painted a very dismal picture of what will happen to the subsidiary companies, once we join the European Economic Community. Why he thinks that, I cannot understand, because once a company has launched a subsidiary here and invested an enormous amount of money in it, it would be very reluctant to see its investment crash. I do not think there is any danger that will happen, particularly in view of the fact that in industry generally there is an increasing move to spread industry over a wide area geographically because it is much easier very often to manage a number of firms in different countries, at least in most of them, and keep production going all the time than if it is centralised completely. One labour dispute can stop the whole production. Therefore it is becoming more and more common to have subsidiary companies all around the world.

I do not think we should feel dubious about these subsidiaries but that we should welcome them. The idea that immediately membership of the European Economic Community is granted to us, we shall have 60,000 unemployed is mercifully complete nonsense. Nothing will happen all that quickly. I believe that Irish industrialists are fully aware of the position and are already working very hard to make alternative plans for production so that the number of redundant workers may be reduced to the minimum. I would hope and believe that the number of redundant workers in particular industries which may suffer will be absorbed in the new industries which are now being created.

In conclusion, may I say that I regard this whole prospect with the greatest possible excitement. We must go into this Community, not just for what we can get out of it but because we have a contribution to make towards it.

Hear, hear!

We must go into it with our heads up, without actually sticking our chins out.

Hear, hear !

If we are prepared to do this with the same cheerful optimism as Deputy Dillon is now displaying, we have every reason to believe it will be a triumphant success and not the disaster he said it would be this morning.

Who said it? Thank God for unrestricted free speech. I am prepared to suffer almost anything for that.

If there is one way in which the Taoiseach is always consistent, it is that he adverts first of all to figures in relation to one facet of our economy. I refer to the industrial sector and those in insurable employment. Those are the people who can guard against an increase in the cost of living simply by ordinary trade union action. The Taoiseach always refers first to those who produce industrial goods. He says today that we have produced more and that there are more in industrial employment. Is it not true that if I simply drive a car 30,000 miles I will contribute to more industrial employment than any of us here could have done by any action of ours 30 or 40 years ago? If I shave with an electric razor, I am creating more industrial employment.

This is an age of industrial consumption. There will be more employment in that way as life becomes more complicated and less simple than it was in days gone by. I do not regard the figures the Taoiseach gave as displaying any sort of victory because we were so far behind in this field. If for no other reason than that we had a labour force here, the increase in that field was bound to have occurred. I would point to a section which comprises more than 50 per cent. of our population who are not guarded against increases in the cost of living — our farmers, small shopkeepers and self-employed people, all of whom give a service. They have to live on their profits and in most cases these profits are less than they were many years ago. They have to do that on the basis of a consumer price index and, taking 1947 at 100, that now stands at 154. Since 1957, there has been an increase of ten points. That is the reason we have got this colossal emigration.

What is colossal about it?

I have no difficulty in telling Deputy Cunningham, if he will allow me. Last summer, I spoke to the parish priest in Newport in County Mayo and he told me of a new type of emigration. Seventy keys had been turned in 70 doors in the previous couple of years. Earlier, the type of emigration from that part of the country was of boys and girls going to England and Scotland and coming back at Christmas and for holidays. Yet Deputy Cunningham says it is not important.

I said no such thing.

The section to which I have referred, comprising more than 50 per cent. of our population, was not referred to at all by the Taoiseach. The tragedy about the thing is that if we move into the Common Market— and I do not say we should do so in any downhearted way—the people who will be most susceptible to the new form of competition will be the people whose jobs are less secure—the fewer than 50 per cent. of whom the Taoiseach boasted this morning. That is the situation we must face up to.

Right through the last decade, the Government have been determined at every opportunity to do things like the removal of the food subsidies to nail their colours to the mast of a high cost economy. That has been done three times with disastrous effects for the people who are self-employed, the farmers and the small shopkeepers. The Government now face the situation where, by their own action, there may be disastrous results for the other people who were sheltered by their membership of trade unions and in the Civil Service by their arbitration machinery.

The difference between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil is that Fianna Fáil never bothered about that other section of the community and that Fine Gael tried to bring them all up together. Fianna Fáil Deputies may laugh but I will tell a homely story of the count in the last general election. As we in Louth were watching the count, the figures coming in were not so hot for the Government. A Fianna Fáil county councillor came up to me and I said: "Well, what now?" What do you think he said? "Forget about it," he said. "Wait until the good ignorant Republican constituencies come in." That was his attitude. It was: "Wrap the green flag round us." You have still that ideology.

Go back to 1955 and 1956.

If Deputy Burke wants to interrupt me he will get his own back. The Taoiseach always addresses his remarks to the section of the community where the most votes can be had—the organised section. Let us consider for a while the high price economy policy of the Government. Let us take the report issued this morning—a very good report—of Bord Fáilte for the year ending in March, 1962. Then let us consider the returns published in the newspapers for this season up to August and we find that the hotels are doing badly. We know why. Go to any seaside resort at the present time and you will have no difficulty in making a reservation at a hotel. What is the answer? The secret is that tourists are now buying their own ham and their own bread and butter and are having their meals in the backs of their cars in hundreds on the main roads in the country because of the exceedingly high prices being charged by our first-class hotels. I do not suggest that hoteliers are grossly overcharging but that in the high-price economy in which we live, they must charge these prices to get a profit. We have been caught up by the actions of the present Government since 1957 and one of our major industries, tourism, is in real danger of pricing itself out of the market as a result.

(Interruptions.)

Lest anybody should imagine I am thinking this up, I look at the "funnies" in the Evening Herald and other papers and in yesterday's Herald there was a caricature of a train outside every door of which were several pairs of boots and shoes. Underneath was the caption: “The transport people say there are tourists but the hotels say they have not got them.” These caricatures generally hit the nail on the head. The high-price economy of the Government has hurt one of our major industries.

(Interruptions.)

If I am allowed by some of the Fianna Fáil backbenchers who have not contributed to this debate, or attempted to do so, I want to refer to the cost of public transport. The cost is exceedingly high. That is a result of the policy laid down for CIE. I do not suggest that the people in CIE should lose their jobs or that there should be a savage cutting down of services, but that as branch lines are closed and people can be assimilated elsewhere, it should be the policy of CIE—which it is not—to restrict their activities and leave transport of goods and people to private enterprise competition, if there are citizens willing to undertake it.

That would require legislation.

The Deputy should go back to the hotels.

We got back as far as the Suez Canal. Deputy Burke did not come from a hotel here but from another establishment.

On a point of order, I must direct the attention of the Chair to the fact that we are not discussing exclusively the Supplementary Estimate for the Taoiseach's Department. We arranged, out of courtesy to the Taoiseach, to take the Supplementary Estimate as the Adjournment Debate. We are not discussing the Estimate exclusively.

Before we discussed procedure. I was saying that CIE should leave the transport of goods and people to private enterprise competition when they have assimilated the people displaced by the closing of branch lines. In that way, you will get a decrease in the cost of transport, which has moved to an extraordinarily high level here, much higher than in England or on the Continent and that is another reason why we lose tourists. Tourists employ our people and earn badly-needed foreign currency, thus helping the balance of payments. CIE must be restrained or led to see what the situation should be, because in a big company like CIE the trend is always to expand.

I remember talking to a certain ESB official about the fact that they were in competition with ordinary traders, selling refrigerators and other articles which the ESB sell with great advantages because of their particular situation. I argued that there was no reason why they should compete with ordinary traders who were paying rates and were citizens of the country when the ESB have the advantage of being able to turn off the light and not having bad debts. He replied that when you have 700 or 800 employed in selling refrigerators and other appliances, each one seeking a chance of promotion and each one seeking security in employment, you do not stand in the same place in business. You move forward or backward. Every big company wants to expand and I believe the Taoiseach should dictate, as he may do, to CIE, a policy of opening to free competition the branch line routes that have been closed and so decrease the present cost of living in some way.

The Taoiseach was chided this morning for not telling the Oireachtas in the first instance, some things he told other people regarding the implications of our joining the Common Market. It is quite understandable that the Taoiseach should be a bit reticent about this because the whole concept by which he sought to convince the people that he was the genius of industrialisation was in danger. No doubt, the industries he did suggest here are those that existed behind tariff walls. No doubt, they could be described as feather-bedded industries in some cases, or industries that charge more at home and sell their supplies abroad at a lower price. Without going into individual cases, that is true. All that will not be permissible in the Common Market if one looks at the provisions of the Treaty of Rome.

Taking the section that deals with the free movement of goods, Article 9, on page 27, of the English version, there is a paragraph which says:

The Community shall be based upon a customs union covering the exchange of all goods and comprising both the prohibition as between Member States, of customs duties on importation and exportation and all charges with equivalent effect and the adoption of a common customs tariff in their relations with third countries.

There is no way out, no way you can get past a free customs union of six or ten countries and we all confidently expect it will be ten. In that situation, it is quite natural that the Taoiseach should be very reticent and should like to gloss over the whole thing. I believe, however, that he must face it and, in reply to this debate, say what the facts are and say what are the political and other implications.

There is one other matter which is a political matter and one to which I have referred before. If the number of votes for Fianna Fáil that were cast for the maintenance of insular economic isolation could be counted, it would be found that that is what has kept them in power for 30 years. It is quite true that people voted for them on the basis of the Sinn Féin policy in industry which is now as dead as mutton.

That is the way you would like to see it.

I would be happy to see the Sinn Féin policy with regard to industry as dead as mutton. I refer now to the policy, not to the industry. We should not get hypersensitive about the Common Market and it was the Taoiseach's duty to refer to other matters in which the Government have a great responsibility. One of the things to which I would like to draw attention is health. I know that we put up a policy with regard to health in the last election and that we put down a motion when we came back to this House to which the Minister for Health put down an amendment and as a result of that we are now meeting in a Select Committee on Health. We are all well aware of those things and the Taoiseach cannot cast aside his responsibility in these matters.

The Deputy had six years in which to do it and what did he do?

Quite a lot. I could tell the Deputy what we did but I am not going to be put off by Deputy Burke's bad mannered act. I am going to deal with the situation in regard to health. It is quite possible in this country for two old age pensioners living together not to be able to enjoy the provisions made for the lower income group. It is quite possible at the same time for four or five of their sons or daughters to be spending all their money or drinking their heads off and at the same time to hold individually green, blue or whichever is the relevant colour of health card.

At the same time, there is so much confusion in relation to the health services that yesterday I had to dictate 20 letters to the responsible officer in my constituency in relation to health matters. It is the Taoiseach's job to see to it that everybody in this country does not have to go for their medicines or whatever else they get on the basis that it is charity. There is no reason why any Deputy in this House should have to write one letter, not to say 20, in relation to health to any officer of his local authority. What the people are entitled to they should get proudly and not as a shilling or a half-crown being given to a beggerman. There is no reason why the Taoiseach should not be asked to get over that difficulty. If our Select Committee on Health sits for a long time and then produces its recommendations it is quite obvious that the Government is going to go through this term of office without doing anything about it. As I have said it is possible for two old age pensioners living together——

That would seem to be more relevant to the Estimate for the Department of Health.

I thought this was the Adjournment Debate, Sir.

It is overall policy which is being discussed, not the administration of individual Departments.

I will not pursue the matter further except to say that it is time the Taoiseach would know that these things can happen. The same is also true with regard to the specification of hospitals. Even with the great personal nature of the medical profession we find that patients must take what is afforded them even though there are hospitals close to them which provide the services they need to others.

The Taoiseach adverted to agriculture's share of the national income. The Leader of the Opposition said that by taking in each other's washing we can increase the national income on a book keeping basis. There were a few statements made by the Taoiseach which indicated to me where his heart lies and where his thought moves. He said that the national income was increasing faster than the increase in the incomes from agriculture and he said that this was very pleasurable to him but that a proper balance had not yet been achieved. He then mentioned Denmark and Holland which are agricultural countries but which have a much greater proportion of their national income represented by earnings from industry.

That would be a fair approach if we had full development of our agricultural resources and almost as full a development of our industrial resources. The situation here is that for various reasons the potential of our 12,000,000 acres of arable land has not reached 50 per cent. in production and, at the same time, our industries are largely supply industries behind tariff walls which supply the needs of our people.

In that situation the Taoiseach must decide where he is going to look for any increase in our national income. He implied that he was going to look for it in industry rather than in agriculture. On this side of the House we believe that both sides of our economy must move together but that, as they move, the greatest potential exists in agriculture. We believe that 50 per cent. of their potential is not being extracted from the fields of Ireland. We believe that if the Taoiseach would live up to his responsibilities and provide a proper agricultural advisory service, as advocated by the Leader of the Opposition, and also provide at least a minimum amount of capital to each farmer for specified purposes to be watched over by the agricultural advisers and if we could proceed with the diversification of our agricultural productivity that we would get from our arable land a return that would stagger this country.

