Committee on Finance. - Vote 3: Department of the Taoiseach (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (19th Dáil) – Thursday, 17 Dec 1970

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, 1971, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of the Taoiseach.

—(The Taoiseach.)

Mr. Moore

Last night I referred to the Government's housing policy and I mentioned that the overall national target reached last year was 14,000 dwellings. This is quite an achievement. If we are to overcome the backlog and make provision for the increase in population I suggest we should step that up to about 17,000 a year. This will take into account provision of new dwellings, obsolescence of existing ones and the need for replacement. In the past decade we have greatly increased the tempo of the housing drive but we must never be complacent because the backlog is still great. I am convinced that, with the Government's policy and an expanding economy, not only can we reach the targets set but that these targets are adequate to meet almost any demand we can foresee in the very near future.

It is often said that there are thousands of homeless people in Dublin. This is said particularly by people who have not taken the trouble to examine the position. Actually, there are very few homeless families but there are very many badly housed families, many living in overcrowded conditions to whom society owes it to change their conditions so that each family will have a proper dwelling. I am speaking of local authority housing. We should create conditions whereby it will be possible for every family in need of housing to receive a house.

At present there are 2,500 dwellings under construction in the city and, at various stages of preparatiton and development work, there are just over 6,000 dwellings, giving a total of over 8,000 dwellings. If these were built to-morrow it would remove all the applicants from the housing waiting list. But nobody has yet invented instant housing and the population of the city is increasing all the time. It has been truly said that no living city ever solves its housing problem, but with the measures now being taken we will reduce the dimensions of that problem and we shall certainly eliminate the bad housing that has been a legacy for many years.

This costs money and the Government must build the economy so that it will bear this great strain on its resources. We can give some encouragement to the people on the housing waiting list. The job is being tackled by the corporation with the backing of the Department of Local Government and great progress is being made. Never before was the housing picture so bright. We should like to make it still brighter by pressing on with ever-increasing vigour until we have removed all the bad housing and then deal with overcrowding. At that stage we could say that, while we have not solved the housing problem, we had got on top of it.

In the first 11 months of this year over 475 people have been killed on the roads and over 5,000 injured. This may not be our responsibility but it is a problem which faces each one of us. This carnage must be stopped. Despite the excellent efforts of the Minister-on which I compliment him for his fresh approach; his ideas are revolutionary in some ways-if we keep up the present monthly average of deaths on the roads we shall go well over the 500 mark for 1970. Do we as a society appreciate fully what is happening on our roads? Does each of us, whether pedestrian, motorist or cyclist, play his full part in stopping this horrible slaughter? I suggest that the number killed in the first II months of this year is a great deal more than were killed in the Civil War; certainly it is more than were killed in this country in World War II by the bombing which took place then. We are not having the outcry against this carnage that would bring home to each of us the part we must play in trying to stop it. We hear a lot of talk about the demands made on the Garda Síochána and the various duties they have to undertake.

Let us say with truth that they have to undertake many duties for which perhaps they have not been trained. They have been trained for the prevention and detection of crime. I suggest to the Minister for Justice that he examine the possibility of having a corps of men and women who would not be members of the Garda Síochána to deal solely with traffic. The Garda would then be released from those duties. This corps would be employed in an advisory capacity and would educate everybody in good road manners and sense but they would have power to prevent abuse of the various Road Traffic Acts. In fact, this corps would bring some commonsense into this traffic chaos and reduce the frightful death toll on our roads. It has often been said that, if there were better roads, we would have fewer accidents but I do not think this stands examination.

There are 35,000 cars entering this city every day and we will probably have from 7 per cent to 10 per cent increase next year so traffic not alone ill the city but all over the country will continue growing. Therefore, in relation to the present number of vehicles and the expected number in the future we will have an ever-growing casualty list on the roads. We must deplore the terrible loss of life involved, the injuries people receive, and the material damage resulting from those accidents. If we had some outbreak which killed over 400 people we would then have an outcry to take steps to stop it. We are becoming too complacent about the loss of 475 people in the last II months. Those people should not have died on our roads. If we need new legislation to cope with this problem, or if we have to spend many millions on improving the roads, it will be worth it because the loss of this number of our population is a great one apart from the sorrow caused to the families of those killed.

At the moment the Garda are overwhelmed with certain duties which should be taken away from them. The traffic corps I mentioned would certainly help them. The Garda could then do the work for which they are trained. We live in an age of violence. All over the world every Government is trying to curb this problem. When I hear outcries against the action proposed to be taken against curbing this problem I feel we should examine the position as far as we know it and then ensure that the law of this country is respected and that any person who breaks the law in a serious way will be held responsible and dealt with accordingly.

Nobody likes to see internment. The very thought of this is abhorrent to us but the fact that we may have crime of a very violent nature in which innocent people may suffer is also abhorrent to us. If the Government do not do their duty in this regard that is irresponsible government. I believe the Taoiseach would never have made the statement he made on internment without having very concrete evidence of some possible threat to our society. I hope, in common with the Taoiseach and the people generally, that anybody thinking of breaking the law in a violent way will have second thoughts. We are a small society and I believe we have a great opportunity of forming this society into a community in which we would have the best type of democracy.

There are people outside this House who are politically minded, although they are not represented here. It is their right to be so politically minded; but if democracy is to live those people should go before the country at election time. If the people return them to this House as a Government that is their right, and it is those people's right to come in here, take over the reins of Government and run the country. The only way in which any group can form a Government is through the due process of election. As democrats we must guard that right jealously, that it is only through the ballot boxes that any Government can be formed. This is the basis of democracy in any country. Democracy was not achieved too easily by us here and we are very loath to let it go.

The problem of inflation has been referred to generally in this House over the last few years. This problem affects every facet of our lives. I want to pay tribute to the Government, the Congress of Trade Unions and the various employer organisations which have worked so hard in order to bring about a voluntary wage pact. The general cry was that something had to be done. The Prices and Incomes Bill was introduced. I do not know what the position about this but I want to record my appreciation, as a backbench Deputy, of the work of the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance, the Congress of Trade Unions and the various employer organisations. If we can have this 18 months' peace pause it will do the economy and the people generally a great service. If we can survive this period without any major industrial strife, I feel it will be the shot in the arm which the economy needs. It will also give us back the confidence which has been shaken in us, to show that we are capable of bringing about in a true democratic fashion a wage and salary structure which will ensure that the wage and salary earners will be given a proper return for their work and that there will be no suffering caused to families by the effect of strikes and consequent loss of materials which, in some cases, may well hold back the housing drive.

We are living in an age of violence. We have seen violence in our own country, both North and South, in the past 18 months. It is fashionable to pontificate on the fact that we should have a rapprochement between our people North and South. When I refer to our people in the North I mean our people as a whole, whether they are Catholics, Protestants or Dissenters. I know that the higher echelons of the Unionist Party will hang on to their privileges for as long as they possibly can. I believe that we have common cause with the men who work in Queen's Island and Ballymena. The Belfast shipyards are going through a trying period at the moment and we should show our concern for them. I am not saying we could do very much for them but we should show our concern for any men who lose their jobs because of this problem.

If someone is injured in the North in some kind of explosion or some other kind of activity, we should convey to them that we are interested in their welfare and in their future irrespective of whether they agree with our political views. This may be described as a "do gooder" policy but it would be no harm if the people in the North, the people in the Waterside in Derry, or in the Shankill Road, or Ballymacarret in Belfast, could come to feel that after many years of division, whether on religious or political lines, they could come together with us and rejoice in the common name of Irishman.

When we speak of unity with our people in the North it is usually said that they would not join us because of our inferior social services. I suppose it is true that, taken as a whole theirs are better, although I think that is one aspect-1 speak subject to correction here-in which we are ahead of them, because here a person with a contributory old age pension can earn as much as he wants to without any means test. We also had a children's allowance scheme long before it was introduced in Britain. If we can build up our economy each year we can increase the national wealth and, therefore, increase the assistance given to the aged and the underprivileged.

This must always be our aim, not just to compete with the scale in Britain but because we believe it is the right policy. We believe the State must look after the old, apart from what the family can do. The same applies to the widow, the orphan and the blind person. We do not want to enter into a competition with the authorities in the Six Counties or in Britain. We share the concern of their social thinkers for the underprivileged. If our services cannot be equated with theirs at the moment, we are striving towards that end, not just so that we can boast afterwards that we have equalled their services, but because we have a deep feeling for humanity and we want to solve the problems which our old people and our underprivileged people have to face.

Other speakers are waiting to get in and I am sure they will make contributions which will help us as a people to solve the problems which are facing us. At the moment other Governments are facing the same type of problems. Parliament must devise ways and means to overcome these problems. I do not think there is any lack of confidence in the Government on the part of the mass of the people. On two recent occasions when they were given an opportunity they showed this. I hope that when this debate comes up next year we will have cleared up many of the problems and that we will be heading towards a new frontier in social advancement. This can only be achieved by having a wise, prudent and strong Government, which the people have at the moment.

Dr. FitzGerald

I should like to speak first on the question of internment. The position I take on this matter-and which my party not only takes but has taken traditionally, as I will show-is that one cannot in all circumstances rule out measures of this kind if the safety of the State is at stake, but that they are an absolutely last resort to be used only when there is no alternative. As I have said, that is and has been the traditional position of the Fine Gael Party.

I am less prone, perhaps, than some other Deputies to refer back to the past and to call on party tradition. There are certain areas in which each party has a particular tradition which has been handed down and which has a particular value. Although, faced with changing circumstances of decade after decade, on particular issues parties rightly and properly modify their positions on some basic points, they retain the tradition they started with as one that should be valued. One of the parts of the tradition of the Fine Gael Party which I think should be valued, and which I personally value, is the tradition on this matter.

Since this whole question was first raised in 1939, when the Offences Against the State Act was introduced, a consistent line was taken by this party. For example, in the debate on the Emergency Powers (Amendment) Bill, 1940, Mr. W.T. Cosgrave, the father of the present leader of Fine Gael, speaking on this subject referred to internment as "not a method of dealing with a situation of this kind which appeals to me." He said :

In the first place it seems unreasonable that citizens on mere suspicion should be deprived of their liberty. Something more than suspicion should justify loss of liberty.

The reference is column 1326, volume 78. Professor John Marcus O'Sullivan speaking shortly afterwards on this subject referred to the liberty of the citizens as "the most vital thing we could discuss". He said at column 1331:

I agree that this is an amending Bill, but it is an amending Bill of tremendous scope. We have to decide whether this Government should be entrusted with such tremendous powers as this Bill, even though it is an amending Bill, proposes to give them.

Mr. J. A. Costello at column 1338 of volume 78 said:

This Bill which we are discussing has been described by the Chair, I think, as a small Bill, small in its scope, and a Bill merely to delete six words of a previous Act. Although the Bill may be small in one sense, however, it is big in its principle and the scope of its principle. The principle involved in the Bill now before us is Whether or not to give power to intern natural-born Irish citizens. I take the liberty of describing that as a very big principle, and one to which we are opposed. I am personally opposed to it, and opposed to the putting of it into a Bill of this kind, because, however much we may desire to give whatever powers the Government may need-even in spite of their incapacity and inefficiency to deal with the present situation-we think that they have adopted the wrong method, and a very insecure and unsafe method of achieving the purpose which, apparently, they have in mind. We think that the method they have adopted may lead to further insecurity in this State, and bring derision and scorn not merely on the present Government, but on future Governments and governmental institutions in this country.

He went on to say :

This Party stood, has always stood and still stands for two things, above all things, in matters of political principle. They stand, in the first place, for the maintenance of orderly conditions in this country and for the reign of the rule of law; they stand, in the second place, for the guaranteeing to citizens of the country of their constitutional rights and, in particular, the right of the liberty of the citizen. When we are asked to give the Government powers of this kind which are a grave infringement of the constitutional rights and liberties of the citizen, we demand that the Government shall make a case, a strong case, and an unanswerable case for the granting of these powers.

These are some of the statements made on the debate on the Emergency Powers (Amendment) Bill. Again the former Minister for Justice of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government, Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenny, said at column 1396 of Volume 78:

This is a measure which takes away, without trial, the liberty of the subject. In my judgment, it is only as the very last resort that a procedure of that nature is justified. In my opinion these letters de cachet should not be used except in very abnormal circumstances and in a very difficult position.

These were some of the statements made in that debate and they indicate clearly the consistent line that was taken. The point was made in that debate-it is interesting to see how the same situation existed so long ago and the same Government was acting in the same way and the same Opposition was criticising them in the same way-that one must always invoke the ordinary law and it is only when that breaks down completely that measures such as internment may be justified in the extreme case of the safety of the State being at stake.

Again Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenny, at column 1402, said:

The ordinary law should always be invoked, and ordinary methods of procedure should always be adopted as long as they have not broken down. Burke, in one of his great speeches on American affairs, charged the British Government with making the medicine of the Constitution its daily bread. That is what the Minister is inclined to do. These abnormal methods of procedure should only be resorted to in times of desperate stress, he is inclined to resort to them when there is no necessity of so doing, and on the smallest excuse.