The Taoiseach does not believe that. He believes that the gap between the income from industry and the income from agriculture should widen with agriculture at the bottom and industry at the top. That is where he goes wrong. I should like to quote paragraphs 33 and 34 on page 20 from the Grey Book on Economic Development which is so well known to the House. Paragraph 33 says:—

In general, however, it would seem that attention should be concentrated primarily on raising the efficiency and volume of production in agriculture and in industries based on agriculture. Otherwise, there is little chance of avoiding economic stagnation and a continual loss in population. The measures already in force —extensive and costly though they are—have not succeeded in increasing agricultural output at a satisfactory rate or on a fully economic basis. The provision on a wider scale and the wholehearted acceptance by farmers of expert technical advice and assistance is needed. Means will have to be found to secure increased use of fertilisers, improvement of grasslands, more efficient and extensive use of homegrown feeding stuffs for conversion into export products, the reduction of costs and prices through increased yields and better marketing arrangements. It is necessary to re-examine existing measures of financial assistance in order to relate them more directly to increased and more efficient production. Separate chapters are devoted later to matters such as these.

Paragraph 34 states:

At this point, it need only be emphasised that, if an increase in agricultural production at competitive prices were achieved, the purchasing power of the farming community would be greatly raised and their demand for goods and services stimulated. The effect of this in creating additional employment in industry and services is vitally important because the possibilities of absorbing labour in agriculture are limited. Indeed, the provision of lasting employment turns on the concurrent development of manufacturing industry (mainly for export) and of tertiary industries, particularly tourism. But all this can be set in motion by improvements in agriculture, where the immediate potentialities of increased production are very great.

Yet the Taoiseach this morning put the cart before the horse and exposed the Fianna Fáil philosophy of keeping the farmer happy by giving him some little sop to keep him from creating too great a fuss, but, at the same time, keeping the upsurge on the other side.

Some extraordinary statements were made which I could not let pass. Deputy Booth made an extraordinary statement on land reclamation. He said that land reclaimed under Part A remained in good heart and did not revert to its previous unproductive state, while that reclaimed under Part B did. I cannot understand that. I do not think he realises that the same operations can be carried out on both lands and it is merely a difference in the methods of paying for them.

Again, the Deputy said he reacted very much to the proposal to increase beef production. Does he not know that it is estimated that by 1965 there will be a deficiency of 380,000 tons of beef in the Common Market countries? Is that not one of the lines on which we can go forward? He said you cannot produce beef without producing milk. That leads me to feel that Fianna Fáil do not want an increase in agricultural production. They got the answer from this side of the House: diversify your production into chocolate crumb, dried milk and all the other milk products for which there is a market in the world today and which I hope Bord Báinne will exploit. It is amazing that, when Deputy Booth was saying these things, Deputy Medlar said in a loud voice "True". Here is a man from Carlow-Kilkenny who does not at this stage understand the Land Project.

Nobody understands the Deputy.

The last time we were talking about milk, Deputy Burke left the House in a hurry and it might not be a bad idea if he did so now, too. Deputy Carter referred to the fact that farms were much smaller on the Continent and gave the impression that everything would be all right when we enter the Common Market. You cannot compare the size of farms on the Continent with the size of farms here. Did the Deputy ever hear of an olive grove or oranges in the sun? Acres do not count in relation to these things. These are things which have been there for years. From one acre or half an acre, a farmer in Italy or the South of France may be getting as much as a farmer with 25 acres here. We have not got the sun here, but we have something else. We have better production of grass. It is quite extraordinary that here, where we have the temperate products everybody wants, the prices in the hotels are scandalous because of the high-price policy of the Government.

Deputy Carter made another statement which should be corrected. He said we were savage critics of the Department of Agriculture on this side of the House. I want to put it on record that we are not, but we are proud to be savage critics of the Minister for Agriculture.

Personalities again.

Deputy Burke has asked whether or not this is a personal attack. Of course, it is an attack on his policies and not on the Minister himself. I have no interest in him.

The Deputy is hedging now.

Deputy Carter also referred to the rate of agricultural exports but did not refer to the fact that since 1958 there has been a decrease of 337,000 in the number of cattle on the land. Whether that is due to the T.B. Eradication Scheme or the beef subsidy last year, we do not know. That figure and the figure for agricultural exports are fixed figures nobody can fiddle with. The people on the land have not enjoyed a better living. Some of them may have enjoyed the same living by living off their own fat.

The Deputy took pride in the fact that 80 per cent. of the store cattle exported last year were attested. Is it not obvious that, if you have a beef subsidy and, at the same time, are slaughtering cattle, the reactors will go out as beef cattle and as sides of beef rather than as store cattle? These are merely statistics which are useful for the local paper, but that is all. If anybody comes up with another statistic, that is the end of it.

If there is one other way in which the Taoiseach and the Government have failed the country, it is in regard to education. At Question Time to-day, we had a series of questions concerning the facilities provided in Government Departments for the learning of Continental languages to fit us for the Common Market. While it is true that adults are trying now to brush up their French and other languages, nobody has said that the children in our schools should get proper tuition in one Continental language. This is something the Taoiseach can direct. He is giving grants to secondary schools and he can direct the type of education to be given. The same thing applies to national schools. But the Taoiseach has not done so.

I shall give you my own experience, which is, I am sure, the experience of many Deputies on both sides. I went from the Christian Brothers to a college. I started off with Latin, English and no Continental language and I finished that way. If I am wise, I will try to teach myself one Continental language in the near future. Is it not true—Deputy Dolan may laugh; he is a teacher—that when one reaches secondary school level, there should be at least one Continental language on the curriculum? Is it not true that there is more reason for compulsion in relation to at least one Continental language than there is for compulsion in relation to our own language?

(Interruptions.)

That is certainly my view. I would sooner have a situation in which our people would be on a par with the people of Denmark, Holland, England, and everywhere else.

(Interruptions.)

I would prefer that they should be on par rather than they should not be. If compulsion were removed——

(Interruptions.)

Deputies must allow Deputy Donegan to speak.

If compulsion were removed, more Irish would be learned and spoken. In the great majority of cases—I have said this before—the mark of an educated Irishman is that he has no love for the language. He has no love for it because it was shoved down his neck.

(Interruptions.)

And the mark of an educated Welshman or Scotsman is that he does know his language because it was not shoved down his neck.

(Interruptions.)

I do not intend to enter into a discussion here on the policy of the Irish language. I think it is relevant and I think it is a tragedy that the Taoiseach has not availed, even at this late hour, of this opportunity to tell us that he is negotiating with the secondary schools to ensure that at least one Continental language is taught to the children. The Taoiseach has sat back, happy and complacent. There was no mention of languages. There is no excuse for that. Languages are most important. This marks just one more direction in which the Government have failed.

Finally, I should like to point out that Ireland will never be a completely organised community. It will always have a high proportion of self-employed people, people providing small services in their own immediate community. I do not think these people have any greater claim on the economy than organised industry, and the people employed in it, have. I do not think they have any greater claim on the economy than civil servants, local authority officials, or anyone else, but I think they have got as good a claim, and I do not think this Government has given them as good, and for a very good reason; they are not as good a political fiddle to play. What we want now is a Government that will look to their needs as well as to the needs of those who are very often in a better position to help themselves. This Government has failed in that respect and the sooner they go to the country and give us a chance to do it, the better it will be for all concerned.

I listened with attention this morning to the Taoiseach's speech. It was very reserved. It presented quite a good report. I was amazed later when the Leader of the Opposition, who also showed great restraint, seemed to agree entirely with the Taoiseach, especially in relation to our entry into the Common Market. We may take it now it is ipso facto a fait accompli. I have no complaint in that regard.

To show how foolish I am, I thought, having heard these speakers, that we might be concluding here at five o'clock this evening. There did not seem to be any great bones of contention. It seemed feasible that we should finish at five o'clock. I have sat here since shortly before six o'clock. The first discordant note struck in the debate was that struck by the two Fianna Fáil speakers who spoke since six o'clock. They gave the impression they were on the defensive. Why I do not know. I listened then to Deputy Blowick. He seemed to think there had been a good deal of acrimony in the debate, but up to that hour I was not even aware of spasmodic sniping across the floor of the House.

It was pleasant to listen to Deputy Anthony Barry. He referred to education. He made a very fine contribution in my opinion, reasoned and unbiased, objective and devoid of any suspicion of a personal factor or any element of Party politics. His contribution seemed to be quite sincere. I should not have the temerity Deputy Booth had, treating the House to a travel talk, with emphasis on Continental features of agriculture. I know nothing about agriculture. I have, however, said here before—I think this is pertinent—that any subsidisation there may be of agriculture should be for the purpose of enabling farmers to improve their premises and increase the wages of their farm labourers. When factories are being built in rural Ireland, immediately the contractor goes on the site every agricultural worker will try to find a job on the site. Normally he has to work much harder than his counterpart in the building trade. His wages are much lower. We have brought that on ourselves with this industrial development. That aspect ought to be considered.

The Taoiseach gave the employment figures for the year 1961. They were not bad at all. The fact that emigration is decreasing is a good thing. Some years ago the Taoiseach sent out a call to our emigrants to come back. He said today that we are now experiencing a lack of skilled craftsmen in this country. Our emigrants in Britain are not getting better wages than they would get here. Building trade operatives in Dublin are paid better than their counterparts in London.

Hear, hear!

They work very much longer hours in England. They work all day on Saturday and, in many cases, on Sunday, too. They may get greater money for working much longer hours. Why do they not come home? It is because there are no houses for them here. I appeal to the Taoiseach to consider the position of these people. They have become trained operatives. They are anxious to come home. Can they be housed if they do? They cannot. As Deputy Sherwin said the other day, there is no hope of their being housed for the next ten years. I am sure Deputy Burke has experience of Dublin city. There is no hope of providing houses for these people. Even a letter from the Taoiseach will not procure a house. There are married couples, with one child, sharing a room. These are the conditions. A rosy picture has been painted of other sectors of our economy. I appeal to the Taoiseach, when he has time to relax during the recess, to give consideration to this question of housing.

I was impressed this morning when Deputy Dillon referred to the small farmer looking over the gate admiring his little bit of land. Yes, that is good. Could we take an analogy? Can the Taoiseach do anything to ensure that the people living in the 40,000 houses owned by Dublin Corporation can purchase their homes? That would be a greater factor in stopping emigration than anything else. It would give these people a stake in the country, just as the small farmer has a stake, so that no matter how bad conditions might be, the small farmer will remain. I understand that the great obstacle is that the Government subsidy would cease if the local authority allowed these tenants to purchase their homes in which they have lived for over 20 years and in some cases over 30 years.

The Taoiseach has been accused of being the greatest feather-bedder. The old age pensioners do not think that. They have no feather bed.

I trust I shall never get to the stage when I just want to talk from one side of the House to the other, as the Opposition to the Government, but I was disappointed with the social services provisions. I have shown my disappointment in the House. I supported the Government but I was disappointed with the social services, more than disappointed. Even at this late stage, I would appeal to the Taoiseach to think of this section of the community since we are giving so much thought to the industrialists, the hoteliers and the other sections who seem to be getting a good return for their efforts. The old age pensioners have made their effort in the past. Many of them contributed much to the establishment of this State that has developed to the stage where we can join a Common Market. If our membership of the Common Market means the eventual removal of Partition, maybe it will be a very good day's work.

I have not the experience of industry that Deputy Booth has. I hope the Common Market is a success. I am not particularly concerned whether it is under a Fine Gael Government or a Fianna Fáil Government, but I hope this country may be successful. To quote Lincoln, we want government for the people—that is as it should be— not for individualist, not for the display of jealousies across the House, of which we have had so much even in the short period I have been here. As I have said before, I have not spoken often in this House because I wanted to learn from my elders. It is with regret that I say I am afraid I did not learn much.

I just want to refer briefly to the last speaker. He had a great deal to say about the old age pensioners and expressed disappointment with our system of social services generally. I should like him to tell the old age pensioners in his constituency that when they were getting an increase and when the Fianna Fáil Government tried to be as generous as the resources of the State would allow, Deputy Carroll voted against that increase. He really voted against that increase. I am not sure whether any of my friends saw him going through the Lobby or not but I think he did vote against the increase. He cannot have it both ways.

I did not vote for 2/6d.

It is our intention to improve the lot of our less fortunate brethren in every way possible.

I listened to Deputy Donegan this evening. I came in peaceably to the House. My intention was not to speak at all because the Taoiseach had spoken on our behalf and I felt that was enough but having listened to Deputy Donegan I decided I would answer him on a few points.

Deputy Donegan made the point that we were not concerned with the farming community, that he had the cure for all ills, that his Party represented the intelligent outlook and that anything that was to be got for the farmers would be through his Party, that if the farmers would vote for Fine Gael, we would all be living in a Utopia.

I shall go back only a few years, to 1955 and 1956, when we were faced with the position that this State was almost shipwrecked. Deputy Donegan referred to land reclamation, lime subsidies, and so on from which the farmers benefited under the inter-Party Government. The position in my constituency in County Dublin was that reconstruction grants could not be paid. There were no lime subsidies, there was no such thing as land reclamation, no such thing as the building of schools, no such thing as the building of houses. I have the honour to represent part of the city, as well as County Dublin. As an indication of the economic position in the city, may I say that there were about 1,800 families who left their homes due to economic circumstances under the inter-Party Government in 1955 and 1956?

A quarter of a million left since you got into office—250,000.

The trend is the other way now.

I do not know. They are still going the Taoiseach said.

We can take it up outside the House. I challenge anybody to take me up outside the House as well as inside the House.

Well, now, we would have a nice burden to carry, God bless you.

The trend is the other way. The people are coming back so quickly from England now that Dublin Corporation are not able to house them quickly enough. Since we took over in 1957——

A quarter of a million went.

I am grateful to the Deputy for his assistance with my speech but if he will allow me to make my point, I shall continue. In 1956, 1,800 families left Dublin. They are not leaving now to anything like the same extent.

They have all gone.

They are coming back now.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Burke is entitled to make his statement.

I am sorry if I am upsetting the Leader of the Opposition by telling the truth. I can assure him it is not my intention to upset him. I am merely stating facts. In 1956, in my own constituency of County Dublin, 350 houses were built for which people could not obtain SDA loans. All we got in this House was legislation by the then Minister for Local Government, Deputy O'Donnell, debarring people of a certain income from applying for ordinary SDA loans. On many occasions when I was in Opposition, I asked him to make an honest statement that there was no money in the kitty for building houses and not to be deceiving the people that there was plenty of money and that they should keep building.

A Deputy

He gave much more money than you did.

All you have to do is to ask any of the contractors in the city of Dublin.

Ten million pounds in 1956.

Ten million pounds in grants paid to the people.

There was not the price of a bag of cement when you were in office. People could not get money for houses. Contractors had to clear off to Canada, Australia and other places.

You will not let them start to build now.

That was the position until Deputy Paddy Smith became Minister for Local Government and enabled the contractors to honour the commitments they made on the advice of the previous Minister for Local Government who said there was plenty of money. At that time tradesmen were leaving for England and could not get away quickly enough. Not alone was the building trade declining but every other industry was feeling the recession.

Now we are asked what has Fianna Fáil done in the few years in which they have been in office. I remember the Taoiseach, the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, saying when Fianna Fáil were defeated in 1948: "We are handing this State over to you in a sound financial position. Give it back to us in the same way." We did not get it back in the same way. We got it back on the wrong side in 1951 and from 1951 to 1954 we had to take steps to rectify the weakened economic position. Being a national Party we were concerned for the wellbeing of all sections of the people. We always put the interests of the nation before our own personal interests.

Deputy Donegan was speaking here of food subsidies. We had to do a very hard thing in 1952. As a Deputy I was keen enough at that time to be concerned about the people that sent me here from County Dublin at a time when a tough Budget had to be introduced which would react on us as a Party. We had to take a decision in relation to the subsidies and although we were defeated in 1954 the people gave us a vote of confidence in 1957 and put us back in office.

The country is making considerable progress. The farming community is advancing and the workers who have got the eighth round of wage increases have improved their position. There is no such thing as an applicant for an SDA loan being refused. In regard to agriculture I wish to pay tribute to the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Smith, who I believe is one of the finest Ministers for Agriculture this country has ever had. During his time as Minister for Agriculture he has had one of the toughest jobs any Minister could have, namely, responsibility for the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme which was completely neglected by previous Ministers. He has done everything possible to hold the English market for the Irish farmer. Deputy Donegan said there was a market for the by-product of milk. Does he really think that any Minister for Agriculture would turn his back on a market if it was possible to provide one? I can assure Deputy Donegan and any of his friends that the Minister for Agriculture and his Department have left no stone unturned to get markets for agricultural products. As I say, Deputy Smith has done a very good national job and posterity may have reason to compliment him. He had to do in a few years a job which should have taken at least 20 years to accomplish, and he has done it well.

I do not want to delay the House because I know there are other Deputies who want to speak. Generally speaking, the economic position has improved and the standard of living of our people has improved as has their purchasing power. There is a number of things about which I may not be pleased but we can deal with those as time goes on. One problem that arises is that, due to our industrial drive in the city and county of Dublin, the workers are coming back from England to take up employment here and, therefore, there is a greater need for the provision of houses. The machinery that is there for dealing with the position is not adequate. Because of the new prosperity and the greater numbers employed, we have these housing problems in Dublin county and city and I would ask the Taoiseach and the Government to do everything possible to relieve this problem.

If there are any difficulties on the lines Deputy P.J. Burke mentioned, it is to get people to come back to their houses. Of course there is also the problem that there are now fewer houses being built than when the inter-Party Government were in power. The facts and figures are here but they have been quoted time and time again. I was glad to see today that the Taoiseach reiterated the reversal of Fianna Fáil policy from which this country suffered for many years when he says there is no future for any feather-bed enterprise here now. The Taoiseach and his Government were the fathers and mothers of feather-bed enterprises in this country and many feather-bed enterprises prospered under the protection given to them by Fianna Fáil Governments.

Better feather-bed than feather-head.

In his speech this morning, the Taoiseach threw another burden on this side of the House when he announced that we must be prepared to take risks in the economic sphere. What kind of risks? When, where and in what circumstances are these risks to be taken? Is this House to be left with a vague generality that we must be prepared to take risks? It is not the sort of statement the Leader of a Government should make here in the most important policy debate for the year. The House and the country are entitled to hear from the Taoiseach what exactly he means by the general statement that we must be prepared to take risks.

Does the Taoiseach mean this is going to be a game of political pongo— that we will throw the ball and hope it will go into the right hole? If he wants to take risks, he will find many industrialists who will take risks with him, provided they are not risking any or very much of their own money. There are plenty of wise boys ready to avail of anything they can get from Foras Tionscal because there is in this regard a generally dangerous trend in respect to industry in this country. If there is one motive more pressing than the profit motive, it is the motive to avoid loss and if you can find in this country that you can get sufficient financial incentive from the Government to ensure you will not make a loss, then the only motive left is the profit one.

I fear there is a fair amount of Irish capital bound up at the moment in enterprises here which could fold their tents in the morning without any great loss to anybody involved but with a fair amount of loss to the Irish people. I would again ask what further extension of this risk policy is implied in the statement we heard from the Taoiseach this morning. If that is the sort of risk the Taoiseach envisages, I trust he will accept it from this side of the House that the most stringent investigations will be insisted upon on behalf of the Irish people. The Government are the trustees of the funds of the Irish people and if we are to embark on further risks, it behoves us on the Opposition benches to inquire diligently into the reasons for those risks.

I mention that aspect of it because, in my view, there is a growing tendency on the part of the Taoiseach, on the part of his Ministers and of his backbenchers, as we saw when Deputy Donegan was speaking earlier in the evening, to become arrogant to the point of being objectionable when any valid, legitimate criticism comes from this side of the House. Only last week when the Leader of the Opposition, very rightly, as he had a mandate to do, made certain references to a coincidence which happened in respect to the enforced resignation or dismissal of a Civic Guard, the Taoiseach got very annoyed and said it was scandalous.

It must have been scandalous.

This does not seem to me to be relevant.

I am making a general observation in respect to the attitude of the Government towards criticism.

Yes, but does this reference to the alleged incident involve administration of a Department or the direction of a Department? To say that it involves overriding policy, general national policy, is really carrying it beyond the level of reasonableness.

Surely it is quite open to a Deputy to object if the Leader of the Government describes as scandalous something which the Leader of the Opposition said or any other member of this House said in the performance of his legitimate duty?

The Chair does not take that view.

Are we not discussing the Taoiseach's Estimate?

Surely at some stage a Deputy is entitled to object when the Taoiseach makes remarks of that nature. Otherwise, at what stage may a Deputy discuss such a matter?

On the Estimate for the Department concerned.

I am not referring to any Estimate. I am referring to a trend which has made itself evident in the Taoiseach's behaviour. I shall quote from the Official Report, at column 2348, for 17th July, 1962 :

Mr. Dillon: This is not a matter to be passed over in this way. The plain truth is there is a great deal of public malaise in regard to this matter. The plain truth is there is an outstanding coincidence in the fact that this member of the Garda Síochána was, in the course of his duty, associated with the prosecution of a member of the Government. Immediately after this he is involved in this extraordinary discipline story——

The Taoiseach: That is a scandalous statement to make. The Deputy should be ashamed of it.

How can that be elevated to the level of national policy?

It is symptomatic of a trend in the Government. I am using particular facts to show this trend.

I cannot allow that to be discussed on this Estimate. It does not seem to be relevant. The Deputy may find it easy to say, but that does not put it into the category of national policy for which the Taoiseach is responsible.

If I say plainly that the Taoiseach is trying to stifle legitimate criticism from this side of the House and that his attitude of arrogance——

This is the Estimate of the Taoiseach who very properly said to-day——

This is the legal expert from Longford——

Keep the light-house quiet. The Taoiseach stated this was a review of his activities and of the activities of his Government for the past 12 months. The incident Deputy Barrett is now discussing concerns an intervention in the debate by the Taoiseach and goes to show the trend of behaviour on the Government benches.

I gather now that a single incident of this kind is being elevated to the position of a matter of national importance.

I am not trying to elevate it.

Then I shall ask the Deputy to pass from it.

I should like to point out, arising out of the remark of the Chair, that I am not trying to elevate this to a matter of national importance by using a single incident to show what is the general trend. The reason I raise it is that I think it is important in the interests of rights of members of the House that they should be entitled to argue——

Deputies are always allowed to argue in a relevant manner, but to discuss the particular incident here is giving it undue prominence.

We are now discussing the Taoiseach's Estimate and, if so, we are surely entitled to discuss the actions of the Taoiseach in Dáil Éireann. This is the Taoiseach's Estimate and that is the occasion on which you discuss the conduct of the Taoiseach in the administration of his general responsibility in the past 12 months. If, as Leader of the House, the Taoiseach misconducts himself, is that not relevant——

If it is alleged that the Taoiseach has misconducted himself, there is a perfectly ordinary way of dealing with it—by motion.

Is this not a motion?

It is not a motion dealing particularly with the alleged disorderly remark of the Taoiseach.

It is a motion dealing with all the disorderly remarks of the Taoiseach.

I content myself with complaining of the trend I see in the Government Front Benches of describing legitimate criticism coming from this side of the House as disgraceful and scandalous.

If we are to embark on this policy on which the Taoiseach hopes to embark, I think the House is entitled to get much more information on matters of that kind. The Government have shown themselves unwilling to give this information in recent months. I trust I shall be permitted to mention an incident yesterday when a Dáil Question asked the reasons why the trial of a Senator was removed to the Central Court and Parliament was told it was not desirable that it should be informed of those reasons. I consider that a shocking invasion of the rights of Parliament. If Parliament cannot be told, who can? The Taoiseach says it is not usual to tell the judge. I am not interested in that, but the House has the right to demand from the Government the reasons why a citizen is removed from trial in the circuit court and put in the dock in Green Street.

The Taoiseach gives as the reasons that they had the interests of the man in question at heart. He forgot to tell us that the man in question was legally advised by his counsel and solicitor that it was not in his interest. He is an educated man, fit to hold a professorship in a constituent College of the National University and fit to sit in Seanad Éireann. It is ridiculous for the Taoiseach to try to avoid his responsibility to answer a question here by putting forward such a case. I realise that the answer might cause embarrassment somewhere but it is not the Taoiseach's or the Government's business to avoid causing embarrassment, if the liberties or rights of any citizen are at stake. I protest most vigorously against this invasion of the rights of Deputies.

I also regret the trend by which Deputies asking questions about CIE, broadcasting, etc., are told that the Minister has no function. I know that is our own fault; I know this House was responsible for it by voting away its rights; but I appeal to the Taoiseach in the future not even to invite the House to vote away the rights it has and which it should preserve on behalf of the Irish people. In my view, if this continues, Parliamentary democracy will die rapidly. The process has been accelerating in this House of late.

I do not intend to say much about the Common Market but I am sorry that no Deputy, so far as I know, who has so far spoken has gone any further than investigating the economic aspects of it. The Taoiseach at the Fianna Fáil Árd-Fheis and on other occasions gently suggested there were other ramifications. There is a political background to this but nowhere, so far as I can see, in the literature supplied to the House or to the country to date has there been any exhaustive examination of what is probably the more important aspect of the Common Market, the political aspect.

We have a Constitution. The Taoiseach told us in an airy sort of way that it might be necessary to amend the Constitution, if we enter the Common Market. It should be pointed out to him that he cannot amend the Constitution, nor can we. The Irish people alone can do it. When the Taoiseach went to Brussels to discuss the Common market, did he go in armed with a copy of the Constitution and say: "Here is a fundamental document by which our hands are tied and we can give no promise that will take us one iota beyond the terms of that document?"