That point was echoed by other speakers. General MacEoin, for example, in the debate on the original Offences Against the State Act at, column 1567 of Volume 74, said:

This particular Bill is brought in at a time when there is comparative peace. At least as far as we can see, nothing is happening with which the ordinary law, if enforced, could not deal. Whoever, is responsible, whether it is the Government itself or some Department of State, I must say that I think the ordinary law has not been enforced.

He went on then to make particular accusations which are irrelevant to our case at the moment.

Deputy Cosgrave on the Emergency Powers (Amendment) Bill debate in 1940—column 1327 of Volume 78— made the same point about the law not being enforced. He said:

The Ministry in this particular case has not particularly clean hands, either from its past record or from its immediate past record. We gave powers to the Ministry in two measures and they abused them. They dealt with certain small disturbances in the State as if they were major disturbances. They used 15-pounder guns to deal with what should have been dealt with by a popgun or a policeman's baton.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenny, at column 1396 of Volume 78, made the same point. He said:

Internment, in my opinion, has this effect that it may alleviate the situation for a moment or two, but in the long run it makes the situation very much worse. I am not speaking now entirely without having given this matter very grave thought. I once occupied the position which the Minister for Justice now occupies. We had then powers of internment. I considered very carefully whether it was wise to exercise them and, after long and careful deliberation, I came to the conclusion that this utilisation would not only not alleviate the situation except possibly for a moment, but that in the long run it would aggravate it. That view was taken by the Executive Council of which I had the honour to be a member. Though the power of internment was on the Statute Book from the close of the Civil War onwards, it was not used. I would ask the Minister and every member of the Government before they intern a single person, to think the matter out.

This attitude of our party that internment should not be used was reflected by its actions in Government. At the time when the Civil War ended and the prisoners were released internment was not used. Other methods were used, methods which were criticised at the time and strongly criticised from the other side of the House, but they were methods that involved using the law, the processes of the law. Jury trial had to be abandoned when jurors and their wives and children were murdered, but nevertheless legal procedures were adopted and people were charged and found guilty by process of law and imprisoned. Internment was not used.

At a later date, in 1957, when the Border raids created a very grave situation here, the Government at that time, led by Mr. Costello, again used the processes of law and refused to introduce measures of internment. In a debate that took place on 20th November 1957—Volume 164, column 829 onwards—Mr. Costello defended the attitude of his Government in this matter. He said:

We enforced the laws of our own Parliament and prosecuted offenders against the Irish law in the regular Irish courts. We took steps to inform and educate public opinion and to mobilise that opinion behind our policy. Through the churches and the schools and the organs of public opinion generally we endeavoured to ensure that a true concept of what was at issue would be understood and accepted by the people, particularly by young people. We hoped, by these means, to limit and curtail and ultimately to disperse its members and those actively engaged in unlawful activities and to stop the inflow of young people who might be attracted to these activities by false concepts of patriotism and the creation of false consciences. We did not utilise the machinery of internment which lay ready to our hands because we regard that as the line of least resistance and the least likely to produce permanent results. It would only be adopted as a very last resort. We took the harder course of endeavouring to eradicate the evil through the enforcement of the law in the regular court with the help of public opinion becoming daily more enlightened and appreciative of the national dangers. We believed as we now believe that that policy would have succeeded. The present Government has adopted a different policy and theirs is the responsibility, and on their actions they will be judged.

There is there a consistent line. This party did not refuse the Government this power when the Act was introduced in 1939 on the grounds that only the Government could assess the situation and the Government must be given the powers that may be needed to deal with an extreme crisis. There was at that period the crisis of the bomb attacks in Britain and the threatened outbreak of the Second World War. But in that debate and in the subsequent debates and consistently thereafter the same line was followed: that power must be there in case there is an attack on the institutions of State on such a scale that it cannot be dealt with through the courts, even by the use of special courts, but that except in that last resort internment cannot be justified.

The Fine Gael Party in Government from 1924 onwards, over a period of 30 years, at different times refused to use that power and used the courts. That is a position which anybody can stand over. It is a position of which a party can be proud. It is not the position of the Fianna Fáil Party who have on a number of occasions resorted to internment. The Fianna Fáil Party may argue that on some of these occasions it was a last resort position but the contrary can also be argued.

We are in the position now where we have not even had first resort to the processes of law never mind being in a position of the last resort. We are in a position now where the law has not been enforced and is still not being enforced. It could be enforced and it is not being enforced. Yet in that situation, in which the courts had not even been tried, never mind found wanting, internment is threatened despite the fact that it would destroy the liberties of our people in conditions where no necessity for such action exists.

We have had flagrant breaches of the law in public on occasion after occasion; defiance of the law in the face of and in the presence of the Garda Síochána, members of the Garda Síochána who wished to carry out their duty and who are frustrated in not being able to carry out their duty, who were prevented from carrying out their duty and are still being so prevented. We have had photographs published in the newspapers. There was one, two or three days ago, of men in uniform, identifiable there in the photograph, but what action has been taken? None. Yet they are in flagrant defiance of the law. We have had military bodies marching in public in front of the Garda Síochána who were restrained from acting in Mullingar and in Dublin. I have seen them myself in Dublin in the last few weeks, men in uniform marching through the streets with the police standing idly by because they were instructed to do so. The men who marched on those occasions could have been arrested and charged. Everyone of them was identifiable in public and in daylight. Many of them have been photographed. Why have they not been arrested? What is stopping the Government from enforcing the law?

We have had, then, case after case in which the law was fumbled. We had the key case which would have prevented a great tragedy if handled properly. It was a key case in which a nolle prosequi had to be entered because of the incompetency of the authorities in not bringing forward, as was required by law, a medical witness to certify that a police witness was ill. Failure to do that, the fumbling attempt to deal with the situation by a medical certificate which was not adequate evidence and known not to be adequate evidence, led to the release of men charged with a serious offence and other events have followed from that. We have had recently another case which was totally unexplained, the case of a man with a long criminal record in this country and in Britain who was charged with the offences of shooting a policeman and the possession of arms He was found guilty on the last charge. As I understand it, he had four different guns and ammunition in his possession and he was found guilty on that charge. When he was found guilty the judge, for reasons totally unexplained, expressed a great reluctance to sentence him; he tried to postpone sentencing him and it was only when the man himself insisted on being sentenced that he was sentenced.

Subsequently in correspondence with the man's wife—which seems to me to be totally inappropriate—the judge encouraged application of a petition and when the petition was made this man was released. This man is not by any standards a person with a simple political background. He is a man who has a series of convictions behind him; a conviction for larceny in London in January, 1960; larceny from a pre-paid meter in London, 1960; housebreaking and larceny, Kiltimagh, 1962; malicious damage, Kiltimagh, 1962; using an uninsured car, Kiltimagh, 1962; assault, Kiltimagh, 1962; malicious damage, Kiltimagh, 1962; obtaining £50 by means of a forged instrument, Dublin. 1964; and larceny, Surrey, 1965.

That is the record of this gentleman who claims he is committing crimes in the name of Republicanism. That is the man whose record was such that when he was unfortunately found guilty of the possession of four lots of guns and ammunition, and having been charged with shooting at a policeman with intent to kill him, his record was such that the judge immediately moved to try to get him off. He did not want to sentence him and he supported his petition. This is the man the Minister for Justice let off. Why? The suggestion was made in this House that the man had informed and that is why he was let out. I am not convinced of that. There is some evidence to suggest that that impression has been deliberately created but it is not, in fact, the case.

The law has not been enforced; there have been flagrant failures to enforce it. Any Government which comes in here to look for power to intern people when they have failed to arrest people of whom they have ample evidence, photographic evidence, of being guilty of breaches of the law, in respect of whom many members of the police and the Special Branch are in a position to give evidence that they have broken the law, a Government which has let out a man with a long criminal record—perhaps he agreed to give up politics and return to a life of crime, perhaps that is why he was let out—a Government who performed in that way month after month has no right to threaten to remove the liberties of people without the processes of law.

We in this party, in pursuance of the tradition of this party from 1924 onwards, from the time the Civil War ended, are opposed to that. We are not opposed to the existence of power of internment to be used in a case of a grave national emergency, where the courts have broken down and where the numbers of people involved are such that they cannot be dealt with by surveillance and proper control. In those circumstances, when they exist, internment might have to be used, but we are a very long way from there. People who could have been charged and tried have not been charged and tried. There was no case of somebody being let off by a jury who were intimidated. The only people found not guilty by a jury in a case of this kind recently were in fact a former Minister and others associated with him—unless the Government are suggesting that that jury were intimidated—but there was no other case of people found not guilty by a jury. Therefore there is no evidence of any kind to support the suggestion that the courts cannot or will not work. The courts are working. They have not been tried. No attempt has been made to bring these people before them except in one instance and when the man was found guilty of the possession of arms and ammunition he was hastily released as a result of negotiations between the judge and the Minister for Justice.

When we see the law not being enforced, when we see the courts breaking down and when we get evidence that this breakdown is on such a scale and the number of people involved in this conspiracy is so large that they cannot be controlled by surveillance then this party will be prepared, as we have always been prepared, to support the Government in measures necessary to secure the safety of this State, but not until then. That was the position taken up by Mr. W. T. Cosgrave, by Mr. John Marcus O'Sullivan, by Mr. John A. Costello, by Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenny and by General MacEoin when this legislation, and legislation associated with it, originally came before Parliament. It is the position that this party takes up today.

So much for that matter. It is important that the position should be stated clearly. We are in a difficult area in which it is easy to fall between two stools. It is not easy always to maintain a balanced position because we are trying to weigh up two things each of which is vital—the safety of the State and the liberty of the subject. There can be a conflict between them. Such a conflict can exist and we have to be very careful that we reconcile those differences and that we resolve that conflict in a satisfactory way.

I want to turn now to more general matters. The trial which recently took place has had a considerable impact on public opinion. The disclosures of that trial have encouraged a cynicism, which has been given encouragement by the attitude of members of the party opposite and by the behaviour and performance of the party opposite, which has been governing for many years. We on this side of the House have had to sit here and see people on the opposite benches adopt an attitude in relation to corrupt practices which discredits this House. We have seen a Deputy get up and boast about the number of his relatives for whom he has got jobs.

Mr. Carter

The Deputy is going too far in that regard. I do not see any evidence of that: if there were corruption I would not put up with it.

Dr. FitzGerald

I respect the Deputy's honesty. I would not wish that the remarks I have to make about some members of Fianna Fáil reflect on all members of the party because I believe many of them share my disgust.

Dr. O'Donovan

I think he was pulling the Deputy's leg.

Mr. Carter

The Deputy is quite irrelevant there.

Dr. FitzGerald

In the case in question he was accused of having got four of his relatives jobs as guides on the Rock of Cashel and he boastingly said, "No, it was three".

Mr. Carter

That was a minor incident relating to a local authority.

Dr. FitzGerald

As a Member of this House I find that offensive.

I do not care how limited it is, so long as it exists.

The Central Bank Bill was introduced 18 months ago. It is still at the introductory stage and, in the meantime, the banking system is carrying on in a completely unsatisfactory way. The banking cartel exercises its functions to exclude competition and nothing is done about it.

We have the Higher Education Authority Bill which is needed to enable the Authority to start working, to set the Authority up on a permanent basis. That went to the Government 20 months ago. It has not yet reached this House.

Legislation is required for the construction of a motorway with restricted access. How many years is it since that Bill was first put forward? It has not been reached yet. There is a complete breakdown in the legislative system. Worse than that, when a Bill is introduced, it is just let lie there.

At the level of decision making there is complete paralysis. In this morning's paper an official of the Shannon Free Airport Company is quoted as saying what everybody knows to be true who knows anything about regional planning: that there will be no decision on Buchanan so long as the present political situation remains, which is a polite way of saying so long as the present inert Government remains.

Deputies on the other side freely admit privately there will be no decision on Buchanan because they are afraid to take a decision on Buchanan. In the meantime we are held up and the possibility of doing anything for the west is held up because there is no decision. We drift on. Little bits and pieces of decisions are taken. We have industrial estates in Waterford and Limerick but, for the rest, nothing is being done because the Government are afraid to take the decisions that should be taken. In the meantime the west can rot and the economy can drift.

I know no period in the history of this country in which this has happened before. All Governments have had their defects. We have had some very good Governments. We have had some poor Governments, but never a period in which Government had broken down to this extent, never a period when members of the Government admit, off the record, that they are just not going to take decisions, when legislation is held up for years, when vital reforms are impeded, when nothing happens, when we drift along and the pace of legislation slows down to a level lower than any level that ever existed before. We are not even getting through the routine business in regard to the Estimates.

There is need for radical reform of the parliamentary system, of the administrative system and of our whole political system. Yet there is not the slightest sign on the Government benches of any proposals for reforms coming. We are carrying on Government in the last third of the 20th century with 19th-century methods and with not even a good copy of those methods. I am not convinced that our present system of government, public administration and our political system is capable of absorbing the material needed to formulate policy. Only two Government Departments have shown any significant willingness to commission or absorb or show interest in any independent research in the areas in which they are concerned, the Department of Labour and the Department of Finance. All credit to them. Both of them have commissioned extensive schemes of economic and social research with a view to getting the kind of information needed to formulate the policies necessary for this country's future progress. In other Government Departments that is not the case. In the Department of Local Government and the Department of Health the idea of any independent research is frowned on. Over the whole range of Government Departments, with the exception of the two I mentioned, the attitude remains one of trying to avoid any independent view and not wanting to deal with facts or figures produced from outside; they might be inconvenient and impede the internal non-policy making activity of the Department.