It is strange that the Leader of the Government should come back and say in an incidental fashion that at some stage it might be necessary to amend the Constitution. That is probably true but I do not think it should be said or envisaged until we know what the people think. I object to the fact that the Irish people have been almost completely starved of information on the political implications of the Common Market. We know we shall have to surrender much of our sovereignty, but there are certain aspects of legislation in which our hands are tied, both by tradition and the Faith which the majority of our people adhere to. It has been truly said that the legislation of a country is the aggregate of the collective conscience of the governed. Our collective conscience is displayed in our Constitution and our laws. They are Catholic and Christian, adhering to certain immutable principles in some respects. If we surrender our sovereignty to some supra-national Parliament, no matter how federal it may be, we may very easily reach the stage where we find ourselves up against certain aspects of international legislation to which we cannot conscientiously subscribe. That is a distinct possibility.

The people should be instructed on these aspects of the Common Market. We should stop calling it the Common Market and call it something to indicate that it is a political union, in the hope that the Irish people will become a little more inquisitive about it. I am not suggesting that I object to entering the Common Market, but if the Irish people are now instructed in every aspect of it and told that it is not merely a matter of bread and butter but that it might become a matter of spiritual and moral problems also they will be in a better position to indicate through their representatives in this House and in the Seanad to the Government exactly the line the Government should take.

We are being forced into the Common Market by virtue of the fact that we are close neighbours of Britain. If we go in, let us try to do so as far as possible on our own terms. I know that is not at all possible on the economic side but I think the Government should be in a position to insist that, if they become subject to legislation, they should be entitled to make our views very plain.

I do not want to keep the House much longer. Deputy Donegan referred to the activities of Bord Fáilte Éireann. He referred to the fact that it was quite easy to get bed and breakfast in any hotel in Dublin at the moment. He referred to the fact that tourists preferred to take their meals at the side of the road than enter a hotel. He indicated the reason for that was not that the hotels were overcharging but that the cost of foodstuffs was so high that they could not afford it. I am not ready to be so indulgent. Many hotels are pricing themselves out of a highly-subsidised market which Bord Fáilte has with immense industry and money voted by this House built up. There are hotels here in Dublin where there is price for a visitor with an Irish accent and one, much larger, price for the foreigner. I regret that is so. It is something of which the Taoiseach should take note. It is a sequel to the activities of Bord Fáilte which should be deprecated.

This has turned into one of the most amazing free-for-all debates one could wish to hear. Some time ago, we had Deputy Blowick and six, seven or eight other Deputies. We had the expected contribution from Deputy Dr. Browne and nothing lower, I think, could be delivered in any House of Parliament in the world, but even more amazing than all these contributions was that of Deputy Desmond with his typical replica of a fair day speech. At the time, I was inclined to take Deputy Desmond seriously because I did not realise until later— he is returning now—that he was just killing time in the hope that his pals from Galway would return in time for the vote here tonight. Deputy Desmond, however, was not aware at that stage of the hospitality of the people of the West. His pals from Galway will not be back in time for the vote tonight, whether it is brandy or something else they are getting.

From Deputy Desmond's contribution, one would think we were in a kind of concentration camp in this country and if we were not, that we should be put into one. It was an extraordinary contribution to a debate of this type, particularly when one considers it came from a member of the Labour Party. Surely a member of the Labour Party should be inclined to praise the workers of the country and make known to the workers their good qualities, instead of trying to publicise something that is not happening at all, saying that we are in the nature of a nation of parasites. If Deputy Desmond's contribution were printed in toto and if the industrialists of Europe read it, no matter what facilities we offered, no matter what incentives we made available, I do not believe that one of then would come near us to set up any type of industry. It is most discouraging to hear a man who gets up and tries to hold up Irish employers and workers to ridicule because these workers are the very same people who have gone to the ends of the earth and proved themselves the most capable workers in the world.

Even on lighthouses.

Even on lighthouses. It is a shocking state of affairs that any man should come into this House and try to hold Irish people up to ridicule before the world. We are on the brink of joining the Common Market and most of the contributions regarding our entry into the Common Market are made by doctors, solicitors, briefless barristers and others who have not a head of cabbage at home for themselves, let alone anything to sell in the Common Market, but when a member of the Labour Party comes in and makes a profound statement to the effect that our employers and workers are disreputable, something is seriously wrong. The people in Europe may not be able to read English and it would be a good job if they were not, because if they read that kind of stuff they must take a very dim view of us indeed. It would be much better for any Deputy to give our employers, our workers and our Government, the credit they so richly deserve. They would be doing a better day's work for us and our country.

I have listened to all this story of gloom which has been presented here by certain people, usually by people who are not in power themselves and who did nothing for the people of the country or for the country in any way. Now when they can do nothing for anybody, for the country or for its inhabitants, they come in with every type of panacea that can be thought up. I do not know whether they dream them up at the bar counter or in bed at night, but wherever they come from, they are of no consequence. They know well that when they were in power, they did nothing. They know well they will never get back in power, so they can go on pouring out propaganda which is no use to our people in any way.

Travelling around the country, I find a completely new spirit alight in our people, a great sense of security and a great get-away from what we saw in 1956. It is difficult for the members of the Fine Gael Party, and of the Labour Party who combined with them on two occasions to wreck the economic fabric of the country, to have to listen to this, but, whether they like it or not, they will have to listen. If there is not a bright future for this country inside or outside the Common Market and if prosperity is not in front of us, that will not be the fault of the Government or the ordinary people. It will be the fault of a great lot of pessimists who cast aspersions on the efforts of the Government and on the Irish people.

I want to compare, for the benefit of the Deputies of the House and in the interests of truth, the position in my own constituency now and in 1956. In 1956 in the constituency which I represent, North Mayo, it was impossible for any man to get a day's work. There were no industries of any type and even the effort to develop Bord na Móna and an electric power station was completely negatived by the second Coalition Government, or whatever other silly name they called it. When they came into office, they wiped out the effort to establish industries there. What do I find in my constituency today? Let me be fair and honest. We cannot get sufficient people to work in the industries. If Deputy Blowick says that a few miles away in South Mayo something is wrong, the only answer I have to him is: it is a pity they do not have in South Mayo the type of good representation we have in North Mayo.

Now Bord na Móna is employing hundreds of people; Bellacorick power station is employing hundreds; the grassmeal company which has been started will in a short time employ many more people; the Glenamoy peat experimental station employs 50 men; the Moy drainage scheme employs hundreds more. Nobody here can refute these figures. What had we in 1956? We had nothing of any description. Even if a man worked for the county council—and there were not many working—he could not get a shopkeeper who would be inclined to take his cheque. That is all changed. I know these facts sound very nasty in the ears of the people who ruled the country at that time. But that will not alter them.

In 1956, we had not a fishing boat along the coast of my constituency except one idiotic thing sent up to Murrisk by the Coalition Government or whatever they called themselves. At present we have scores of these boats. Inside one week six boats were delivered to one fishing village alone. To-day the Government are prepared to survey the coast-line of my constituency and give us the landing facilities we have asked for. As a contrast to that, in 1956 Deputy O.J. Flanagan, the famous bog road questioner, who at that time was a Parliamentary Secretary, went around to every cove and inlet in my constituency and shed crocodile tears. The only effect it had was to make the sea deeper. He provided no landing facilities of any description and he was threatened that, if he came there again without doing something, he would be thrown into the Belmullet Canal. Naturally, he did not return.

I can put up with a good deal of nonsense and listen to hypocrisy for a while, but there comes a time when anybody must call halt. I would not be doing my duty to my own constituents if I did not get up and explain the position. Today we are getting a grant of practically £75,000 for a factory in the town of Ballina. Here are the gentlemen who a few years ago got a man elected down there on the strength of false and silly promises about a biscuit factory. You never produced anything west of the Shannon during your period of office. To-day we are getting a factory in Ballina and we will probably get more than one factory.

(Interruptions.)

To-day you can get grants for creameries. Any scheme which can give employment in the West is getting Government support, and getting it without having to use any type of political pull. If there is any Deputy who leads his constituents to believe that just because he happens to be a member of the Opposition he is not entitled to meet a Minister or get a civil reply from a Minister or get what he wants, he is simply not telling the truth. The reason he is not getting what he wants is that he has been too lazy to ask for it, that he has fallen down on his responsibilities towards those he represents. Of course, he goes back to his constituents, having forgotten what he was asked to do, and blames the Government. There is no Deputy who cannot go to any Minister and ask what his constituents want. If he does go to a Minister he is treated civilly. I do not mind what kind of allegations are made against Ministers here. They are untrue and are made purely for political propaganda.

I have seen the change over the past six years. I want to be fair about it. I want to give the Government credit for the change which has taken place. I have seen it in my own constituency. I have travelled through several other constituencies. It is an amazing thing that I hear practically no grouses or grumbles. It is very significant that I have to come into this House to hear them from members of the Opposition. I think that is fair comment on the state of affairs in this country to-day. I hope it will long continue so.

Ní raibh mé chun labhairt ar an Meastachán seo go dtí gur chuala mé an méid adúirt lucht an Fhreasúra. Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá ag bréagnú an méid atá raite acu.

Having listened to the pain and woe from the majority of speakers in the Opposition Benches—I am not including Deputy Anthony Barry, who made an intelligent contribution—one is prompted to think that the people who made those contributions never have any ambition to sit on this side of the House. If they had, I do not think they would make such destructive criticism at a time when our nation is faced with one of the most momentous decisions it has ever been called upon to make in its history.

The world in which we live today has changed enormously over the past 30 years. Today we are living in the jet age, and ways and means of doing things have changed out of all recognition. There is a tendency among the population to move from one area to another. Because of historical circumstances, a number of our people were forced to live on the Western seaboard and other poor lands. They now wish to move into better land, if it is available, or else to move into the cities. That accounts in great measure for much of the flight from rural areas, about which we hear so much talk. Did it ever strike the people who cry so much about it that you cannot expect people in congested areas to live on the same farms on which their grandfathers had to eke out a meagre existence? It is a great thing that people are able to move from these areas and have a better living in some other part of the country.

I do not think there is any need for me to enumerate the great achievements of Fianna Fáil since their return to office. Suffice it to say that all the debts which were handed over to them at that time have been wiped out.

What debts?

For housing, health and hospitals. I could instance my own constituency, where in 1956 housing collapsed completely because there was not a penny in the Local Loans Fund.

The houses were built.

That is an undeniable fact. Deputy P.J. Burke gave Deputy Rooney figures for his own constituency. Deputy Rooney did not interrupt Deputy Burke because he knew they were the facts. The despondency which existed then has been removed. Now, in my constituency, we have better roads, better houses and better schools. That is the picture not only in my constituency but in the rest of the country as well. The days have gone when the Road Fund has to be raided, when road workers could not earn a penny, when they were laid off in farms and in factories and had to take ship to foreign countries.

New industries have been created, providing more employment for our people. Many of those who went on the excursion to Shannon were, I am sure, surprised to see how far industry had progressed in that area, despite the fact that it is not very long established there. I have no doubt whatever that, if we enter the Common Market, more and more industries will find their way in here to absorb any who may remain unemployed.

It is a well-known fact that we have made tremendous progress in the agricultural sector of our economy. As Deputy Carter pointed out, over 80 per cent. of our cattle have now been attested, thanks to this Government's provision of funds to ensure that farmers were paid for their reactors, instead of having to sell them in the open fair to their neighbours, as happened in the time of the Coalition Government, thus spreading, instead of checking, the disease.

There are grants now for every form of agricultural activity for those who wish to avail of them. Industry has now branched out into food processing to absorb surplus agricultural production and negative to some extent any repercussions resulting from the present situation in relation to butter.

So far as education is concerned, the emphasis to-day is on science. It will become more and more important as a subject in future. The backlog in the schools' erection programme has been caught up on and education is going ahead. Some Deputy mentioned something about foreign languages being taught in the schools. It may be all right to give people a smattering, for that is all it is, of some foreign language in the secondary schools. It was rather shocking to hear an aspirant to the position of Minister for Agriculture, sitting on the Opposition front bench, assert that people are uneducated because they know their native language. He should be ashamed to make that statement. That is an argument I simply cannot comprehend. When we go abroad, and when we enter into competition with the other countries in the European Economic Community, we will be respected because we know our own language, because we are proud of our ancient heritage, and because we are good, nationally-minded people. To be good people internationally, we must be good people nationally.

That is the spirit in which this Fianna Fáil Government have approached this matter. We have a united Cabinet with a man of the calibre of the Taoiseach at its head. We are moving in the right direction. We need have no fears. The obstacles are not insurmountable. We have a well-defined policy; we have a healthy national outlook. There is no danger of our being swallowed up in any association we may have with the European Economic Community so long as our national policy remains sound and we stand fast by our heritage, our language and our country.

(South Tipperary): I intend to deal with only one small aspect of Government policy. Most of us can remember when, quite some years ago now, a national transport system was established here. The Great Southern Railways, and other railways, were joined to form Córas Iompair Éireann. Some time later, the Dublin United Tramways were incorporated. Simultaneously, all the existing bus services on the roads were absorbed into a nationalised transport service.

For quite a number of years, this service was run as a subsidised social service. It provided a scheduled service covering the entire country in relation to both passengers and goods. It remained a bankrupt service all through the years. Annual subventions were voted by this House to help it pay its way. In 1958, a Transport Act was passed making a considerable difference in our approach to transport. That Act gave Córas Iompair Éireann commercial freedom as regards rates and fares. It also gave them power to negotiate package deals from which they have been able to secure an income of almost £1,000,000 per year. It gave them complete power to shut down branch lines where they considered such lines were not paying their way. It allowed them to pay compensation for any redundancies that might arise where branch lines were concerned.

In spite of these various legislative helps, the railways continued to prove insolvent. Although the deficit fell at the end of March, 1961, to a sum of £700,000, in March, 1962, the deficit was £1,600,000. Córas Iompair Éireann have said that the eighth round wage increases involved them in an expenditure of almost £2,500,000 and the increase in the deficit as between 1961 and 1962 is attributable to that eighth round increase. They have shut down large sections of railways in Clare and Cork. The Minister for Transport and Power came before this House recently asking for a large sum of money to increase the number of diesel engines from 175 to 212.

It would seem now that this Act has changed the entire pattern of, and the entire approach to, transport here. I will mention briefly the changing pattern over the past 20 or 25 years. With regard to goods transport, many Deputies can remember that 20 years ago, and before it, Messrs. Guinness had various sub-stations up and down the country. Their stout was dispatched by railway and distributed from these various centres. That has disappeared. The product of that concern is now carried by large tankers.

Deputies may also notice that recently CIE had a contract for bringing malting barley from all over the country to the Guinness concern. It has now been decided to bring that barley in bulk in specially made containers rather than in bags.

In 1933, 1934 and 1935, the Sugar Company, which was then beginning, had no transport of their own. Now the Sugar Company have about 100 lorries available for their own transport. Wheat in those days was not a commodity of much importance in this country. Wheat growing in recent years has become important and the transportation of wheat has largely fallen into the hands of the millers and the larger dealers.

Distribution of lime has passed into the hands of CIE and the Sugar Company. The distribution of fertilisers, likewise. Transportation of cattle is largely done by CIE and the cattle dealers.

In short, over all these years commercial transport as we know it here has been largely passed into the hands of either CIE or semi-State bodies or the larger commercial firms and on the other side of the picture, private transport, where the people can afford it, has passed largely into private motor cars. There has been a steady increase year by year in the number of private motor cars on the road.

Two sections of the community have remained outside that, namely, the small businessman who cannot afford to provide his own transport or who may not be allowed to and the ordinary private person who can afford nothing more than a bicycle. These people have largely to be served by a public transport service, in this country by CIE and there has been no alternative service for them.

When CIE was in its early stages of establishment and even before it was established, licensed hauliers were supplied with a plate. As far as I know, practically no plates have been issued to private hauliers since about 1935. In those days the ordinary type of lorry was about 2½ tons and the area it covered in the ordinary course of business was about 25 miles. Nowadays, the type of commercial lorries we see on the road are usually ten-ton lorries belonging to the bigger firms and they cover 50, 60 or 100 miles. The difficulty arises that in all these years there has been no increase in the number of plates issued to private people who may look for them and there has been no adequate allowance for the type of transport which we understand is the fashion nowadays, the larger lorry. In other words, private hauliers have been handicapped as regards area and as regards size of lorry which they may utilise.

To give one practical example of how this causes hardship in my area, I had occasion recently to make representations for a man who had a lorry. He has had a plate for that lorry for a number of years. He was engaged in bringing milk to the local creamery for the farmers. He found his work increased but he had not sufficient work to utilise two lorries and to provide two men for the two lorries. He could not get a larger lorry because he was hemmed in by the regulations as regards weight which pertained to his lorry.

Furthermore, in my area during the beet season, for instance, the Sugar Company may utilise their own lorries or may engage CIE but during the peak season the private man, whether he has a licensed plate lorry or just a private lorry, may be engaged in this work but he has to pay a commission to CIE. A farmer is not allowed, for instance, to carry his neighbour's agricultural produce, a few animals, perhaps, into the local mart. He is summoned immediately if he does so.

A situation has arisen that a lorry with a plate entitling the owner to cover the 26 Counties can be sold for the extraordinary figure merely for the plate of £5,000. This is what restrictive practice emanating from legislation surrounding CIE has resulted in.

Furthermore, if we look back over the years, we find no new type of private bus service has developed anywhere in our community. A few private bus services operate here and there throughout the country—two services operate in my area—but these are usually services which CIE consider not sufficiently profitable to bother about.

It is now proposed to shut down many more railway lines and even the present number of lines which it is suggested to shut down is not the end of the story for, if it is pursued to the limit laid down in the Beddy Report, not alone will the present sections be taken out but further sections will be taken out at a later date so that ultimately, in order to put the railways on a solvent basis, by 1964, we will be left with merely a skeleton railway service.

I make a point that we have passed the stage of having a subsidised social service which we had a number of years ago supplying the whole country and enjoying a virtual monopoly, that now we are entering the phase of having a commercial competitive service and by virtue of that fact the time has arrived when one should consider abolishing in part or in whole the relative monopoly enjoyed up to the present by CIE.

I suggest to the Taoiseach that he should consider abolishing the present restrictions on licensed lorries as regards area covered, weight carried and merchandise carried, that he should consider a freer issue of trade plates for private persons and that he should consider to a certain extent the abolition of the existing restrictions on the provision of bus services from private sources. These more liberal conditions could, in particular, be applied to those areas, sometimes extensive areas, in which branch railway lines have been taken up. I believe that in this fashion we would secure more adequate competition and not alone that, but help the small business man and the ordinary private passenger. If a small business man has a choice of engaging a private lorry or a CIE lorry, there is straight away an element of competition introduced. If that were done, we would provide a living for a number of small people, small farmers and small business men who would be in a position to secure a lorry and use that lorry for hire.

In many small countries, people are able to make a nice thrifty living on private haulage and here is an opportunity by which any private individual could develop a worthwhile living for himself and his family. The Minister for Transport and Power says the time has not arrived to depart from the relative monopoly position enjoyed by CIE and adverts to the fact that private haulage systems such as I have mentioned would have certain defects; first, they may not pay trade union wages and, secondly, they would be run as a family concern. What crime is it to run these things as family concerns? I think it is a very praiseworthy activity and nothing would please me more than to see a poor family putting their resources together and establishing such a service. In the present condition of monopoly enjoyed by CIE, that chance is not available to them. The time has arrived when we should consider the removal of some of the more restrictive practices associated with CIE and the provision of a more competitive and more complexive service.

In my opinion, this is one of the most important debates that takes place each year and this is my fourteenth experience of listening to a debate prior to the summer recess, when Government policy for the previous 12 months was examined and any matters of importance in regard to the remainder of the period of office discussed. In that period of time, this is the first occasion on which I have seen only one member of the Government contribute to the debate. In every Adjournment Debate of this nature, it is customary—indeed, it is almost essential—that the leading members of the Government participate in the discussion. It is generally accepted that the Tánaiste, the Minister for Local Government, the Minister for Lands and perhaps the Minister for Education come in here with a brief and give the Government's viewpoint on the various aspects of policy for which these Ministers are responsible.

However, we have had no contribution today from any member of the Government except the Taoiseach and without any disrespect to the other speakers, may I say the only other speakers of Fianna Fáil allowed to speak here were backbenchers who are mostly seen and seldom heard. Why is that? Is it not a fact that today we have the first opportunity for discussion of the problems that face this country, if our application to join the European Economic Community is accepted? Is it not a fact that this debate is one of the most eventful, one of the most significant, that has taken place in this House as a result of certain disclosures that have been made in connection with Government policy on the political and defence commitments that are likely to result, if our application for membership of the EEC was accepted?

The strains of the past 12 months or so are beginning to tell on this Cabinet. It was pathetic here about 20 minutes ago when a speaker behind me from the Belmullet area spent a quarter of an hour praising the Government. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste looked up pathetically at the Deputy while he related the wonderful achievement of their Government. He reminded me of little flowers turning their faces to the sun, hoping to get a little bit of warmth or some little encouragement in a very dark field. It is a poor sun that shone on them from the bucolic quarters behind me here this evening. I know I am not entitled to describe that person in terms which I feel would fit him but I do say that in older times there was always a gentleman called the court jester and when the king had great difficulties on his mind, the court jester was at his best in order to distract the unfortunate monarch from the affairs of State.

Deputy McQuillan should not liken a member of the House to a court jester.

I did not name anybody.

The Deputy should not liken any Deputy to a court jester.

I am drawing a comparison. I did not suggest he was a court jester. I am talking about medieval times.

He said he was like one.

"Court clown"—would that be a better term?

At any rate, it is quite apparent from the attitude of the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste that the strain of the past 12 months is beginning to tell on the Cabinet. It is quite apparent to the public at the present time that respect for law in this country is beginning to deteriorate and the Government can blame themselves for the feeling that is abroad that justice now depends on the side of the House one belongs to or how well in one is with a particular Government.

We have had the position—I had hoped to be able to raise it on another Estimate which has been postponed and which dealt with Law Charges— in which we have the Attorney General engaged in a part-time private practice and engaging in part-time responsibilities only for the State. We find that individual in his private practice going to a court to defend people like insurance companies, one of which was found, in the words of a High Court judge, to be guilty of illegal practice. Those companies, in my opinion, should have been dealt with by the Attorney General as a prosecutor instead of as a defending advocate. How can he adopt this Jekyll and Hyde attitude? How can he dispense justice and look after the public interest if in his private capacity he defends a company found guilty, I suggest, of illegal practice?

This is the gentleman who is devoting so much of his time to his private practice while a man like Singer slips through his fingers. Is it not a fact that it is through the faulty preparation of the prosecution's case against Singer—the responsibility of the Attorney General—that this man is now sunning himself in Spain? If the Attorney General were to do a full time job, as he should be doing, justice would have been done in that case. The two I have mentioned are only instances of the many cases which are disturbing the public mind at this moment.

The Taoiseach should also bear in mind that, when I refer to the Department of Justice, there is grave disquiet at some of the actions of the Minister for Justice in his capacity as Minister for Justice and in particular, that there is grave disquiet among the Gárda Síochána as a result of his activities. I have not the slightest doubt that the strains of office over the past 12 months are beginning to tell on the Cabinet. That is apparent in the fact that the Minister has had to sit here most of the day unhelped, unprotected, unloved.

He does not need any help.

He is a marvellous man. All his predecessors needed help, including, as he then was, Deputy de Valera.

As the Taoiseach spoke this morning, he put a number of Deputies into a deep slumber. His speech, for the first hour, was composed of a mass of statistics. He produced a number of new records which had been achieved by the Government since they came into office. I shall not bore the House by repeating them except in a few instances. The first record we had was an increase in the population. Mind you, the Taoiseach produced statistics to prove that. I think he deserves a trip down to the West of Ireland, to Athlone, to Belmullet, or even to Cork, where he will find the only people he will meet are on the trains making their way quickly to England.

That statement alone, when read by the people of rural Ireland, will cast doubts on the veracity of the remainder of his speech. He went on to tell us the great record we had for tourism last year. He said there was a tremendous improvement in the tourist industry. I am sick and tired in this House pointing out to the Taoiseach and his Government that the majority of the tourists who come to this country—in fact, 70 per cent, of them—are Irishmen and Irishwomen returning home to Ireland on holidays from Britain, America and other countries. Apart altogether from those returning emigrants, it is an extraordinary state of affairs that every Irish businessman who leaves for London to do two or three days' work is classed as a tourist if he registers in a Dublin hotel when he returns.

It is fantastic to suggest that tourism, in the sense of foreigners coming in here, provides the greatest proportion of our income from what is called tourism. Most of that money is from Irish people coming here to visit relatives and to enjoy themselves. Not only do these people provide huge sums of money to help us bridge our balance of payments gap but we receive each year £14,000,000 by way of emigrants' remittances. It is true, therefore, to say that it is the money we receive from our own people returning on visits here and by way of remittances from those abroad which help in no small way to keep this country going and it has been Government policy over the years to depend to a great degree on the export of our people for the money they send back each year. Without the Irish tourist and the Irish emigrants, the West of Ireland today would have no population whatsoever. It is not Government services, it is not employment or social services or anything provided by the State that are keeping the majority of the small holdings in the West going. It is the cheques at Christmas and in the summer from the sons and daughters who had to leave the country as a result of the disgraceful incompetence of Governments throughout the years.

At the end of his hour's statistical survey, during which he put the House into a deep slumber, the Taoiseach referred to the Common Market and said Ireland's application for membership had been further considered last Tuesday by the Council of Ministers, that after considering it, the Chairman sent for the Irish Ambassador and informed him that the Irish application was being referred back to the Council for further detailed study. I think that was the most significant statement made today by the Taoiseach. In face of it, we can forget all about the statistics.