There is no new thinking on the system of government itself. Our centralised bureaucratic system, so extraordinarily inappropriate to this country, has managed to create in a country whose people have a unique ability for personal relationships a uniquely soulless and bureaucratic administration. Not an easy thing to do. I do not think the Irish people are natural bureaucrats. On the contrary, there is a natural resistance to bureaucracy. Ours is a system of bureaucracy in which the ordinary member of the public feels completely incapable of getting his rights. I raised here yesterday the case of a widow in the south of Ireland whose husband died after an illness of six weeks. There is a long, tangled story of bureaucratic muddle and incompetence. Documents are sent down and returned. Weeks pass and fresh documents are sent. One week's benefit is paid and then nothing because, it is said, the card was not stamped the previous year although the fully stamped card had been sent in. The net result is that the unfortunate widow gets no social welfare. There is a complete lack of humanity. Instead of treating this woman in a humane manner and giving her that to Which she is entitled there is a complete lack of humanity. The system breaks down and there is muddle and confusion and nobody agrees with anybody else. Phone call after phone call is made at considerable expense from the south of Ireland, but even these fail to produce any results. Promises are made that money will be sent and none is sent. This is the normal situation.

Why do we spend so much of our time dealing with Government Departments? Part of the explanation is, of course, our wanting to get votes. This is the general practice. I resist the idea of a TD being a messenger boy for his constituents, but I cannot resist applications for help when my constituents face a bureaucracy with which they cannot cope. I must assist them and the things about which I have to assist them are things on which I should not have to assist them. I am constantly ringing up about matters that should have been dealt with, looking for people's rights, rights they should have as rights, rights which I Should not be required to look for for them. It is almost as if we deliberately built up this bureaucracy to keep TD's from doing the work they should be doing. The inhumanity of our bureaucratic system is intolerable. We shall have to humanise it.

We use the time of this House making party political points against each other, even on matters like housing. There are Deputies in Fianna Fáil who, when they talk about housing and what is alleged to have happened in 1957, and all the rest of it, make me feel sick inside because I know the conditions and I do not think it is proper for us to be making party political points about the lives of those who live under these conditions and pretend we are dealing with the situation as mature representatives of the people. The hypocrisy of this sickens me. We all know the hypocrisy. Some of us are able to show it and others are inhibited from showing it, but there is hypocrisy in party politics.

Mr. Carter

I am afraid there is a share of hypocrisy running through that statement by the Deputy. Would he agree with Hugh Munro's summing-up of the Dublin Corporation's accounts not too long ago when he states that houses were being provided uneconomically?

Dr. FitzGerald

I have no doubt whatever about that. It is a different issue altogether. I am in sympathy on that point. The system of renting houses is all wrong. I am concerned about the situation in which the houses are not being built. I would like to see houses let at an economic rent and incomes supplemented where necessary.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Half the houses in Dublin were built by Dublin Corporation.

Dr. FitzGerald

At this moment in this country, we build one-third local authority houses and two-thirds private houses. In Northern Ireland, which we condemn, over two-thirds is public housing and one-third is private housing. We are forcing two-thirds of our population to save up for a deposit for a house plus legal fees. Then they have to pay £6 or £7 a week. Twenty years ago, we built 8,000 local authority houses. This year, we built 4,700.

There is a firm decision not to increase that number. We are 70 per cent better off than we were 20 years ago but we are building 40 per cent fewer houses. You would have difficulty in finding a country in Europe whose house building rate is less than double ours.

In Dublin, no married couple with one child has a chance of a house. I have to tell such couples that. For a brief period last year, a few such families were housed in Ballymun but that has ended. There is no prospect of that improving as the backlog gets bigger. It is becoming increasingly difficult for families with two children to get a house and soon the requirement will be three children. In part of the area I represent—Ringsend-lrishtown —half a dozen houses are currently being built. No family of less than nine people will get near the short list for those houses. It is not abnormal for families there to be 12 in a two-bedroomed flat. If a man, his wife and one child are living with nine in-laws in a one-bedroomed flat the family of three is not regarded as living in overcrowded conditions. We have made inhuman laws in this country.

Mr. R. Barry

It is not a laughing matter.

Dr. O'Donovan

We have had a fair amount of nonsense from Deputy Burke.

Mr. Carter

We do not talk about this work which we do. We do it.

Dr. FitzGerald

Do what?

Mr. P.J. Burke

I apologise for interrupting.

Mr. Carter

The Deputy is talking about the representations which he receives.

Dr. FitzGerald

I am and I am entitled to talk about them so as to demonstrate the social conditions we tolerate in this country. I would be the last person to claim that I am doing in this field more work than other people. Probably, because Dublin is easier than some other places, I am doing less work in this respect. However, in my small amount of work in this sphere, and in meeting the claims made upon me, I am more acutely able to appreciate these unhappy conditions. I wish everybody else in the country had to face the fact of the existence of these conditions.

I find this place stifling. We sit here and throw party points across the House at each other. If Deputy Dowling gets up to speak we may have a repeat performance of earlier occasions. I am not saying that we on this side of the House are all pure in this regard. We make party points about housing but we do not build the houses or allocate the money for that purpose.

Mr. Carter

Fourteen thousand houses.

Dr. FitzGerald

What the hell is 14,000 houses? In Northern Ireland, they are building more than that-with half our population. If we were building at this moment local authority houses in the same proportion to our national output and national wealth as 20 years ago we should be building 13,000 local authority houses now, not 4,700.

It is not the duty of Parliament to carry out social surveys, but there are two bodies of people in this city who should at least have done a social survey. A man named Rowantree did one by himself in the town of York in the year 1911. He called it Poverty in Town Life and this became the basis on which the enormous survey on poverty in London was carried out by the London School of Economics. This was an eight volume survey.

I ask my colleague, Deputy Dr. FitzGerald, why the Faculty of Social Science in University College, Dublin, have not done any social survey. They do all types of artistic surveys, using words that I do not understand and that even Deputy FitzGerald probably does not understand. They do not deal with this elementary problem of finding out where poverty is in Dublin. The Deputy probably knows where it is and I know where it is. We have both discovered that the real poverty in Dublin is in large families.

We have the Economic and Social Research Institute. The other evening I spoke to Professor Fogarty in UCD who turned on me very resentfully when I said "The very first survey that should be done is a survey on poverty." The Economic and Social Research Institute get £100,000 a year. Professor Fogarty resented what I said. He turned to me and said "We are going to do it." It was not the first survey they did. I will not weary the House by talking about the nonsensical surveys they went in for, like a survey on what is the social philosophy of the Dublin businessman. They did surveys on imaginary subjects which have no connection with the realities of life.

It is not the business of Parliament to carry out social surveys, but if Parliament provides funds for a Faculty of Social Science in University College, Dublin, and funds for an Economic and Social Research Institute, I do not understand why they cannot carry out surveys on different social subjects and find out where poverty is. I know the word "poor" is not used any longer. In America they are referred to as the underprivileged. I like simple words. It is all right for people to say "The poor we have always with us." We have not got them very much with us now. We only have pockets of poor and everybody in this House should be interested in discovering where they are.

In the last few Adjournment Debates the Taoiseach made very poor introductory statements. Yesterday's statement was not too poor, although it was not too bright. It was under four rather obvious headings, but at least on this occasion there was an effort by the Taoiseach to give us a survey. However, he did not tell us much of the facts of life. He spoke about the past year being a mixed one. This was a very mild way of putting it. There are other names which one could call it.

Mr. Carter

The Deputy could say there was a grain of truth in it.

Dr. O'Donovan

Yes, I agree. The Taoiseach mentioned we will have a growth rate of 2 per cent this year. I do not know where the Taoiseach lives. He is not an arithmetical economist but unfortunately he seems to have great faith in them. One of the Taoiseach's advisers said in my presence at the women workers' union one night:" Unless a man can make some arithmetical calculations he can make no worthwhile statement about education." All I can say is that any man who makes that kind of statement about education needs his head examined. He does not know what education is about. I do not mind what arithmetic produces. There has been no growth rate in our economy this year. There is one thing which happened which is worthwhile developing but it will be over balanced by the decay in the tourist industry: our exports grew more than our imports. That was almost entirely due to price rises.

Government expenditure this year went up from £383 million to £500 million. If we had proper results from that expenditure we would have a growth rate of at least 8 per cent. I stand over my statement that there has been no real growth in the income of this country this year. If the Government put up their expenditure by 30 per cent, it would be an extraordinary thing if you could not get 2 per cent out of that by a pretence growth rate. I do not intend to dissect gross national product, although there is no trouble in doing it and showing what nonsense it is. This very expression is complete nonsense. The fact that this is used by arithmetical economists all over the world is a proof of nothing.

I am worried by what I have seen over the last four or five months in this country. I have seen rising prices together with increasing unemployment. It is very difficult to right that situation. However, that is over now and our opposition to the Prices and Incomes Bill has been justified.

What happened? What played Old Harry with the community during this past year? What happened was the extraordinary rise in prices in the month of May which came from the doubling of the turnover tax. Something else happened. We in this party opposed the Anglo-lrish Free Trade Area Agreement. The Fine Gael Party talked against it but did not go into the lobbies against it. We opposed it hook, line and sinker and we will be vindicated because, as I said before in this House, the watershed was reached on 1st July last. We are seeing the continuous evidence of it. We have seen the destruction of a community down in Clara. What is the Government's answer? They are to build a factory there. So far there is no evidence that there is anybody to occupy that factory.

The fact is that the tariffs are now down to half of what they were at their apex. We had a very high tariff system but more and more of our light industry into which we put so much effort—whether or not it could all be defended is not here nor there; but we have completed the job—will be destroyed. As I said here a week or two ago, people like variety. If women in particular see something different they want it. We have a small country with a small population and our stuff will be much the same. There will not be that much variety because that is impossible. Let me be precise. On the whole our commodities are as cheap as they are elsewhere in Western Europe, with the possible exception of Britain. Most of them are a lot cheaper than they are in the Common Market into which Deputy Dowling is so anxious to take us.

I want to talk now about internment. On a problem like internment it is advisable to listen to people who have had close personal experience of it. If internment is brought into operation by the Government it will educate revolutionaries and it will also revive the Irish language. That is about the only step in that direction this Government will ever take. As my mentor on this I take Mr. John A. Costello, the man who drafted Article 2 (a) of the first Constitution setting up the military courts, the military tribunal as it was known, and which the Fianna Fáil Party attacked when in Opposition and put into operation with gusto once they were in Government.

I am glad the Minister for Justice has come into the House. What I want to say relates more closely to his Department than to any other Department. I think everyone in this House, even the Minister for Justice, would agree that our police force are excellent, that they are kindly and decent and treat people with courtesy, unlike police forces in other countries. As was pointed out here earlier this morning what is that force used for in the way of pressure? To coerce youngsters who are holding marches through the city or something like that.

I want to ask a simple question. We have not been told on what evidence it suddenly emerged that the Government were going to do this. On the basis of what? On the basis of an Act passed when we were surrounded by enemies in 1940. That is the basis on which the Government surface today. When was the last bank robbed in this country? How long ago was it? The day before yesterday a bank was robbed in London. I saw a picture of a young Irishman who had three fingers shot off in a bank in London. About £70,000 was taken. I know that there were about 13 bank robberies here but I am sure, to a considerable extent, that it was not the fault of the police force that the people concerned were not caught and some of them convicted.

In the Labour Party we have a clear record on internment. A man like Mr. John A. Costello, who hated internment obviously and who had deep experience of it and knew what it was like, is the man whose advice I would take and the pattern of whose actions I would follow. I do not understand the problem. I do not pretend to understand it, but I believe in civil liberty. I was a democrat when democracy was not so plentiful in either of the two big parties. I have never ceased to believe in democracy. Even when the people threw me out of this House, I still believed in democracy.

I can only say what I hear and it is said that this threat of internment is directed against a body called Saor Eire. I am told that some time ago Saor Eire consisted of about 30 active members and that there were about 15 to 20 people they could call on to drive motor cars and that kind of thing. I am also told that of the 30 who are left, half have joined the Irish Communist Party. Does anyone believe for one minute that on joining the Irish Communist Party they will not be disciplined? We all know what Communist parties are like all over the world. We know the way they discipline their members.

That leaves a total of 15 odd, and about a half a dozen of them are in prison or on the run. So, we are left with the Offences Against the State Act being activated against about ten people. As Deputy Tully remarked yesterday, the absurdity of that, considering that you cannot make a noise at one end of this city that is not heard at the other. This city is the most complicated part of the country. One is more anonymous here than anywhere else in the country. As I have said so often, this city is a sounding board because you cannot make a noise in Rathmines that is not heard in Whitehall.

Deputy Corish, the leader of this Party, was perfectly correct. Internment leads to all kinds of violence and to the destruction of human life. Men will die on hunger strike. There will be executions as there were already. In this party we have a clean record in this connection. The two Governments with which we were connected had no record of this sort whatsoever. The two inter-party Governments were the only Governments we had in this country that never went in for internment. This problem—if it is as serious as the Government pretend it is—has arisen because the Garda were held back. At the time of the murder of Garda Fallon a senior officer of the Garda Síochána said: "The honeymoon is over." I did not understand that remark at the time but its meaning has become obvious since.

I want to refer to Deputy Davern's contribution here yesterday. He spoke about republicanism. It always amuses me to hear the Fianna Fáil Party talk about republicanism. They took the word republicanism out of a dictionary and put it between brackets but they never made this country a republic. They are republicans in spite of themselves. The first inter-Party Government declared this country a republic and I do not believe that the Fianna Fail Party at that time had any intention of proclaiming this country a republic, except on an election platform. They had every intention of doing that.

The tradition of republicanism is deep in this country and has a most honoured place in our history. Deputy Davern has, to my great delight, come into the House. There is a bit more to being a genuine republican than talking about it. The Fianna Fáil Party put the words between brackets as a subheading to the Soldiers of Destiny. They had no intention of declaring this country a republic but the first inter-Party Government did it, a Government that did not go in for internment.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Healy)

Would the Deputy come back to the Estimate before the House?

Dr. O'Donovan

Dr. O'Donovan

Minister for Justice (Mr. O'Malley)

By how much did your Government increase them? By 10d a week.

Dr. O'Donovan

This is one of the typical myths of Fianna Fáil. Ten pence a week! It is just like the Fianna Fáil Party always saying that the Cumann na nGaedheal Government created Partition. They say this regularly and it offends my sense of ordinary decency.

Mr. Tunney

Is it not true, Deputy. that you gave 2s 6d over three years?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Tunney has already spoken and he cannot cross-examine the Deputy in this fashion.

Dr. O'Donovan

I do not know where this 10d a week came from.

Mr. O'Malley

I meant to say IOd a year-2s 6d in three years.

Dr. O'Donovan

Things are getting better and better.

Mr. O'Malley

It is 52 times better.

We have heard quite a great deal in this debate and we have also heard, from outside the House, about the Government's statement in relation to possible internment. This, of course, was all foreseeable. The Government knew the kind of attacks that would be made on them. We did not need the gift of prophecy to be able to say, when making our decision, exactly what the parties opposite would say and what certain groups outside the House would say. If we had written scripts for them we would scarcely have had a line wrong.

There are, however, I have no doubt, some people who do not fully understand why information cannot be produced by the Garda in open court. These people do not include Deputies opposite because they know quite well why this is so. There may be people in the country who do not fully understand why the Government cannot be more specific in their disclosures about kidnapping. Again, these people do not include Deputies opposite who know quite well. There may be people in the country who do not fully understand why, if the present critical situation were to continue, it could not be dealt with by the introduction of special criminal courts rather than by the apparently more drastic measure of internment. Once again I venture to say that those people do not include the Deputies opposite.

An ordinary member of the public may not be well versed in legal niceties and he or she may not know the exact answers to these questions. One thing about all this which every member of the public, no matter how unsophisticated, knows is this: the Government have nothing to gain by a threat of internment. The ordinary citizen also knows—and knows with absolute certainty—that this Government do not want to intern people and if they had wanted to they would have gone about it in a very different way.

Mr. L'Estrange

Why do you not enforce the law?

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, order.

Mr. O'Malley

We would have gone ahead and done it instead of issuing a solemn warning, the only point or purpose of which could be that the warning might, as we hope it will, make it unnecessary to put the warning into effect, but the danger was real, it still is real, and let nobody be under any illusion about that.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Give us some facts.

Mr. Treacy

Mr. Treacy

The Government are relying on spies and informers all the way through.

Mr. O'Malley

Mr. O'Malley

Mr. L'Estrange

Is the Minister aware that this man is one of the biggest thugs and is wanted for numerous robberies? The Minister knows that well.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. O'Malley

I was somewhat disappointed yesterday that there were no supplementary questions in view of the fuss that was made, but I think the reply puts the matter beyond doubt.

Mr. L'Estrange

Beyond what doubt?

Mr. O'Malley

However, to reinforce it further, if that is needed, I think I should draw the attention of the House to a statement on behalf of my Department from the Government Information Bureau on 28th November last in reply to queries on this point. That statement read as follows:

The trial in the Central Criminal Court for offences committed in October, 1968, was extensively reported in the daily press of 17th, 18th and 30th June and 9th July, 1970. The trial judge, Mr. Justice O'Keeffe, was reported as saying "he had been prepared to have Dwyer detained awaiting sentence until October and then release him with a suspended sentence ". The judge is reported as having made other remarks of a similar kind such as " I find it impossible at the moment to see what sentence to impose. It is a sentence that will cause me a lot of worry ". During the course of the trial, evidence was given that Dwyer's intervention prevented an accomplice from discharging a gun at the gardaí and the judge, according to his reported remarks, accepted that, from his record, Dwyer "was not a man given to violence at all ".

Petitions on humanitarian grounds for clemency were received from Dwyer and, separately, from his wife and after the usual consultations which are conducted in petition cases with the prison Governor. the Garda Authorities and the Trial Judge, the Minister directed the prisoner's release.

Mr. Enright

Arising out of that may I ask——

An Ceann Comhairle

There can be no cross-examination. The Deputy may speak later.

Mr. Enright

Could I ask the Minister——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not ask the Minister anything.

Mr. O'Malley

Not alone was there consultation with the Garda authorities and the trial judge but my decision to release the man was made in accordance with their recommendation and before the Deputies opposite, or anybody else——

Mr. L'Estrange

This is making nonsense of the whole thing.

Mr. O'Malley

Mr. O'Malley

I want to quote from the Irish Press of 9th July, 1970. I quote Mr. Justice O'Keeffe as quoted in that newspaper:

Bearing in mind that Garda Duffin perhaps owed his life to the intervention of (defendant) at a time when his companions seemed to be prepared to shoot the gardaí....

Here is a further quotation from the same newspaper on the same day:

Having regard to the intervention of the defendant and that he was prepared to save Garda Duffin's life....

Here is a quotation from the Irish Times of 30th June, 1970:

The Witness (Inspector Coriston) who was the Garda officer in charge of the case agreed with Mr. Heavey that if (defendant) had not intervened his accomplice would have discharged a gun at the gardaí.

The trial judge also commented that the defendant, from his previous convictions, is not a man given to violence at all.

Here is a quotation from the Irish Times of 30th June, 1970:

I find it impossible at the moment to see what sentence to impose.

It is a sentence that will cause me a lot of trouble and worry.

He adjourned the case to 8th July 1970. He then said, and I quote from the Irish Press report of 9th July, 1970:

that he had been prepared to have the defendant detained awaiting sentence until October and then release him with a suspended term of penal servitude.

The fact of the matter is that when this was put to the defendant, he, the defendant, for some reason asked the judge to impose a sentence on him there and then.

Mr. L'Estrange

Because other charges would be preferred against him.

Mr. O'Malley

The man was released from custody on 12th November, 1970. He was in custody for a period of something around nine months between the various remands before his trial and the period he was in custody awaiting sentence and the period he was in custody after sentence. If the judge had gone ahead and sentenced this man in the way in which he clearly wanted to — from his statements that were quoted in the Press at the time — the man would have been released in the first week in October.

Mr. L'Estrange

The police in Dublin would have resigned in a body if that had happened.

Mr. O'Malley

This man's wife wrote to the judge — this has been reported in the public press and that is the reason I refer to it — petitioning him, apparently in the belief that the correct person to petition in a case like this is the judge. The judge replied to her telling her that she should petition the Minister for Justice and that, if contacted, as was usual, in a petition he would give a favourable recommendation. It is my practice, in every petition that comes before me——

Mr. Coogan

Was the other man arrested?

Mr. O'Malley

Reference was made here and outside the House to another incident about six or eight weeks ago in O'Connell Street, Dublin, where it was alleged that shots were discharged in the course of the funeral procession of a man who was blown up while attempting to place an explosive beside a military barracks in this city. I should like, in so far as I am allowed to do it, to deal in some detail with this particular incident because I know a very great deal about it. I foresaw, before this funeral took place, the possibility of an incident of this kind happening in the light of experience of similar incidents in previous years. I took the opportunity on two separate occasions prior to this funeral procession to give specific instructions to the Garda that any firing of guns or incidents of that kind at this funeral were to be prevented and that if any such incident did take place, notwithstanding the precautions, the perpetrators of it were to be arrested on the spot. I conveyed those instructions to the Garda on the Thursday afternoon as I understood the funeral was to take place on the Friday morning. I then discovered on the Friday morning that in fact, in order to obtain a larger crowd at the funeral, it had been postponed for 24 hours and was to take place on Saturday morning. Accordingly, in order to put the matter beyond any possible doubt, I reiterated on Friday about lunch-time my instructions to the Garda. Those instructions were clearly understood and were complied with to the absolute limit of the ability of the Garda in the particular circumstances.

I was criticised in this House and outside it at the time because what was regarded as an unduly large number of the Garda Síochána attended the funeral and attended or were in the vicinity of the funeral procession. I admitted—and I do not apologise for it—that there was a comparatively large number of gardaí there on that occasion and they were there on my specific personal direction in order to prevent an incident of this kind happening.

The funeral procession left the church in question and proceeded towards Glasnevin Cemetery—I think it was Glasnevin. The procession stopped in O'Connell Street outside the GPO. Some period of silence was observed when the procession stopped and I think that some form of salute with a trumpet or other musical instrument was sounded. Immediately after that, and as the procession seemed to be about to move off again, a considerable number of persons, estimated at about 150 to 200, suddenly, and apparently as part of a pre-arranged plan came together in a very large, thick group of people in the middle of the street completely surrounding what the gardaí believed to be two men and out of the middle of that large group a number of shots, or what appeared to shots, were heard to come. No member of the many members of the Garda there could. in fact, see directly what happened because careful preparations had been made to ensure that no member of the Garda could see directly what was happening.

The gardaí moved into the middle of this group as quickly as they could but they were unable to locate any firearm. The funeral procession then continued on its way. Again, on my personal directions, there was a considerable number of gardaí — for which I make no apology—at the cemetery and no incidents of a nature that might have been expected took place there as a result. I was informed at my home in Limerick on the Saturday afternoon of what had happened and I directed that the Garda make every possible effort to ascertain the identity of the persons who fired or who were alleged to have fired these shots. The gardaí made very extensive inquiries including the taking of statements from a large number of gardaí who were on duty at the time.

We know all about Tyrrells Pass. Answer about the Barnes and McCormick funeral. The photographs of the two men appeared in the paper.

Mr. O'Malley

The incident to which Deputy Cosgrave referred was said by him to have occurred a few months ago. The incident in Tyrrells Pass occurred a few months ago.

Mr. Begley

I regret Mr. Berry should have been criticised and threatened in the way in which he was because the criticism, naming of him and identification of him may perhaps frighten off some people entering the public service or might perhaps encourage people to do their duty somewhat less assidiously than he did. All I can say on his retirement is that this country has lost a public servant of the highest integrity and ability. I can only hope that for future years we will have men such as this in our public service to serve the people.

Mr. L'Estrange

I hope the Government stand over them.

Dr. FitzGerald

May I ask the Minister a question?

An Ceann Comhairle

No.

Dr. FitzGerald

I thought at the end of his speech I could.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not ask the Minister a question.

Mr. O'Higgins

May I say first of all in relation to the Minister's reference to the secretary of the Department of Justice that we on this side of the House fully recognised, in relation to the events in particular which occurred on April 19th of this year, that it was fortunate that there was available in the Department of Justice a civil servant who was conscious of the traditions of that Department, who was conscious of the role which the Civil Service had played and should play in the maintenance of law and order. The action of the secretary of the Department, Mr. Peter Berry, was in marked distinction to the action of the then Minister for Justice who, having learned of matters inimical to the security of this State left his post and left a situation possibly to develop in which great harm could have been done.

I join with the Minister in paying tribute to the action of Mr. Berry which was done in accordance with what he knew to be right, acting without fear or favour and acting in the interest of the people as he regarded it in accordance with his duty. May I say in case by implication, from what the Minister said, it might appear that any criticism of Mr. Berry came from the benches on this side of the House, that it certainly did not. The criticism to which the Minister referred came from the Fianna Fáil Party and from nobody else.

We are concerned in this debate, which has been regarded as a debate in relation to the state of the nation, with the position of the Government and the position of the people. We have, to some extent, to evaluate both the Government and the condition of the country over the last 12 months.

I should like to apply my own tests —not necessarily intended to be perfect. I believe a government, to be a good government, must satisfy certain conditions. Essentially they must know where they are going. They must have clear targets and clear aims. They must be able to define those targets and those aims, and they must be able to point to the direction in which they are going. Secondly, to be a good government, a government must necessarily plan carefully, properly and positively for the achievement of the aims put forward. Thirdly, for a government to operate at all in relation to both their aims and their planning, they must carry amongst their members a general agreement and unity of purpose. It would be a good thing if, from time to time, in these debates, we evaluated the Government along such lines. I do not say that what I suggest is necessarily correct but it certainly is an approach to the evaluation of this or any other government.