Why was the Irish application considered last Tuesday? Is it not a fact that this Council have been overworked for weeks dealing with the British application? Is it not a fact that the Taoiseach, later on in his speech, pointed out that they were so busy that it would be a considerable time yet before they had an opportunity of dealing with Ireland's application? Why did they pick last Tuesday? Would it be correct to say that the Irish Government suggested that another look should be given at the Irish application which, after all, was in before the British application or that of any other country still outside the EEC? Would it be right to say that this alleged examination of the Irish application by the Council of Ministers was for the purpose of issuing a warning to the Irish Government to "get cracking," in the words of Fianna Fáil themselves.

I say that because at a later stage the Taoiseach made another admission in the course of his speech. He said we were not going to wait for the Common Market to reduce trade barriers and to end protection in certain industries, that we must start now. Why did he make that statement? Is it not a fact that he was told, through his ambassador, by the Council of Ministers that it was all very fine to use high-sounding phrases, to say Ireland is European in its outlook and that we would abide by all the principles and decisions of EEC and the Council of Ministers wanted to know what practical steps the Irish Government were taking to be in a position, if offered membership, to abide by the rules and regulations?

Today the Taoiseach said that EEC members know Ireland is prepared to participate fully and effectively in the Common Market. Does it look like that when we have the Taoiseach now saying that we must take the necessary steps to end protection and reduce tariffs before entering the Common Market?—not that I object to any reduction of tariffs or protection. I suggest the Taoiseach made that statement because the screw was put on him by the Council of Ministers. I was not given a copy of the Taoiseach's speech and I can only go on my hearing.

The Taoiseach went on to say that the length of time available for Ireland to adjust herself to the Common Market situation was only the period available to the other countries, to the end of 1969 or the beginning of 1970, and we will be required by that time to dismantle certain protective systems and be on the same basis as countries already members of the Common Market. Was it pointed out that the fact that membership would not come, possibly, until the middle of next year was no help to this country in the sense that it only shortened the time in which we would have an opportunity of taking off protection?

It is quite apparent that when the Taoiseach had to make that statement today, the situation as regards Ireland's application from the Taoiseach's point of view, is anything but hopeful. It is no good his coming to the House and saying he is going to take action in connection with certain industries, going to cut out the feather beds. As far as I am personally concerned— and other speakers here and people outside—he has been warning industry for the past five years of what he was about to do. He has threatened, and tried to persuade them to change their outlook. Were it not for the fact that this warning has been given by the EEC Council of Ministers, no steps would be taken. I look forward with interest to seeing what measures the Taoiseach proposes to take.

It is now 12 months since the Irish application went in last July. We applied for full membership before the British. We were first off the mark as we were so anxious to take part. When that application was made, the Council of Ministers requested further elaboration of the Irish case and the Taoiseach himself supplied it under three heads: first, the political aspects of it; second, the agricultural aspects; and third, the difficulties likely to face what the Taoiseach described as "basically sound industries" resulting from membership. He clarified a few other points such as the question of the gradual removal of protective barriers so that there would be no shock to the Irish economy by having to take severe action in that regard overnight.

I shall deal with the last point first, the difficulty facing some of our "basically sound industries". The Taoiseach admitted today that the time for sleeping is past, so far as some of our industries are concerned. The period for adjustment is so short that severe action must be taken by the Government, if these people, on their own, are not prepared to take the necessary steps. I fear the position, so far as some of the so-called sound industries are concerned, is even worse than would appear on the surface.

During the recess and later, we shall have reports on different industries from the Committee on Industrial Organisation. So far that committee has reported on a group of industries and the position in which they will find themselves as a result of our entering the Common Market. The Committee has reported on the cotton rayon and linen industries as follows: that there are over 5,000 people employed and that even if productivity were increased by 50 per cent. as a result of Common Market membership, one-third of that number would lose their jobs. Out of 5,000 people at present employed in that industry, over 1,600 would lose their jobs as a result of Common Market competition.

The report went on to say that if the present set-up is maintained, many small and medium-sized mills would find it difficult to survive. Since that report came out, what action have the Government taken as regards rationalising those industries? What steps are to be taken if that investigation is correct and 1,600 out of 5,000 employees will lose their jobs? As Deputy Dr. Browne pointed out today, on reliable reports available, at the minimum, over 60,000 people are likely to lose their employment as a result of membership of EEC. What steps are being taken to find alternative employment for them, in addition to the huge number of unemployed we have at present? Are we to wait until 1965 or 1966 to take practical measures to deal with a situation of that nature?

It may be argued by the Taoiseach that these industries and others, on which reports are made, are basically sound, that only one-third of the employees will lose their employment, but what will be the position in the mushroom industries dependent on the importation of all the raw material for processing or assembly here? What will be the position of the companies into which Irish capital has been lavishly poured, companies which are at present not asked to pay one penny in tax on what they make as a result of their exports? Is it not a fact that in these cases there is little or no hope of the survival of these industries in the Common Market? Is it not also a fact that Irish capital will go down the drain? Those people can then bale out without any personal loss and the Irish worker will be left to shift for himself. The Irish people will lose, so far as employment and investment are concerned.

In his explanatory statement to the Council of Ministers, speaking on the situation in regard to the loss of employment, the reorganisation of industry and the removal of protective barriers, the Taoiseach said that the solution for the Irish difficulty might be found in an alteration of Article 226 of the Treaty of Rome or under the provisions of the protocol dealing generally with the subject of tariff reductions and that that might be a way out to enable Irish industry to remain on its feet.

The Article to which I refer states:

In the course of the transitional period, where there are serious difficulties which are likely to persist in any sector of economic activity or difficulties which may seriously impair the economic situation in any region, a Member State may ask for authorisation to take measures of safeguard in order to restore the situation and adapt the sector concerned to the Common Market economy.

One of the best known French economists has stated that the Common Market is a lawyer's paradise. Some of the provisions of the Treaty of Rome can be read in so many different fashions that it is quite unreasonable for people to take one exact meaning from them. The trouble is that the people who drew up the various Articles are the best judges of what they wish to extract from them, and not the interpretation that the Irish Government will put on them.

Already in those countries there has been a reduction in all protective barriers to the extent of 50 per cent., if not more. It is expected that by 1970 all barriers will be down. Is there any hope that we will get another ten or 15 years to ease our position and save our industry from being shattered? Can we get in without having to jump on this very fast train? The position at the moment is that the express train of the Common Market is rushing along and we are asked to jump aboard from a standing position. What is likely to happen to any man who tries to board a fast train while it is moving? He will crash. That is likely to be the position of the country because we are not fit in present circumstances to stand a reduction in our protection barriers of 50 per cent. to bring us into line with the reductions that have already taken place in the other countries.

Will the position not be that many of those industries will collapse? Will the position not be that the Irish worker, like his counterpart in Southern Italy, if he does not make the trek to London, will have to make the trek to the European cities to join the peasants there from Southern Italy, to work as the economic serfs of the Germans, the French and the other highly industrialised groups who at present control the industrial sector of the Common Market?

Southern Italy, to a great extent, can be compared with Ireland, and particularly with the West of Ireland. In spite of any improvements that are taking place in Southern Italy, there is a constant flow of their best young men to work in the industrial cities of Germany, as a result of a shortage of labour and the attraction of high wages. That will be our position as far as I can judge it, because there is no incentive for countries like Germany, if Ireland becomes a Member State of the Common Market, to come here when they can draw Irish labour to their huge concerns in their home countries. It would be nonsensical for them to break up their industry into small units for the benefit of the Irish people. It is a much more economical proposition for them to have huge units and draw hundreds of thousands of workers to work in those units. There are huge towns today, bordering on those areas, the populations of which are composed of Spaniards, Italians and other poor people, and there is a niche ready there for the Irish people.

And the RIC men.

I do not have to count to ten again. Article 2 of the Treaty of Rome is full of pious aspirations about the desirability of economic expansion and a rising standard of living in the countries which comprise the Common Market. That Article will be trotted out to the Irish people. It suggests that it would be a wonderful and desirable thing to have a rising standard of living and economic expansion, but it does not say who the rising standard of living is for. It does not say one word about full employment. In the Treaty of Rome, there is not one sentence in all the articles that says full employment is one of the rights of all nations. Employment is to be given on a laissez faire principle. It will be a matter of competition and if there is a big pool of labour available, it is too bad for labour. That is in the interests of big business.

There is no guarantee whatever of employment within a particular State. There is no guarantee that the Irishman will get employment at all. Fianna Fáil have said for years that it was one of their principal planks— they got it from other groups—to achieve the goal of full employment. That is forgotten now in this mad rush into the Common Market and if there is not full employment here, it can be found in Germany or France. That is the case where private enterprise rules the roost, and the provisions of the Treaty of Rome are all loaded in favour of private enterprise. If the State intervenes against private enterprise, the State will lose. As we all know, it is the big business groups and cartels that control the existing economic set-up in the Common Market.

The second point the Taoiseach clarified, or tried to clarify, at the Council of Ministers, was the result of our application on agriculture. He rightly emphasised in his remarks the importance of the British market to us. He omitted to point out that that country was of such importance, apparently as a result of putting all our eggs in one basket, and his failure during his years as Tánaiste and the failure of the former Taoiseach, now in the Park, to look for alternative markets. They also failed to provide shipping to carry our produce from here to Britain. He failed to point out that over the years, he and his Party spoke in sneering terms of John Bull and threatened to twist the lion's tail.

The Taoiseach said that the British market was of vital concern to us. Having pointed out that, the Taoiseach said that he supported the European Economic Community policy which provided for orderly conditions of trading and equal marketing opportunities. I subscribe to the part of that statement where he said he would like to see orderly conditions of trading. Is it not extraordinary to find the Taoiseach going outside the country to tell us that he does not like chaos or disorganisation, but that he subscribed to the principle of orderly trading? In agriculture in Ireland, we have had disorder and chaos over the years. The small farmer was exploited by the bacon factory. The wheat-growing farmer was at the mercy of the millers. The small farmers who grew grain did not know where to get a market for it. Where was the order there? Where was the order in regard to our markets in Britain? Had we, over the past 20 years, a marketing board that would bring order out of chaos? Let us examine the position clearly.

We have no experience on this side, no training, no tradition of organisation in marketing or production. We have an awful lot to learn in that regard. How we are to learn that overnight so as to subscribe to the views and policy of the EEC in that regard is something I cannot fathom.

The Taoiseach went on further in his statement to the Council of Ministers. This was significant:

There will be certain areas in Ireland faced with the problems of structural reorganisation.

That was in reference to agriculture. That is a most significant statement. When we talk of structural reorganisation in agriculture, it simply means that the smaller farmer in Ireland has to go to the wall.

Only two days ago, a leading article appeared in the Irish Times in which the leader writer gave a further exhortation. He said that further ruthless depopulation of rural Ireland must be planned. It is an accepted fact in the EEC countries that about 8,000,000 people are to go out of agricultural production. Alternative arrangements are to be made to place those people in industrial employment. It is quite clear that the same fate—depopulation or the wiping out of their holdings — faces the Irish small farmers as a result of competition in the Common Market.

That fact has not been exposed or shown to the public or told to the small farmers in Ireland. The Taoiseach went on further to say that the relatively young horticultural industry here might find some difficulty in adapting itself to Common Market arrangements. Was there ever a greater understatement—that the horticultural industry will find itself in some difficulty?

The British farmer, as far as the horticultural industry is concerned, is the greatest opponent of the Common Market today because horticulture which is well developed in Britain cannot hope to survive, unless protection is given to the British farmer. What chance has the Irish horticultural producer in the face of that? What protection does the Taoiseach hold out to the farmer who is in horticulture in this country?

Only six months ago, the Taoiseach and his Ministers went around the country pointing out that there would undoubtedly be difficulties for industry but that it would be of advantage to the Irish farmer. We had the same statement by the leaders of the National Farmers' Association and, I think, Macra na Feirme recently. But the Taoiseach, in the past three weeks, has back-pedalled on his former statements about the Utopia alleged to await the Irish farmer on admission to the Common Market.

The Taoiseach now knows—if he did not know it formerly—that the picture is anything but rosy. I find it hard to believe that such an intelligent man as the Taoiseach was not aware that the Irish farmer would be up against the greatest difficulties as a result of membership of the Common Market. I find it hard to understand how a man in his position would not think it his duty and his responsibility to let the small farmer know exactly what would face him. But, of course, if it were to be done from a political point of view, there was only one way in which it could be put across on the farmers and on our people. There was only one way in which they could be led to their execution and that was blindfolded, hoodwinked and doped to prevent them from knowing their fate if Ireland joins the Common Market.

The EEC countries are able to produce at the moment 90 per cent. of their agricultural requirements. You might say the only two items of agricultural produce for which there is a hope for the Irish farmer are mutton and, to a limited extent, in my opinion, beef. But I feel that, even in the beef end of it, the picture is not half as rosy as it is painted by those who have an interest in this country.