So far as the country is concerned, in my view a country can be said to be well governed if the people recognise the clear goals for national effort, and if they know what is meant when a Minister or the leader of a government talks about national effort in a factory, in an industry, in the field, or wherever it may be. The people have a right to know what will be achieved by greater production. Secondly, the people can be said to be well governed when perceptible progress is being made at any period of examination towards the achievement of the goals the people regard as significant. Therefore, you must have goals for national effort and you must have progress towards the achievement of those goals.

Thirdly, it is essential for the well being of any country that there should be and should exist and appear to exist, a confidence and a mental trust between the people and the government. In other words, it must at any stage be apparent that the government have the good wishes and the goodwill of the people. Lastly, and this is probably an external matter, in evaluating the state of a country it is relevant to have regard to the manner in which, in relation to any period, the nation fares vis-à-vis outside countries. Do we stand well amongst the nations of the world? Is our prestige as high as it should be, or have we lost ground? If other countries look at us and think well of what we are doing, we have a sense of administering our affairs correctly and a sense of being well governed and well led.

I suggest that these are fair and reasonable points, not necessarily exhaustive points, upon which, in relation to the year just concluded, we can examine the state of the nation, the position of this Government and the position of the people. Can any member of the Government at this moment, or any member of the Fianna Fáil Party, or any Member over there, claim that he can say, and believe it, that the Government have a clear economic and social target? I do not believe he can. One of the really significant facts now is that, at the end of all the talk about programmes and plans and all the rest of it, the Government are without an economic target and without a social aim, and they have no idea of what kind of a country they are endeavouring to build.

I refer in particular to a comment in that direction made quite recently by a former member of the Government who is still a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, Deputy Charles Haughey. Deputy Haughey broke the silence that has descended upon him since the events of the last week of April of this year, and spoke recently and, so far as I understood his speech, that is precisely the point he made. He said: " Let us get out of the mud " and he went on to complain, in effect, that at this stage, at this, moment, this Government and the country do not know where they are going, that there were no aims, no targets, no vision of the future, nothing on which an Irish Government or an Irish leader could say to the Irish people and the Irish workers: " Let us produce more. This is the land we are building."

There is no target; there is no aim; there is no goal, either in the economic or social field. There is nothing worthwhile that this Government at this stage can put before the people. Without an aim or a target, it follows immediately that there cannot be any evidence of planning. There cannot be planning if there is nothing to plan for and, if there is nothing to plan for, then the only aim of the Government's activities must be the sordid and short-term one of merely remaining in office.

If there is a lack of a target and a lack of a goal, inevitably the concern of the Government must be merely to live out each day, and each week, and each month, and regard it each day and each week and each month as a success story if they are still in office. Of course that is what has been happening. Without a goal, without a plan in relation to any period of examination, the leader of the Government and the Ministers of the Government are entitled to regard it as a success story if at the end of the year as at the beginning of it they can say: " We are still here ".

Of course, that is, in fact, what the Taoiseach was saying when he spoke yesterday. He referred to the difficulties, to the problems, to the mixed bag, and he regarded the story as a success story because they are still here at the end of it. The truth is that throughout the year that has gone by, with no goal, with no planning, Government action consisted of a series of improvisations, a series of sudden thinking, sudden short-term planning, in relation to each problem as it bubbled up but the cauldron was there bubbling all the time. Sometimes one particular problem became more acute than another and action had to be taken in relation to it. But it was improvising; it was not planning.

We had a pay freeze suddenly announced in which everything was to be frozen—the 12th round and the 13th round. This was a sudden improvised plan in relation to the latest bubble in the cauldron: the problem of inflation. Inflation was there all the time. The things that led to inflation were there all the time. They had been there for the last 12 to 18 months. They were not attended to. No action was taken because, in fact, action at any stage in relation to inflation is difficult —it might be unpopular and might lead to political disadvantage. Inflation was not dealt with. The primary concern of remaining in office remained manifest the whole time. Inflation was left there festering, growing, getting more ugly and more serious while the job of remaining in office became the short-term target and the election of last year was held. The problem remained and inflation in a much more serious form, in a much more threatening form, emerged in the autumn of this year. Time and again from these benches we pointed that out. Time and again we asked the Government over there to do their duty. This they did not do, and suddenly faced with the emergence of inflation in a serious, dangerous and galloping form, we had panic first, then improvisation.

The Taoiseach was across in America. He had to agree to a hasty set of decisions and away he went to the United Nations. The Minister for Finance announced these decisions and said they were not negotiable, that the situation was so serious that the round in progress would be frozen as at its present state and that for the year ahead seven per cent would be the maximum. That was announced on a Wednesday.

Certain gentlemen charged before the Central Criminal Court were released on the Friday. On Saturday and on Sunday, to the astonishment of the watching world, Telstar was called into use to listen to Deputy Haughey and the Taoiseach slanging one another across the broad Atlantic. This took place over the weekend. On the Monday the Taoiseach arrived back to be greeted with instant enthusiasm by the kindness of Ryan's Tourist Holdings at Collinstown. Then, straight into a Fianna Fáil Party meeting. What emerges from that party meeting? Defreeze the 12th round. That will proceed. There was an added statement that of course they would go no further than that. Then, faced with the justifiable indignation of the trade union movement, the next statement was " Do not bother about the seven per cent. That will not appear in the Bill ". Within a week the Government announce their proposals in relation to inflation and then proceed to say " We will back down on that but now we will introduce a Bill on Wednesday, a Prices and Incomes Bill, and you may take it that here we will draw the thin red line and we will not back down any further ". Of course, the Prices and Incomes Bill is now gone. From mid-November the Government have been speaking big and then spending all the time afterwards saving " We did not really mean that ". It all ends up in nothing. There is no planning. The Government do not know where they are going and therefore they have no method or policy for the achievement of anything worthwhile.

Mr. M. O'Leary

No Government.

Mr. O'Higgins

That is what it means in the end. Without a target there is no planning. The last test I apply to a Government is unity of purpose. Is there a general agreement among the Government party as to their goals or aims? Obviously, that is lacking. There is no unity of purpose over there at all. The party is disunited, racked by dissension. Only in relation to one aspect of political activity is there general agreement and that is an agreement to remain where they are for as long as it is humanly possible. It is bad.

The disunity in the Government has meant that the current front line team comes from the second division. There are Parliamentary Secretaries in office now who, if one had told them 12 months ago they would be driving round in the back of a Mercedes car today, would have said "You are drinking too much ". There are Ministers holding office today who if told that in this debate last year would have said: "Go away and sleep it off". They are now Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries. They are in charge of our affairs, in charge of this country, its present position and its future and in charge of it at a very formative and vital period. I do not want to say anything uncharitable, but it is fair to say that they were not the first choice and whatever men are now in Government it is a make-do Government.

The Taoiseach has to carry on with this because he achieved this position by his scandalous actions earlier this year in forcing men to behave as mice. He achieved and froze this position whereby, as long as Fianna Fáil are there, we will continue to have a second rate Government. The Taoiseach brought that about—a Government who are going to be unsure of themselves, to be uncertain of themselves. Each member will be unsure and uncertain because he knows that behind him on the back benches there are men who would have been the first choice for each post. What confidence can the Minister for Finance, Deputy Colley, have in the portfolio he holds? What confidence can other Ministers have in the jobs they are being asked to do? All the time behind them, all the time in the party, there are trends and powers and impulses at work. For what purpose? In order to enable those who have been put out to come back. The one block on the line is the man who at present leads the Government.

This is Christmas time and also an accounting period. With a Government so constituted and so composed how can one expect the country to feel happy and well governed? Of course at this time one enjoys a sense of euphoria and one is inclined to put one's troubles behind until the first day of the new year. However, it is well to bear them in mind. As a result of the events of this 12 months we are unfortunately landed with a Government who are not capable of facing up to the problems that require attention. Of course, if you apply the test, I suggest to the country you can see the effect. This country is not well governed and the people do not know where they are going. Are they going into Europe? If so, for what purpose? With what effect on the lives of the people? Who has set out the aims of Europe for them? Who has endeavoured to deal with their anxieties, problems and difficulties? Who has spelt out what Europe may cost? Who has indicated where the benefit is going to lie? Where has there been leadership in relation to where this country is going?

Europe and the problem of Europe is not something that can be dealt with in the stilted language that appears in a ministerial brief. It cannot be dealt with in the half-phrases which the Minister for External Affairs, and perhaps all of the Ministers, are inclined to use when they come back from abroad and say that discussions have been very fruitful and things are going along nicely. If this country is to be governed at this stage in our affairs, as a small nation with fearful endemic problems, a nation which is suffering in particular from the trend all over Europe, of people leaving the land, a nation which can see most of its western seaboard being denuded of people, Europe is something that the people should understand fully. There should be competent men in Government capable of talking to the people, explaining to them what Europe means, spelling out the credits and debits and where the debits are. They should be doing their best to plan to meet the difficulties that will inevitably arise. Of course, this has not been done. I do not believe it can ever be done adequately and properly with the personnel available.

Mr. R. Barry

Did the Minister for External Affairs not say at Dublin Airport on his return from a trip abroad that we should be run like a country and not like a gang?

Mr. O'Higgins

That is true indeed. I am afraid it is a comment from a member of the Government which describes in a more forceful way some of the things I have been saying. Do the people see any acceptable progress over the last 12 months in relation to the difficulties and problems that face us—in housing, unemployment, social and health services? These are the things which represent the significant problems of ordinary people. Housing is a worse problem now than it was this time last year. In this city alone there are many hundreds, if not thousands of families living on the side of the road in caravans and in makeshift arrangements and their numbers are growing every day. I do not see any progress in housing. I do not see any central policy to deal with housing. It was suggested with merit some 18 months ago that housing should be regarded as an emergency problem in Dublin. If there was merit in that proposal 18 months ago there is ten times more merit in it now.

Unemployment continues to be a very grave problem. It is not disappearing, it is remaining a constant source of worry. As far as our social services are concerned when you hear some Fianna Fáil Deputies talking about them you would imagine that this was the other Eden. The plain fact is that now, as for many years before, we are the poor, limping relative of Europe in regard to social services. We are carrying on with a quality and standard of services which would not be recognised anywhere on the Continent. We have what I can only describe as silly men making silly speeches about the great boom under Fianna Fáil administration in regard to the distribution of wealth and provision for the underprivileged. We are just not doing that. We have a standard of social and health services which, even in relation to our own country, is lower than that which applies to the other part of Ireland. There is no concern in Fianna Fáil about that.

The Minister for Health seems to think that, if he succeeds in providing a choice of doctor in the dispensary system, he will be the greatest fellow since the man who invented the sliced pan. It is proposed to continue a system of medicine which was brought into this country by a purse proud imperial parliament at a time when famine and hunger were the lot of every Irishman. They decided to set up dispensaries for the starving, dying, pauper Irish. Poverty had to be proved. People were not entitled to this service just because they were ordinary citizens. This system has been crying out for change for decades. I once had responsibility for this Department and I did my best but I was not there long enough. I had hoped to see the system changed. We are told that everyone will have a choice of doctor where it is possible. There will not be a choice of doctor in every part of the country, but there will in one-tenth of the country and this is going to be an advancement.

We are limping along like a poor relative, and apparently, under the complacency of the present Administration, this is going to continue. No progress has been made in solving the people's problems during the last 12 months. Is there confidence? Is there mutual trust? Is there goodwill emanating from the people to the Government? The Taoiseach said that the results of the two recent by-elections demonstrated the people's confidence in the Government. It struck me as being rather like Alice in Wonderland, everything was so strange, so extraordinary as seen through the Taoiseach's eyes.

The Taoiseach regarded it as a matter of confidence that a Fianna Fáil candidate was elected in Donegal, where 18 months earlier two Fianna Fáil candidates, the Minister for Social Welfare and a man from Glenties, polled 17,000 votes and a single Fine Gael candidate polled 8,000 votes. Because the 17,000 only fell to 15,000, the 8,000 grew to 13,000 and the Fianna Fáil candidate was elected it is a matter of demonstratable confidence in Fianna Fáil. That kind of make believe may alleviate the anxieties and fears of Fianna Fáil Deputies but it does not add up to much. The Taoiseach also had the temerity to say that the result in South County Dublin was a sign of confidence in him. I suppose what he really meant was, "Well, we really only lost 6 per cent of our vote, which is very good, you know." The plain fact is that in South County Dublin an anti-Government majority of 3,000 grew to an anti-Government majority of almost 6,000. This is regarded as evidence of confidence.

Has our standing abroad improved in the last 12 months? This is the final test. Do other countries think as highly of us now as they did in December, 1969? This does not require any emphasising from me. We have had a bad year. We have suddenly become linked in the minds of certain people with the colonels in Greece and with the things that sometimes happen in odd little Republics in South America.

Gun running, the sacking of Ministers and the arresting of Ministers are things that no one could possibly imagine would ever emanate from an Ireland run by an Irish Government. The latest is the intention to derogate from the human rights which are regarded as minimal by all democratic countries of Europe. This Government have painted a picture of a land full of plotters, conspirators, gun runners, spies, Mata Haris in all kinds of guises and cloak and dagger politics. They have ended up by saying: "If you have not heard enough we are now going to break into kidnapping, because this is something we can be very good at." This is the kind of picture which this inefficient and inept Government have succeeded in painting of our country before the nations of the world during the last 12 months.

The latest example of incompetence and inefficiency, a lack of wisdom and sagacity, a lack of knowledge of the country, a lack of knowledge of history and a lack of feeling for the people, is the announcement of the Government's intention at some stage in the future to bring into operation Part 2 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1940. I speak as one Deputy in whose personal family history there is a deep and significant association with the whole problem of lack of respect for law and order. I know it from both sides. I understand the problem—I do not minimise the problem—but no Member of this House who values democracy, personal rights and personal liberties, can be happy as long as numbered in our statutes is the Offences Against the State Act, 1940.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Hear, hear.

Mr. O'Higgins

That legislation is so inimical not only to personal rights, but to the respect in which one human being should hold another, that it can only be countenanced under the gravest possible circumstances. One can accept that it was an Act brought in at a time of great danger. It was said to have been brought in because the life of the nation was in jeopardy and was being threatened. I was not a Member of the House at the time and I am not going to accept for one moment that the case made in 1940 for the passing of this Act may not have been established or that the need for it may not have been made out, but that is quite a different question and quite a different matter. To threaten to use that Act now is a very serious matter indeed because the very act of disclosing that intention has further embarrassed our position abroad and it has caused anxiety and confusion amongst the people at home.

I know well, and I make this assertion here, that no such action will ever be taken because it would split the Fianna Fáil Party from top to bottom. This Act will not be brought into operation because those who had to eat the humblest of pies two or three weeks ago will not take that further step and therefore the Act can never be brought into operation. But why was the suggestion made? Why was the announcement issued? Was it a silly, childish political effort at playing a silly political game: "I won't tell you about it. There is danger here now. Leave it to me. I am going to deal with it. Ah, it is gone. Wasn't I great to have saved you from it?" Was that the purpose? If it was, it is so childish and so naive that one begins to wonder at the sanity of the mind that would think along those lines. Or was there a genuine belief that there was a serious plot threatening the life of the nation, because it must be as serious as that? If there was such a genuine plot it must still be there and, if it is there, here is the place to talk about it.

The Minister for Justice tried to say that they were not going to give information because the rules of admissibility of evidence would not permit the preferring of charges. Now, this is not children's hour. We are not children here. We are not going to listen to stories about the big bad dragon, and all the rest of it, and we are not going to listen to fairy tales. If there is a conspiracy so manifest, so widespread, so dangerous as to threaten the life of this nation, nobody can tell me and nobody can even start to convince me that, such being known to the police of this country, there cannot be admissible evidence to deal with it. That is utter rubbish. How do the police get their information. No. 1, from an informer. That is a very likely source. The informer tells the police the details of the plot and, if I know the Special Branch, I know how they operate. They then contact their own members already in the organisation and I am not going to listen to the Minister for Justice, or any other Minister of the Government, trying to persuade me that inside of these groups at the moment there are not serving loyal officers of this State. Of course there are. This is utter rubbish.

If a plot so serious existed I have no doubt whatsoever that a charge could be preferred tomorrow morning and that evidence would be available. I sat as a Member of a Government that had to confront this kind of situation and I remember not only seeing but hearing the advice given to the Government by the Special Branch at that time. It transpired very quickly it was the same kind of advice based on the same kind of information that the Government had 30 years before and I strongly suspect it is the same kind of advice that is now being given 13 years later. This was either a panicky reaction to what, in fact, is a current malaise in our community resulting in a stupid, ill-considered statement from which the Government are now trying to get away, or it was a deliberate decision to take action which has been frustrated because of the inner conflict inside the Fianna Fáil Party. They can take their choice.

Trying to defend it here yesterday the Taoiseach said: "But there has been no arrest." There has not been and there will not be. If the situation were so serious as to justify this, why has there not been? We have silly escapists in this country. Many of them join the ranks of the Fianna Fáil Party. They are there. They are like the warts on our faces or the pimples we get on our bodies. They are part of the way of life of the Irish people, decent young men and women getting idealistic and trying to escape from reality, wanting to achieve the re-union of Ireland and forgetting that that re-union has to be worked for and striven for so as to carry conviction. They want to try to achieve it by the one means that will continue to cause disunity and disunion. They are there. They are escapists. They always have been there. In the past, when they threatened the security of this nation, action was taken, sometimes heavyhanded, sometimes lighthanded, but it was action taken in the interests of solving the problem.

In 1956 and 1957 when poor South, God rest him, and Hanlon were killed and their bodies were given back by the Northern Ireland authorities and this funeral procession took place, that was a serious situation. Of course it was going to be worked on by those who want to trouble waters and then fish in them. They were not merely the illegal organisations. More shame to the Fianna Fáil Party that they took part in these processions. More shame to them and to the ex-Ministers who attended at Limerick on the platform when South's cortege arrived there. What were they doing there? They were puffing and blowing at an ember to try to cause another conflagration ill this country.

The fact is that these difficult problems stem from mistakes made by silly, evil and ambitious men in the past. They are there and you have got to deal with them, conscious that it is not easy, conscious probably that your approach may have to be hesitant, may have to be slow, but conscious that it must carry conviction to the people. It was for that reason in the last inter-party Government that a decision was taken that, until such time as the courts refused to do their duty and justices and judges showed the white feather and juries spurned their oath, this Act would not be brought into operation. If, of course, such a situation were disclosed then, indeed, the life of the nation would be in danger. We did not do it and we were assailed by Fianna Fáil the Opposition at the time for not doing it. We were upbraided. But it was a decision in which I shared and in which I believed and it is a decision of which I am proud because at that time, in fact, in relation to dangerous men, ambitious men and, perhaps, unbalanced men, there was not a judge, a justice or a jury that did not act, when the evidence justified it, in accordance with their duty. The ordinary law of the land confined and contained the problem. I do not believe there has been any justification for this step taken by the Government. I do not know the motives behind it but I am certain this Act will never be brought into operation. I do not believe the grounds are there for bringing it into operation but, whether or not they are there, whoever could act in relation to it, it is not this Government because, the moment they start to act, they cause a further fissure and that will be the end of it.

We have in this country proportional representation, a system that the people prize, value and have retained deliberately on two occasions if not on earlier occasions also. This system gives every voter in this country a right of choice amongst candidates and a right of choice amongst parties. Now, the people want proportional representation and they want this right of choice. Under it, and in accordance with it, the people have a choice to give either one political party an overall majority in this House or they have the choice to allow the parties in this House to provide a Government amongst themselves. That has been the choice open to the people over the years and it stems from the people's system of election here.

May I welcome the fact that the Labour Party at their recent conference have taken a decision in favour of the working of proportional representation? That does not mean that, so far as my party or the Labour Party or any other party is concerned, each of us will not strive to convince the people to give us the right to rule this country by a majority of this House but at least, as a result of that decision, a position which had been frozen, which was inflexible, has become thawed and flexible—and that is all for the good. We were reaching a situation which was inimical to democracy and inimical to the interests of the people of this country when, devoid of argument, with a blistering record of failures behind them, successive leaders of Fianna Fáil used to say, in effect: "Well, no matter what you think of us, you have to put up with us because nobody else can take our place." That can never happen again. I believe it will be a good thing for this country because otherwise we will continue to suffer a lowering of standards, moral and otherwise, amongst our people. I think that such lowering of standards inevitably comes when any one political party has been too long in office. Therefore, while what I have been saying necessarily was rather pessimistic in relation to the present state of our country, I do see prospects for the future. I see the possibility of a change taking place and a wind of change blowing throughout the country maybe next year or maybe the year after that—but I believe it will come.

Dr. Cruise O'Brien

I should like to begin by referring to the statement which has just been made in this debate by the Minister for Justice, Deputy O'Malley. I do not think anyone can have heard that statement and noted the manner of its delivery without uneasiness when they reflect that this gentleman may acquire at any moment, by proclamation, the power to intern his fellow-citizens without trial and detain them indefinitely. The speech we heard was an arrogant, truculent, intolerant speech. It did not live up to the standards of arrogance, truculence and intolerance set by his predecessor in office. Deputy Ó Moráin—those standards can only be attained by very long practice in office —but it was dangerous enough. I was watching the Minister while he was speaking. I thought even his physical attitude was eloquent. For most of his discourse, he spoke with his hands plunged deep in his pockets but, the first time he was interrupted, he shoved his right hand under his coat—in the attitude associated with the Emperor Napoleon and also with persons who believe themselves to be the Emperor Napoleon——

Mr. Desmond

The Emperor O'Malley, a dangerous little man.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

——in an attitude which any of us would not like to see struck—and it was struck—by a person who may have the power soon to intern his fellow citizens without trial. There were other remarkable features of the Minister's statement. He assured us—again in that tone of intolerant cocksuredness which is dear to him—that these powers, if invoked, could not be abused because we would still in some way have the protection of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is contrary to the truth and, when the Minister stated it, he was incompetent or ignorant or he intended to deceive this country because that is not the case.

The Government have notified the Secretary General of the Council of Europe that reliable information has come into their possession to the effect that a secret armed conspiracy exists in the country to kidnap one or more prominent persons and, connected with this conspiracy, are plans to carry out armed bank robberies which the police believe may well involve murders or attempted murders. The letter states further that this Government view with deep gravity the situation which has arisen—that is rather peculiarly put because the Government should view with gravity any situation which is not ludicrous, but that is the way they put it—and, which, according to the reliable information in their possession, is liable to intensify with special emphasis on the danger of kidnapping. The final paragraph of the letter to the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe reads:

In these circumstances I am to inform you that the Government may, in accordance with Article 15 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, be obliged, however reluctantly, to take measures derogating from certain of their obligations under the Convention.

What does Article 15 say?

In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.

The Government have indicated, therefore, that they may, at any time, declare a public emergency threatening the life of the nation and derogate from any obligations of the Convention which they may consider to be irksome to them. No one who is in the smallest degree familiar with international practice will regard that article, if invoked, and the Convention itself after the article is invoked, as providing any protection for any citizen. The Government will be the judge of "the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation." Its actions will not encroach on the area of any other Government and it will be allowed to proceed in that way. The citizens, in fact, will have no protection from arbitrary government if this part of the Act is invoked and if we derogate from Article 15.

The only protection that they retain is whatever protection they may derive from whatever confidence they may feel in the Government we have. How much confidence is that? I shall come to that in a moment.

The Minister also said, regarding this alleged plot of which we have no details and in which, frankly, we do not believe—the credibility of that plot was very slight at the start and has faded away by now in the minds of most people—that the Government are sure beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt that this plot exists. It is rather hard to know what Fianna Fáil mean by "a shadow of doubt". It seems there was "a shadow of doubt" on Deputy Haughey and Deputy Blaney and they had to go; it seems there was no "shadow of doubt" on the credibility of Deputy Gibbons and he remains. The one thing that is certain is that the judge of whether there is a "shadow of doubt" or not is the Taoiseach, and nobody has access to his mind.

Although they have this surety which can only be provided by evidence which stretches beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, they cannot take it into court because there it would come up against the rules of evidence. What does the Minister for Justice imagine is the purpose of the rules of evidence except to protect justice and the rights of citizens? What kind of evidence is it that provides surety beyond all reasonable doubt but will not stand up in court and cannot be taken into court? We cannot accept that and I think Deputy O'Higgins has ably criticised that part of the statement.

The Opposition were also accused of denigrating the Judiciary. Who is doing so? Who is saying that the ordinary means of enforcing the law has broken down or may be about to be declared to have broken down? The Government are doing that, not the Opposition. The Opposition are not denigrating the Judiciary and have never engaged in that activity. If there is a decision of an individual judge which we regard as questionable we say so but that is not tantamount to denigrating the Judiciary.

The Minister also referred to this incident of the firing of guns and to instructions which he had given. He purported to be very sure about what had happened on that occasion. It then emerged from his statement—he had to admit it at the end—that whereas he thought the procession was going to Glasnevin it was actually going to Mount Jerome, completely in the opposite direction. He did not even know through the Sherlock Holmes at his disposal which way the procession, which he says he was watching with such tense vigilance, was facing. He did not know where it was going. He said the Garda were instructed to prevent the firing of guns or to arrest the perpetrators on the spot if it did happen. They did not stop the firing of guns and they did not arrest the perpetrators on the spot. But the Minister seems quite happy about the whole thing which reflects—I shall not say it reflects on the Garda but if a section of the Garda fail to carry out instructions given to them and if that situation is allowed to continue it reflects on the responsible Minister, the Minister who spoke here.

The Minister also paid a tribute to the retiring secretary of the Department of Justice, Mr. Berry. How can we accept such a tribute? In what light should we regard such a tribute from a Fianna Fáil Minister at the present time? The Minister who spoke, with the other Ministers, holds office by virtue of, among others, a vote given by Deputy Haughey. Deputy Haughey gave evidence in court which was in direct conflict with Mr. Berry's evidence. The judge indicated that one or other was committing perjury. We may take it that it was not Mr. Berry. I do so take it. In that case the Minister who paid tribute to Mr. Berry holds office by, among others, the vote of a gentleman who perjured himself against Mr. Berry. I do not think that constitutes a very savoury kind of tribute.