I am talking only about what I have read in various journals that were sent here from Europe and from Britain. I can only make my own interpretation of the figures and the reports I have read. What I have read in that regard certainly does not correspond with the Taoiseach's statement as to the future of Irish agriculture inside the Common Market.

The position is that in Britain at the present time we have a favoured market. We are favoured customers. We have, shall we say, more favourable terms of trade than the continental countries—those six countries which are members of the EEC—as far as agricultural produce is concerned. Still, the Danes and other countries are able to beat us hollow in the British market, although they have not the same privileges.

Seeing that Britain is our major customer, if Britain joins the Common Market, does it not mean that the Danes, the Germans and other members of the Common Market will then move into the British market on the same terms as we have there now? If we are not able to compete under the favourable circumstances we have at the moment, how do we hope to compete successfully if the barriers are down, so far as European countries are concerned?

I do not know why the truth cannot be told by the Government on this. I cannot understand their anxiety to get into the Common Market. I cannot understand why a number of prominent Churchmen in this country allow themselves to be used by the Government to persuade the Irish people that the Common Market will provide another Utopia.

I have read a booklet recently called The Irish and the New Europe. This was issued because the Taoiseach praised the author of it as a result of a statement made within the past few months to Catholic workers by a certain Bishop, Dr. Philbin. Deputies Dillon and Lemass were present when the Bishop made his statement.

When it comes to politics, I shall not apologise to anybody for criticising any man who takes part in politics. I do not care what he is, what his rank is, if he comes into the political arena of realistic politics, he must expect to be criticised.

I know that when Dr. Lucey of Cork showed up the conditions in rural Ireland, it was not long until the Government suggested that his criticism was incorrect and that his statements should not be believed.

This is what the other Bishop had to say:

Perhaps the basic reason for our condition is that we do not take our work seriously enough.

That is one of the exhortations to our people—we do not take our work seriously enough. Those are very encouraging words to the small farmer of County Galway, of County Roscommon and of County Mayo who is put to the pin of his collar to exist— that he does not work hard enough. They are grand words of encouragement to the boys and girls who are exploited by unscrupulous employers in various categories at present and who are the unorganised labour of the community. Those words are small encouragement to the farmer who is exploited by the bacon curer or the flour miller. There was one very truthful statement in that pamphlet and it was this:

It is the function of the moral component of our make-up to provide the fortitude necessary to endure the reverses and disappointments which are sure to form a proportion of our experiences. This truth, let me insist on it as a final word, must be accepted by the whole nation.

In other words, we must have the fortitude and courage to bear the reverses and ills that are likely to befall this country as a result of membership of the Common Market.

The Taoiseach may laugh but I do not see anything to laugh about. The Taoiseach hailed that statement and I do not believe at this stage in saying that our misfortunes in the past were, and our misfortunes in the future will be, due purely to the will of God. A lot of our misfortunes in the past were of our own making and so too will a lot of them in the future and there is no good in saying: "it is the will of God." There is no good calling on the Almighty and saying it is not our fault, or turning the other cheek and saying nothing can be done about it. If that viewpoint is accepted, it means the exploiter, the racketeer and the chancer has a full rein on the ground that nothing can be done about it. It means the small farmer, whose numbers are disappearing at the rate of 4,000 to 5,000 per year—which is a figure that cannot be contradicted— can look on it in this way: that he was too lazy, that he did not work and that he must bear with fortitude the fact that he can now work in Germany or Italy or London, while his home is bought up by a foreigner, a German, a Frenchman or somebody else, who under the Treaty of Rome is entitled to come in on the same terms as an Irishman and buy up the land. That is what faces the small farmer. His land will be bought by the man who will be employing him in the E.E.C. countries, Germany or elsewhere, and there will be a new plantation in Ireland.

The third point I should like to deal with is in regard to the political implications which the Taoiseach explained as far as Ireland was concerned to the Council of Ministers. On that, there is no need to bore the House, but I would say that the House and the country owe a debt of gratitude to Deputy Dillon, the Leader of the Fine Gael Party, for disclosing today in his opening speech the report of a statement made by the Taoiseach to Mr. Sulzberger, the correspondent of the New York Times. Whether we like or dislike Deputy Dillon or agree or disagree with him, he has at long last brought the Taoiseach out into the open on what the Fianna Fáil position is as far as the defence and the political implications of the Common Market are concerned.

For the past 12 months, Deputy Dr. Browne and myself and other Deputies have sought by all possible means in this House to extract from the Leader of the Government what the political and defence implications were for Ireland, if we joined the Common Market. We were told various stories. We received evasion, equivocation and, were I within the rules of order, I would say we got downright dishonest statements from the Taoiseach but I believe I would not be within the rules of order if I said that. At no stage did he come out honestly and say yes or no. He sought to evade his responsibility to the Irish people.

It would do no harm to quote again what has been quoted several times already today, a statement which should have been made here in this House. According to the New York Times for 18th July, the Taoiseach told this gentleman:

We are prepared to go into an integrated union without any reservations at all as to how far this will take us in the field of foreign policy and defence commitments.

I have read every speech on which I could lay my hands made by the Taoiseach and every report of every interview given by him in the past 12 months and sought by Dáil question to extract some statement on that matter, but we could not get an iota out of the Taoiseach, but to the New York Times he discloses the Government's mind and policy. I am not criticising the fact that it was made for the benefit of readers in New York or foreign cities; what I am criticising are the implications of that decision.

This House was to be taken into the confidence of the Taoiseach if any decision was made by the Government in connection with this vitally important matter for the Irish people. On May 9th last in the Dáil Debates, at column 458, I asked the Taoiseach:

Are not the political and defence commitments vitally important, apart altogether from the industrial and agricultural commitments? If it were found that there was a workable agreement in regard to the latter, could it happen this country would then join EEC, without realising what the defence and political commitments were likely to be?

The Taoiseach: I refer the Deputy again to the terms of the Rome Treaty.

What was that? He could tell a journalist from the New York Times that we were prepared to go into the whole matter, so far as defence commitments were concerned, but he could not tell a Deputy.

He was a good judge.

I further questioned the Taoiseach:

Would the Taoiseach say which comes first — the political and defence commitments or the industrial and agricultural commitments?

Then Deputy Norton chimed in and asked:

Is it not a fact that there is no obligation on us to enter into a military agreement as a condition of our entering the Common Market? Is it not also a fact that we ought not to insinuate a military agreement on ourselves?

The Taoiseach: There is certainly no commitment of that kind involved in acceptance of the Rome Treaty, but it is clear the Treaty envisages something more than a mere trading agreement. The aim is to establish a situation which will encourage the political integration of Western Europe.

I will not bore the House any further. The House could not be given the information which had to be extracted from a New York paper. It is a dreadful comment on the Taoiseach's outlook, as far as the public are concerned. For my part, the little confidence I have had in him is gone for ever.

Did the Deputy ever have any?

I had. Finally——

(Interruptions.)

He has had an hour.

He is entitled to speak.

So had Deputy Booth. This at least is more entertaining.

I do not think so.

It is much more entertaining.

Whether or not the Taoiseach likes it, that statement of his goes even further than a commitment to NATO and the Taoiseach has no authority from this House or the country to commit the Irish people to support or be a member of NATO. In spite of what the major Opposition Party may say, they have for 11 years in the House and outside it opposed membership of NATO on certain grounds. The grounds were very clear to the Leader of the Fine Gael Party and indeed to the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party who is now up in the Park.

He stood by this country——

You disgust me——

(Interruptions.)
——I asked the Taoiseach whether there was any change in Government policy from a decision taken in 1939 and 1940 to stay out of NATO and he assured me there was no change and that there was no change in the interpretation of the Articles of NATO so far as this country was concerned. One of the Articles of the NATO makes it quite clear that we must recognise the Partition of the Six Counties. We must recognise the fact that they are part of Britain. That was one of the main reasons why the former Taoiseach, the present Taoiseach and the Taoiseach in the inter-Party Government said we could not becomes members of NATO, because it meant recognising the Six Counties as a sovereign part of Britain.
What has happened? In an Adjournment Debate here, I asked the Taoiseach to account for the apparent change which had taken place as a result of the Minister for Lands being sent down to Mayo to suggest that membership of NATO was an important issue and one we would have to face if we intended to become members of EEC. I quoted the Taoiseach's words when, in 1953, he went as Tánaiste to Ottawa and said that Irish Partition was often a real barrier to our joining NATO. He went on to say:
...when we found that membership implied acceptance of the existing territorial boundaries of other member States, then it was clear that with Britain claiming as an integral part of her territory, six of the counties of Ireland, a claim which no Irish Government could accept or appear to accept, we are not free to consider it.
That was the statement made by the then Tánaiste, now the Taoiseach: that we could not join NATO because we would have to recognise the Six Counties.
It was only on 8th March this year that the Taoiseach admitted in this House that he never read the text of the NATO Treaty until it became necessary for him to do so when certain questions were addressed to him in the Dáil relating to its provisions. For 11 years, the former Taoiseach and the present Taoiseach stood on their interpretation that the Articles of the NATO document precluded Ireland from becoming a member of that organisation. Yet the Taoiseach comes in here within the past few months, having for 11 years bluffed his way, and says he never read the Articles of the NATO Treaty at all. That is the statement the Taoiseach made responsibly in this House. He went on to say that it was merely a matter of opinion and that he was not going to ask anyone to share his opinion. He asked: "What have we here, after all, but a very academic type of discussion?" He was referring in that instance to his interpretation of the NATO Treaty. Yet we see the sinister situation that has arisen. He has already said how far we are prepared to go into defence commitments without any reservation on our joining EEC.
The Taoiseach's attitude for the past 12 months leaves me no option but to say he has lost the confidence of the Irish people to lead them, even though we have to go into the Common Market. I am sure a large element of the Fianna Fáil Party shares my view on that and that the day is not very distant when we will see that Party split and shattered on this issue of the Common Market. It is significant that some of his key Ministers failed to come in here to-night. In particular, I refer to the Minister for External Affairs, who, I believe, shares the view held by many Irish people that it was a foolish move at that stage for the Taoiseach to apply for full membership.
Let him not say there is no alternative. There is the alternative of associate membership which, in my opinion, was the right one for us to look for at this stage in order to give our agriculture and industry an opportunity of building up gradually. Then, if at a certain stage, it was found desirable, we could apply for full membership. The only reason put forward by the Government for full membership was that if we did not go in as full members, we would have no say in the policy and control of the Common Market. Is it not a fact that all the ends will be sewn up before we ever get in, and, if we do get in, that we will have only one representative and that that individual will have as much influence on the decisions made as a dog barking at the moon?

We can apply a few statistics to test the success or failure of the Government during the past 12 months. What is the position now compared with 1956, the year of the economic blizzard, when Britain and Europe were in just as much trouble as we were? The position is there are 50,000 fewer people earning wages than there were in 1956. So much for the extra employment about which we heard so much from the Government Benches.

Let us take the housing position. There are at least 25,000 homeless families at present. There are 1,000 families in County Dublin and 9,800 families in Dublin city seeking the tenancy of houses. If we look back over the past couple of years, we find there were fewer than 1,000 Corporation houses built in Dublin last year compared with 3,000 built in 1956, the year of the economic blizzard. What has happened during the past five years? It has been necessary for 250,000 people to emigrate. If we examine the figures, we find that during the years of Fianna Fáil, almost 1,000,000 people emigrated. Emigration persists. Some figures for emigration were given in replies to Questions recently. For the ten years ended 1936 an average of 16,500 people emigrated; for the ten years ended 1946, 18,500; for the five years ended 1951, 24,500; for the five years ended 1956, 39,500; and for the past five years the net average was 43,000. So we are breaking records in the matter of emigration with an average of 43,000 people emigrating in the past five years and, in addition, there are 50,000 fewer people earning wages now than there were in 1956.

The income that might have been earned by the 250,000 people who emigrated would have meant an additional £125,000,000 to our national income. It was mentioned earlier to-day that emigrants' remittances amount to something like £50,000,000. If they are earning approximately £10 per week, on average about ten per cent. of their earnings comes here in the form of emigrants' remittances. The Taoiseach to-day emphasised the value of tourism, but a large part of these earnings comes from the £125,000,000 earned outside the country by emigrants.

The Deputy will have to yield. It is 12 o'clock.

There is only one further point I want to make. Emphasis has been laid on industrial activity but it has not been admitted fairly that the expansion in industrial activity is due mainly to the new approach to industrial expansion resulting from the 1956 Finance Act introduced by Deputy Sweetman as Minister for Finance.

(Interruptions.)

As a result of the concessions given in that Act, by way of income tax relief in regard to profits from exports, enterprising industrialists and manufacturers were encouraged to engage in exporting from this country and that, in turn, has resulted in a higher income from industrial exports.