The Government we have after this rather mixed year, of which the Taoiseach spoke so dispassionately, have developed by now a curious kind of dangerous immunity. Nothing its members say or do can any longer shock the public. The public is shock-weary. Nothing the Government refrain from doing, or refrain from doing having said they will do it, can shock the public. Nothing they say they have done but have not done can shock the public. The public is no longer shocked if it finds that Ministers have not told the truth to the Dáil. That is now accepted. Nothing in all the evil results of this mixed year could be more dangerous to democracy than the engineering of this kind of immunity to shock, this kind of passivity in relation to any cloak-and-dagger announcement that this astonishing Government can make at any time.

During the latter part of this mixed year—the second mixture is different from the first—we had an evolution towards personal rule, a rather fast evolution. That is an evolution which, once begun, can proceed at an even faster rate. My friend and colleague, Deputy Cluskey, in an intervention the other day which I heard, because of circumstances beyond my control, from the Public Gallery, accused the Taoiseach of being a quasi-dictator. The Taoiseach misheard him and objected to the charge, as he thought, of being a quisling dictator. He raised it as a point of order; he took keen exception to it: it touched him to the heart. Deputy Cluskey explained that he did not use the word "quisling" but had used the word "dictator". The Taoiseach then resumed his seat, quite mollified, quite calm and happy that he was just accused of being a dictator. It seemed to be the kind of accusation that he could well take in his stride and may increasingly take in his stride because there has been a change which we may not all have noted between the quality and character of the Taoiseach's first Government and his second. It has been almost a move from one entire system of government to another.

The first Government we had in this Dáil, in this astonishingly mixed year, was one almost of feudal character. There were mighty vassals, great overlords. We remember their manners in their heyday, manners which were often not pleasant to see. On the first day of this Dáil we saw the Taoiseach pass a note to the then Minister for Local Government, Deputy Boland, who crumpled it up and threw it on the floor. Now it is Mr. Boland himself who has been crumpled up and thrown out. That is one measure of the change. The day of the overlords and of the feudal barons is over. The Wars of the Roses have taken place and they now lie low. Deputy Haughey, for example, is politically dead and everyone knows it except Deputy Haughey, apparently, and a few people in Brussels.

The Wars of the Roses are over. We know it is not usual here to draw parallels from English history but I am afraid one in English history is thrust on me. We are now entering the Tudor Monarchy. From all those inner struggles a victor has emerged and imposes his rule with an iron hand. All of the new Cabinet know now that the Taoiseach, Deputy Jack Lynch, may sack any of them at any moment for any reason or for no reason and that their entire organisation, including their local organisations, will accept that and that the country will accept it as long as that organisation is in power.

Collective responsibility exists no longer. In a sense collective responsibility never existed. In the first of the Taoiseach's Governments we had this system of overlords who acted at their own sweet will and waged war or peace according as the fancy struck them. In the Taoiseach's second Government we have autocracy. We have moved from Cabinet anarchy to Cabinet autocracy within the life of this Dáil. We have achieved what the Taoiseach has called a novelty.

I wanted to choose my words rather carefully there. There are certain parallels. In this discussion which we are having today on our Government—this is the nearest we come to what is called a State of the Union debate—we have to consider, and many of us do consider very often, just what kind of system we have, just what kind of organisation it is that is running us. Every day I have sat in this Dáil I have been more and more impressed with the fact that, while formally we have all the outward trappings and some of the realities of a political democracy, much of the reality is escaping. This here is not what it is about. The real scene of Government is elsewhere.

With that in mind I have been doing some reading about parliamentary systems in other countries to see what light they may shed on our Government. I have been reading a book by the Italian Luigi Barzini, a most enlightening book which has a chapter on Sicily and the Mafia. I was reading it, as a Deputy should at all times, bearing in mind our own country. I wanted to see are there any similarities in fact, apart from this vague thing of the Mafia being used as a term of abuse of Fianna Fáil, and to see are they at all alike. I found this:

The elusive techniques developed through the ages to acquire status by scaring and intimidating an ever larger number of people are loosely known as the "way of the Mafia".

Again:

Western Sicilians must, as a rule, entertain good relations with the Mafia in their native village or city quarter.

How unlike our own dear country. It goes on:

They have to live there, they must protect their family, job, property or business, and want no trouble. The Mafia is for them a fact of life, one of the permanent conditions of existence, like the climate, the average rainfall or the local patois.

Deputies may not find these fit but if they do not that is for them to say. The book speaks of the service given by the Mafia in keeping people out of trouble and it says:

Everybody, of course knows, ... that the trouble the Mafia defends one from is almost always contrived and controlled by the Mafia itself. Everybody knows that the tributes he is paying to the local boss could be compared to a tribute to a powerful feudal baron ... What successful candidate does not, after all, run small errands for his constituents? In Sicily he may have to recommend highly unsuitable men for a good job, write letters to cabinet ministers in defence of shady characters, get a man out of jail, block some public works project (like the construction of an aqueduct) which endangers the power and revenue of some amico and so forth.

An amico or friend is a member of the Mafia. They have virtues. Do not take their record as all black. I would not like people to be too hurt by these comparisons.

Mr. Tunney

If the Deputy would tell us about his party's failure in Donegal it would be more interesting.

Dr. Loughnane

Why did you not use this on the people in Donegal?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

We are not the Mafia. That is you.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Tunney

They lost 100 per cent of the Labour vote up there.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): It struck me that the Deputy was talking about Donegal.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Donegal was not altogether absent from my mind.

Mr. Carter

He will write off the people of Donegal as a crowd of halfwits or something like that.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

A Cheann Comhairle, you enforced the Rules of Order very firmly and rightly on me the other day. Perhaps you would do it on other Deputies?

An Ceann Comhairle

I am doing my best to restrain Deputy Carter.

Mr. Carter

This is anti-pollution year.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will Deputy Carter please cease interrupting? He will get an opportunity of making his own speech.

Mr. Corish

Put him out.

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

Thank you a Cheann Comhairle. I was talking about the Mafia and I was trying to come to some of their more endearing characteristics. I was trying to say something nice about these people and they will not let me. I quote:

They never betray a friend. They are always devoted churchmen, who give large sums to the local parish or to the deserving poor. Many have sisters in convents and brothers in holy orders.

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

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

For the benefit of the new audience who are here I had better explain my discourse which otherwise might be opaque to them. I have been developing a comparison between our governing brotherhood, the ruling fraternity that we have here, and the role played by the Mafia in Sicily. This is sometimes used simply as an insulting or a hostile term applied to Fianna Fáil. It seems to me that as one finds out more about Fianna Fáil and more about the Mafia that more and more things do hold together. The Mafia should not be thought of just as a bunch of gangsters. It is a much more far-reaching brotherhood, a much more far-reaching system than that. In fact it does constitute the government of an important historic area of western Europe—Sicily—where its practices continue under the formal facade of democratic government. I quoted relevant passages. May I just repeat one or two of them for the people who have come in?

Western Sicilians must, as a rule, entertain good relations with the Mafia in their native village or city quarter. They have to live there, they must protect their family, job, property or business, and want no trouble. The Mafia is for them a fact of life, one of the permanent conditions of existence, like the climate, the average rainfall or the local patois.

At that point a Deputy interrupted me to say something about Donegal. I pointed out that I was in fact talking about Donegal whose links with western Sicily are closer than it knows.

In Sicily he may have to recommend highly unsuitable men for a good job, write letters to cabinet ministers in defence of shady characters, get a man out of jail——

Rather good, that.

——block some public works project (like the construction of an aqueduct) which endangers the power and revenue of some amico——

Dr. Loughnane

What is the name of the book?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

The book is Luigi Barzini's The Italians. I recommend it as a most entertaining and instructive book.

(Interruptions.)

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

I do not think he will learn anything from it but if Deputy Carter would care to borrow my copy and annotate it for me I would be grateful to him.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Will Deputies please cease interrupting?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

I could recommend the whole section. Let me read the concluding bit which says:

There is no denying that the Mafia in western Sicily is fundamentally a criminal organisation——

——well, that is a bit harsh and would not go along with that——

which causes great suffering among the people, condemns a majority of them to a primitive life of shame, squalor, poverty, hunger and fear. It fights and prevents almost all possible progress. Nobody wants to invest his money and improve things when the will of unknown persons can arbitrarily stop all his activities and ruin him at a moment's notice.

And so on. It goes on:

The Mafia, however, is not this alone ... It is believed to be also a spontaneous way, developed by the people themselves through many centuries of misrule, to administer——

and this is a tribute to you, gentlemen——

a rough and archaic form of justice, a way to keep one kind of peace ... an ersatz of legal government.

The author goes on to say:

To defeat it, the State should first make the Law supreme.

He ends by saying:

The situation is worse now than it ever was. The Mafia is rapidly degenerating.

That is a memorable phrase—"the Mafia is rapidly degenerating."

Mr. Moore

The Deputy said that about the Labour Party too.

(Interruptions.)

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

This system:

corrupts, in the end, all forms of sound government, obstructs the functioning of all legitimate organs, and makes the correction of defects in the government apparatus almost impossible.

Which is worse: perjury or lying?

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

The point I want to make is that a Minister made a statement to the Dáil, when he was speaking as Minister, which he later acknowledged in court not to be the truth. In court in defence of that, he said it was a statement in the Dáil thereby carrying a strong implication about the kind of statements he and his colleagues are in the habit of making in the Dáil.

Here I would appeal to Deputy de Valera in particular who has come forward in the role of guardian of propriety and decency in this House, to defend these decencies when they are menaced in a far more insidious fashion than they can be by any necessarily temporary protest against the Chair's ruling, that is by undermining the responsibility of the Executive to the Dáil by the furnishing by Ministers to the Dáil of untrue statements. I am asking Deputy de Valera, either in this House or through any other means of making his opinion known, to come out and be counted on that matter.

Mr. Carter

I am not impressed by Deputy Cruise-O'Brien's remarks. I have an even lower estimation of him now than I had when he first came into politics, which is not too long ago. He displays no end of hard neck when he comes in here and starts an argument about the propriety of politics at the present time. Deputy Cruise-O'Brien entered the Labour Party in the evening of his life——

Dr. Cruise-O'Brien

What age is the Deputy?

Mr. Carter

——following a period in which he criticised the Labour Party and called them a bunch of poltroons. I have sympathy with Deputy Cruise-O'Brien because he is like many of the pinks in Europe with all the characteristics and all the sewer qualities of an eastern European politician. Deputy Cruise-O'Brien comes into this House and, under the protection of the rules of the House, proceeds to quote from the Italian way of life and in particular life in Sicily. We are all familiar with the ramifications of the Italians in America. I am not going to delay the House by going into that part of his argument, but it will be a bad day for this House and for this country if Deputy Cruise-O'Brien is ever able to take up the seal of office as Taoiseach. He is the type, and this has been well demonstrated, who would very quickly let freedom fall from his grasp. He is the type of pink socialist who is always striving for effect, always indulging in special pleadings, especially when he appears on RTE where all his colleagues are and where he has some merchants like himself. He comes in here under the blanket of intellectualism moryah. Even an intellectual or someone who passes for an intellectual could often be said to have some charm, could be often said to have some foresight and could often be said to practise those principles in public life.

When the pseudo-intellectual comes in here and starts quoting from a book published by a Sicilian on the politics practised in Sicily and suggests that the political party here indulges in the same sort of practice as the Mafia, it is time he called it a day. My submission is that Deputy Cruise-O'Brien did not come in here to make a speech at all; he came in to kill time.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Deputy is killing the rest of it.

Mr. Carter

I will if I can, and I am entitled to, after listening to the diatribe from those benches. Uncharitable as some of the speakers from the Opposition benches have been, they did not go to the lengths that Deputy Cruise-O'Brien went to.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I can detect the standard suddenly rising.

Mr. Carter

I am not a hypocrite. Deputy Cruise-O'Brien despite his year or two in politics still has a great deal to learn. If his notion of politics amounts to the sum of his speech tonight then he had better disappear from politics in the morning, because bad diplomat and all that he was he would be better back in the diplomatic service again. I do not want to be uncharitable but I detest the effort to couch his attack in terms of the Eastern European pattern and I do not believe that the smallest child in the street would swallow what Deputy Cruise-O'Brien said today.

Mr. E. Collins

Why is the Deputy worrying about it so if he cannot swallow it?

Mr. Carter

The Deputy will have more worries because for political purposes, apparently, he is going to join with the Deputy-an odd bedfellow. I should like the Deputy to tell us whether he would be prepared to be a bedfellow with him or not. If he would then I should not like to be him.

This reminds me of coalition politics. It is the funniest set-up. The internal framework of the Fianna Fáil Party has been the subject of many speeches here in the last six months. Some of the speeches predicted the crack of doom for the Fianna Fáil Party. Some accused members of the Fianna Fáil Party of being anything but gentlemen, of being robbers and rogues, out to turn a quick penny at the expense of the people.

I take it Deputy Cruise-O'Brien would like to impress on us here that he moves in the highest circles and that he is a member of the upper crust. I do not know whether or not he wants to impress that on us but, whether he does or not, I want to assure him that Deputies on this side of the House are well able to look after the interests of the Fianna Fáil Party, well able to keep it together and well able to elect a Taoiseach with, apparently, the full approval of the people for their action.

It seems to me this debate is being turned into another debate of "no confidence" in the Taoiseach and his Cabinet. I can well understand the Opposition's attitude after the blistering they got in the Donegal by-election.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): What about Longford?