At this time of the night, a serious speech is not practicable. I know that most Deputies on both sides of the House are so glad that this long summer session is now coming to an end that they will not much mind what I say, provided I am brief. I intend to be as brief as I can, and I am helped in that determination by the knowledge that the newspapers are probably on their way to the presses and what I now say may not be reported.

But Parliament still exists, you know.

There are, however, a few matters to which I intend to refer because I know that, if I do not refer to them, the probability is I will be accused later of having evaded them. When I was introducing this Estimate earlier today, I mentioned the fact that our national statistics service has been greatly expanded in recent years. I still think that is a good thing, notwithstanding the grave misuse of statistics during this discussion here today. A large part of the debate, those Deputies who sat it out will remember, was concerned with the misinterpretation of statistics. It is quite possible that some Deputies have had an overdoes of them and have clearly not been able to digest them properly. Others have not been able to get the type of statistics they wanted. The statistics they got were too good for them. I am sorry I cannot do anything about that. We have no other kind. I hope that will always be so.

May I say I realise that there are Deputies who would like to see this country as miserable as they represent it to be, as depressed and as poverty-stricken as they say it is, but I am sure they know in their hearts that that is not true and they will go on their holidays tomorrow rejoicing that it is not true.

One of the matters to which I want to refer is the suggestion made by Deputy Dillon that a statement by me, which he quoted, to the representative of the New York Times regarding reservations in relation to the political implications of the European Economic Community was more definite than any I had made here is just simply not true. During the course of the past few years, I have done my best in a series of speeches, up and down the country and here in the Dáil, to get it known and realised that there exists in Europe an intention to continue the process of European integration beyond the economic arrangements envisaged by the Treaty of Rome and to embrace European unity in the wider political sense.

The concept of economic union involves a common commercial policy with the rest of the world. The Treaty of Rome provides for acceptance of the principle of a common commercial policy. A common commercial policy must necessarily involve co-ordination in the field of foreign policy. That is logical and inevitable. I think it is well known to Deputies that the efforts which have already been made to secure an agreement between the existing members of the European Economic Community on the terms of the instrument, which was intended to define their wider political aims, and their programme for political integration, have so far failed. There has been no agreement.

Very recently, a proposal emerged after a discussion between the President of the Republic of France and the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany to renew these efforts later in the year. That proposal seems to have had a mixed reception in the other Community countries. I think it is quite clear to anybody with common sense that our application for membership of the European Community cannot be made subject to any reservation as to the future and still undefined political objectives of the present members. If we were to attempt to make reservations of that kind, our application would certainly fail. The policy of the Government is not to make reservations of that kind.

We accept—I speak now for the Government and the Government Party; I do not ask anyone else to concur in our view—and, indeed, welcome the prospect of still closer European union at some stage and in some form to be realised by agreement. It is quite clear that there is at present a wide divergence of view between the leaders of the countries now in the Community as to the form which the instrument expressing their political aim to promote greater unity should take. It would be very unwise for us at this stage, as an applicant for membership, to express support for either one view or the other, or to encourage here a public debate on that topic, a public debate which would be appropriate at some stage to crystallise public opinion about it. It is to be noted that none of the other countries which are now applying for membership of the Community is adopting any different attitude.

When our position as a member of the European Community has been established, we intend to exercise all our rights of membership and to express our definite view on matters arising for decision within the Community. It is, of course, true that this country cannot be committed to any agreement or any international instrument of that kind until it has been ratified by the Oireachtas. If I have to make a guess at this stage, it is that no agreement will emerge from these negotiations which will cause any serious problem for this country, or which the Government will not be prepared to approve, and move to have ratified.

I said earlier to-day that we are at present planning upon the assumption that we will become members of the European Community. A high ecclesiastic is reported to have said recently, speaking about the forthcoming Ecumenical Council, that he knew when it was going to start but only God knew when it was going to finish. The position regarding our application for membership of the European Community is the reverse. We do not know when it will start, but we do know when it will finish—at least we do know when the provisions of the Treaty of Rome will be in full operation, and that is 31st December, 1969.

I said this morning that the date of our accession might be later than we had originally assumed, and might be well into next year. Tonight, there are press reports of the successful conclusion of an agreement between the British negotiators and the Council of the European Economic Community in respect of what appeared to be one of the most difficult matters with which they were dealing, and it may be that that announcement, if correct, will bring the date of our accession somewhat nearer. We certainly do not anticipate that our negotiations with the Community will cause them very much difficulty or involve any very great delay.

Deputy Blowick, in the course of his lachrymose speech, dealt with the problem of the small farmers. I want to refer to this problem because it is one that is at present very much the concern of the Government. As Deputies know, we set up last year for our own guidance a committee of officials drawn from the Departments which are concerned in any way with the administration of policy in the small farming areas to have a look at the situation as a whole and to make recommendations to us as to the measures that might be taken to improve the structural organisation of agriculture and its productivity in those areas and to deal with the social problems which are known to exist there. When that report was submitted to me, I decided that it would be wise to publish it, even though it was not originally prepared for publication, because it would help to secure wider understanding of the character of the problem that arises there and because we wanted to invite all interested organisations and persons to submit their observations, critical or otherwise, upon the recommendations contained in the report.

Some important organisations have already informed me that they intend to submit these observations and to make suggestions arising out of the situation as disclosed by the report and they have asked that the Government's decisions upon these recommendations should be deferred until their comments have been received. That request may be to some extent based upon a misunderstanding because I do not think the position is one in which we have to choose between alternative policies. It is rather a matter of supplementing the recommendations of the report by other recommendations or suggestions which would help to make them more effective and the Government will not necessarily delay decisions upon aspects of these recommendations which appear to be of that kind, while awaiting the views of interested organisations.

I want to comment on the fact that no reference to that report that I know of has been made since its publication by Deputy Blowick or by any member of his Party or any member of the Fine Gael Party and certainly neither in the form of criticism nor suggestion has there been any practical help given to the formulation of a policy which will help us in the aim of applying in these areas measures which will ensure that the population will be stabilised or increased and that a reasonable standard of living and security in the enjoyment of it can be conferred upon their people.

Deputy Dillon referred to this old question of the purchase of Irish agricultural land by non-nationals. It seemed to me he was trying to suggest that there was some policy on the part of the Government to encourage the purchase of agricultural land by foreigners. That, of course, is completely untrue. Not merely have I on many occasions stressed in public the attitude of the Government in that respect, but, as Deputies are aware, we have imposed a substantial tax, a tax of 25 per cent. of the value of the property, upon transactions of that kind. The purpose of that tax was not to bring in money; it was to give in a formal way an indication of official disapproval of such sales.

But it is unwise that there should be any exaggeration of the character of the problem that has been presented in that way. Because of the provisions of the 1961 Finance Act, we have since August of last year now precise details of all transactions of that kind that occur and since then, 154 properties totalling 7,466 acres were sold—and may I say that that figure is not much larger than was usual for 20 years back? Transactions in property have always been proceeding and information regarding their magnitude is available. I confess the information was not always as reliable as that which we now have. It was secured very largely by reports received from the Garda authorities. But all the information is that nothing abnormal in respect of the purchase of Irish land by foreigners has emerged, certainly nothing to justify any undue concern.

However, if any assurance is required that these transactions will not be allowed to prevent the fulfilment of the Government's land policy, I can give it without hesitation. We expect to be able to make proposals for new land legislation available for the Dáil in the early future and that will give an ample opportunity for consideration of the matter.

Deputy Dillon also spoke about the agricultural advisory services. It is common ground between us that these services have to be expanded fully; it is common ground that they should be used fully by farmers, which they are not at present time. There is difference of opinion as to whether they should be organised as a national service or administered through the county committees of agriculture. We believe in administration by the county committees of agriculture but that is only a matter of detail and of no great importance.

The point I want to make is that Government policy in that respect is amply and fully disclosed by the Book of Estimates, which shows a very considerable increase in the allocation of money for these services. On the educational, research, advisory and technical services administered by the Department of Agriculture, the total to be expended this year will be three and a half times as much as it was ten years ago and certainly two and a half times as much as it was in the last year when Deputy Dillon was Minister for Agriculture.

We are as concerned as other Deputies regarding the present backlog of housing, particularly in the Dublin area. When the newly-elected Lord Mayor of Dublin was good enough to pay a courtesy visit on me a couple of weeks ago, he was accompanied by the City Manager and we discussed this problem of housing in Dublin. It was explained by the City Manager that the output of houses this year depended upon the plans made and the sites acquired for housing three or four years ago and that three or four years ago in Dublin, there was a situation in which the Corporation had quite a number of vacant houses on their hands and felt the situation had been reached where they could pull down upon their housing activities; that because of the drop in emigration, because of the movement back of certain classes of workers from Britain to employment in Dublin, that situation has reversed itself and there is now a deficiency in the houses available for letting by Dublin Corporation almost as high as ever it was. I was assured by the City Manager and by the Lord Mayor that the Corporation were making all the plans necessary to speed up their rate of construction to ensure that these arrears of housing would be wiped out.

There is nothing other than practical difficulties holding up the Corporation from doing so. They have certainly been assured that any money they require to enable them to fulfil their programme will be available to them and it is merely a matter of organisation, planning, acquiring land and developing their sites. The faster they get on with it, the better we will like it.

I do not know why Deputy Dillon referred to a speech which he made in 1948 as Minister for Agriculture to the National Press Club in Washington. I thought he would have liked to forget it. However, he not merely referred to the speech but he even represented me as having protested against that speech subsequently in the Dáil. Deputy Dillon is inclined to forget that every idle word he says here is taken down and can be used in evidence against him. I looked up what happened and I should like to tell the Dáil for their amusement.

Deputy Dillon, as Minister for Agriculture in the Government to which Deputy Dr. Browne belonged, went to Washington and there made a speech recommending to the world a grand plan, and the grand plan was that Ireland, Britain, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand should form a customs union. I may be wrong about New Zealand. The price of milk was bad at the time and of course there is nothing the Irish milk producers would like less than a customs union with New Zealand. I think the Deputy left New Zealand out. He did not say that was going to be done with New Zealand but he left it out just the same.

All that happened in the Dáil when Deputy Dillon came back was that I asked the Taoiseach if the Minister for Agriculture in making this speech in Washington was expressing Government policy. "He was doing nothing of the sort," said the then Taoiseach, Deputy John Costello. "He was neither expressing the policy of the Government nor of any component part of it." I should like to make a bet that if I asked Deputy John Costello the same question tonight, I would get the same answer.

The Taoiseach is trotting along very peacefully in my footsteps and he is very welcome. As long as he continues to do so, I shall treat him kindly.

In view of that, I shall content myself with expressing the hope that all Deputies here present will be back here again on 30th of October looking as healthy as they do now and a little wiser. I shall have some more pearls for their admiration at that time.

Question put:
The Committee divided: Tá: 65; Níl: 49.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Boland, Kevin.
  • Booth, Lionel.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Burke, Patrick J.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Carty, Michael.
  • Childers, Erskine.
  • Clohessy, Patrick.
  • Colley, George.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Cotter, Edward.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Lemass, Seán.
  • Leneghan, Joseph R.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • MacCarthy, Seán.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Meaney, Con.
  • Medlar, Martin.
  • Crinion, Brendan.
  • Cummins, Patrick J.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Davern, Mick.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dolan, Séamus.
  • Dooley, Patrick.
  • Egan, Kieran P.
  • Egan, Nicholas.
  • Fanning, John.
  • Faulkner, Padraig.
  • Flanagan, Seán.
  • Gallagher, James.
  • Geoghegan, John.
  • Gibbons, James M.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Hillery, Patrick.
  • Millar, Anthony G.
  • Moher, John W.
  • Mooney, Patrick.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
  • Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
  • O'Connor, Timothy.
  • O'Malley, Donogh.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sherwin, Frank.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Timmons, Eugene.

Níl

  • Barrett, Stephen D.
  • Barron, Joseph.
  • Barry, Anthony.
  • Barry, Richard.
  • Belton, Jack.
  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • Browne, Michael.
  • Browne, Noel C.
  • Burke, James J.
  • Burton, Philip.
  • Carroll, Jim.
  • Clinton, Mark A.
  • Collins, Seán.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Costello, Declan D.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Crotty, Patrick J.
  • Desmond, Dan.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Donegan, Patrick S.
  • Dunne, Thomas.
  • Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
  • Farrelly, Denis.
  • Gilhawley, Eugene.
  • Governey, Desmond.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
  • Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kenny, Henry.
  • Lynch, Thaddeus.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • McQuillan, John.
  • Murphy, William.
  • O'Donnell, Patrick.
  • O'Donnell, Thomas G.
  • O'Higgins, Michael J.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F. K.
  • O'Keeffe, James.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • O'Sullivan, Denis J.
  • Reynolds, Patrick J.
  • Rooney, Eamonn.
  • Ryan, Richie.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Geoghegan and J. Brennan; Níl, Deputies O'Sullivan and Crotty.
Question declared carried.
Votes 3 and 44 reported and agreed to.