Mr. Carter

We were assured by the would-be coalitionists, by the splinter parties, by the sore thumbs, that Fianna Fáil was on the way out. Yet, when the ballot boxes were opened, it was a case of "pop goes the weasel" for the splinter parties. They were on the road back from Moscow, making all sorts of excuses. There was not a trick in the box that was not trotted out to explain away the failure of Fine Gael and the splinter parties marching along the road with them.

I do not believe for one moment that there is any intention, where the majority of the Fine Gael Party are concerned, of forming a coalition with the Labour Party. I do not see that they would have very much to gain. Fine Gael might have more to gain in the long run than the Labour Party would, because we all remember what happened the Labour Party in the last two Coalitions.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Something happened to Deputy Carter about the same time. I think that was the time he spent his first spell in the Seanad.

Mr. Carter

The Labour Party came out of Coalition looking like hungry herrings. A burned child dreads the fire and all the sound and fury now by the Labour Party denotes to me that the Labour Party have no intention of joining a coalition. This is being put across to get the people thinking that there is an alternative Government in the background. Alternative Government, my foot! Where will the alternative Government come from? Not long ago some of the Labour Party spokesmen appeared on TV and I was going to send for Deputy Cluskey to come along with a butcher's knife to keep them apart.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Why did the Deputy not send for Kevin Boland with his?

Mr. Carter

He might not be at home. I was going to send for Deputy Cluskey because I was afraid they would "lep" out of the TV set.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. Andrews)

That was the Labour "laugh-in" on 7 Days.

Mr. Carter

Quite right. Deputy Cruise-O'Brien treats politics as a plot. We cannot do that because we would not get away with that sort of attitude and I doubt if Deputy Cruise-O'Brien will be able to carry it off because he has much too shallow an outlook on politics. This talk of coalition arises purely from the fact that Fine Gael and Labour are subscribing to a coalition from unworthy motives. The trick is that, if they can convince the electorate that they could form a coalition, they hope the people will vote for them and, the people having voted for them, they will go their own separate ways.

Let us be consistent. We are charged with being inconsistent. One half of the Fine Gael Party. Senator O'Higgins, before the by-election in Donegal inserted an appeal in the Evening Press asking people to vote for the Fine Gael Party on its merit and that every vote for Fine Gael counted. He had no word about coalition. He did not appeal to the electorate, for example, to extend the vote.

I met speakers on the platform around Manorhamilton who were appealing for votes for a Coalition. Where do we stand? We talk about leadership—and we have two-thirds of the Fine Gael Party appealing for votes for a mandate for Fine Gael while the remaining one-third of the Fine Gael Party appeal for votes for a coalition. The Labour Party are in disarray: they cannot possibly hold together as a party following their tactics as demonstrated the other night. They could not agree with one another. Therefore, when we come to talk about attitudes, images and integrity in politics, and the merits and demerits of the various political parties, let us at least examine the position all round.

My submission is that this empty talk of a future coalition is a way of getting votes on the cheap. I would expect that a mature electorate will not be tricked into giving those votes because, no matter how bad or how good a single party may be, it is certainly better than a coalition in any country. History has proved that. The record has proved it. Europe has proved it. Therefore, let Deputy O'Brien stand up and defend coalition: he did not attempt to do that. He went away to the toe of Italy in order to hide behind the Mafia because he could not make a political speech on current politics. All he could do was to deride and detract from the efforts of the Members of this House. In so doing he was trying to drag through the mire the efforts of the political parties of this House.

Let me move from that point for a moment to deal with a saner proposition. The Rules of Procedure were mentioned here on the Order of Business. At the outset Deputy Cosgrave referred to the amount of business which comes before this House. He remarked on the fact that Estimates, Bills, Motions, Private Members' Time, and so on, are more or less being blocked-not intentionally by any political party-by reason of the volume of business coming on to the Floor of this House. I have some little experience of this matter. I would think that this Dáil is not as well organised to deal with current business as was the Second Dáil, 50 years ago. I am glad the leader of the Opposition mentioned this matter because it is one that we should consider. We should subscribe to the view that something should be done to create a more orderly programme of procedure here. I would welcome any attempt to move in that direction. Many things are said about Deputies by people who do not understand the position. There is much criticism from quarters which would be deemed shallow on this whole matter. At the present time, the life of a Teachta Dála is not too rosy nor has it been such for the past five to six years. When one deals with 100 letters a week, interviews various constituents —much, of course, to the distress of Deputy O'Brien: that is beneath him, I think, if he got his way—when one tries to engage in this sort of work and, at the same time, tries to keep abreast of the business going on in the House, it is almost an effort to make a speech here. If one does not make speeches in the House one may be referred to—as I was somewhere— as a "dummy TD". That is an ugly expression. I am far from being a dummy.

We should bend our energies in the direction of bringing about a change in procedure in this House. We should consider the upgrading of political parties and providing them in this House —as political parties in every House in Europe are provided—with a secretariat no matter how limited that secretariat might be: it should be provided from the Civil Service. Next, we should have a discussion at the level of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges or, if the House would think well of it, any other committee, to see what can be done to bring about a more orderly flow of all the business that comes before this House. For example, we could test the committee system. I have been advised by experienced politicians that the committee system would not work here. I wonder. I was in the House of Commons——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Do not go to Sicily, anyway.

Mr. Carter

I shall not make comparisons. While the procedure in the House of Commons is different and there is not a comparison, it seems to me that they can regulate their business there so that the political parties can get through it much more expeditiously than we can get through our business. I therefore feel that, in order to get a higher output from this House and in order to make use of more Members of the House so as to broaden the scope of the discussion on Bills, Estimates, Motions, and so on, we should consider this point which I think is a good one. I was glad to hear Deputy Cosgrave mention it: he mentioned it in good faith. He is an experienced politician. We should take up this matter. We should reciprocate the sentiments expressed. I shall leave it at that.

My next point is one with which we have been dealing for a few days now, namely, prices and incomes and living standards in general. We have heard criticisms from various quarters, I have heard various arguments in support of a free-for-all system. Nobody seems to have the remedy for this problem but, bad and all as the Prices and Incomes Bill was said to be, it created a sense of reality and a position where people began to think of employment and unemployment, job opportunities, emigration and so on. If it achieved no more except that limited success—if you like —it will have done something to make those who negotiate realise that we are coming to the end of this free-for-all situation and that we cannot have our cake and eat it. We must realise there is a limit to the national income and to the claims that can be made on it and that, if we keep on making those claims with the knowledge that the money is not there to meet them, we shall create a situation that this House, I assume, wants to avoid. Whether it is deemed to be an encroachment on the liberty of the subject or not, the Bill has made an impact on the House and the country and has created, as it were, a roadblock which we must circumnavieate. Ultimately, I expect that, if nothing else, it will be helpful in enabling us to find a long-term remedy for the problem of wages and production.

If we are not able to control our desires regarding income and if those in a position to promote the idea of moderation fail to do so, we shall be in trouble because we shall have thousands of people losing their jobs, goods will be priced out of markets abroad, production will automatically fall at home and taxation will increase. All the indicators in the past few years pointed to the fact that we would reach the stage of having a direct confrontation on this prices question.

We are not the only country bothered by inflation. I think there is no country in Europe free from it. Some European countries manage their affairs better than we do and have far better systems of negotiating wage and salary increases than we have and yet these countries have to deal with inflation at present. It is not to be wondered at that in our circumstances, as a comparatively young country in the industrial sphere, we are struggling with the inflation problem.

Strikes will get us into serious trouble. Last year we had strike after strike and, strangely, hand-in-hand with those strikes went inflation. Strictly speaking, the two things are not related, and in terms of economics it is very hard to relate them; but when you see that 940,000 man days were lost and at the same time money was losing value at a rapid rate, you begin to wonder what is the relationship between the two problems. It seems to me that there is a connection between them.

In the early part of the year we thought that the number of strikes in progress would cool off inflation. Apparently, they did not and, therefore, it seems that the settlements resulting from those strikes have an even greater effect in accelerating the inflationary movement than if workers were engaged full time even at inflated wage rates. This is a strange factor which in the past six months I could not understand nor can I now do so. When a large section of our workers were on strike for rather long periods one would have expected a decline in the inflationary trend. This has not happened. It, therefore, seems that Mr. Rising Price and Captain Strike seem to be able to fit in the same bed.

This is only a minor point but I think it will be borne out, perhaps by the end of the financial year, that it is so. How much better would it be if, instead of losing nearly 100,000 man days we had been able to settle our affairs around the table! How much better would the country be if we had been able to settle those arguments at lower cost? We all know that, following the maintenance men's strike, the cost of settling strikes rose very steeply from the previous figure of 35s to £2 per week, up to £4, and there is a demand in the 13th round claim for a £6 a week increase.

It seems to me that, admirable and all as their efforts were, the Labour Court are not enough. I looked through a report of the Labour Court which sets out in detail some of the points which might help to reduce tension among workers and employers and, at the same time, possibly give workers a better assurance and remove tension from the industrial scene.

It is a strange fact that for the last two or three years all our attention seems to have been taken up with strikes. Let nobody say to me, no matter what side of the House he is on, that there is no other way. We know there is. Those people who say that know it can be worked out at a lower cost if you take the other way. A number of people in the Labour Party are still living in the cloth cap age as far as the education of the worker is concerned. They prefer to live in the cloth cap age in order to propel their own image in the political sphere. I have listened for a long time to Members claiming to represent Labour. I consort much more with workers than some of those people who talk about labour troubles. If we got the tension reduced, and got down to the man on the floor, we would solve some of those problems. There is a break in the chain somewhere between employers, trade unions and workers. I do not want to be critical of the trade unions but I believe they should organise themselves better, provide more information and better contacts with the ordinary workers, ensure that restrictive practices will be eliminated and that unofficial strikes will be completely eliminated.

Those are the elements which introduced into our system the high tensions of last year and in the years before that. Unless we can rid the system of those evil elements we will not be able to live with the system. Wages and salaries account for the largest part of industrial earnings and any movement in wages and salaries has an effect on the economy. We want to see every man and woman earning his or her due and we want to see rising standards of living, but none of us want to see the system bankrupt because of this.

Some Deputies speak as if the Government were a dictatorship, as if this House could, by the introduction of some Bill, pass some law which would wipe out all this. You could do that any day you had a majority but would it be worth it? Our Labour Court machinery is not fully worked at the moment. The court, as constituted, does need revision as does the trade union system. When one lives with those systems for a while one sees the gaps in them. Unless we can provide better machinery than that provided by the Labour Court—perhaps by broadening out the existing machinery—we will not solve our workers' problems. Unless the trade unions can provide a better system within their own organisations which will command more respect from the workers, less cynicism, less desire to strike and less desire to foment tension, then we will lose this battle of inflation. There is no use in one political party blaming another. If we do not win the inflation battle unemployment will rise and great evil will result.

We will not be able to maintain our rate of housing if inflation continues. We thought 18 months ago we would have enough money to build 17,000 houses. Instead of that we find the money will not build anything like that. It is all very well for somebody to say that the money should be taken from some place else but when one creates a service it is not always easy to disband that service, to render those working in it redundant and to say to them: "There is the Redundancy Act for you, take advantage of it."

Dr. Browne

What about the restrictive trading practices? Tell us about them.

Mr. Carter

I am talking about restrictive trade practices. Unfortunately you have restrictive trade practices in all sectors of the economy. You have them in the employer sector as well as in the employee sector. We could eliminate some of those practices. We should, with proper methods, be able to increase the housing rate and provide more economical housing. Education and technology could play a part in this field and perhaps also industrial building, although not very much initiative has been shown so far in this regard. I also think we could increase the rate of both public and private housing.

We often hear it said that if one wants money badly enough one will be able to raise it. In the past five years it was very hard to accomplish this because no sooner had one raised the money than it had lost, perhaps, 20 per cent of its value. One wound up finding it harder and harder to get money. Therefore, we had to put on the brake for a while at any rate. The Prices and Incomes Bill was criticised on the floor of the House but it has acted as an obstacle and has made us put on the brake and let us pause to see where we are going wrong. The economy is going wrong and we cannot allow it to continue at the same pace as it has been going for the past year or two. It is two years since the real rot set in, but there is no point in talking about that now.

We have critics of everything here at present. Some people would criticse everything from a needle to an anchor, so to speak. We had the White Paper on our prospects of joining the EEC. There were critics of it. There was very bitter criticism of it. There are those who say that we will not be able to exist, those who say that the numbers of our farmers will be drastically reduced and those who say that all our factories will close, so we are starting off with a mountain of woe. We may start with some woe but most of those characters who are creating this noise cannot substantiate the arguments put forward when pressure is put on them to do so.

I noticed that before Dr. Mansholt came here we had an outbreak of pessimism in many quarters and we had public statements slating the aim of the European movement in general. The European movement in general is accepted by a majority of the House and to this extent a greater number of Deputies in the House are behind the move towards Europe. If we organised sensibly and got home to the people the aims of the Treaty of Rome—not merely on the economic side but on the human side too—we could dispel some of the fears about our attempt to enter Europe. If Britain enters Europe we have no choice because, if the European system prevailed in the morning, we would not be able to sell our goods to Britain across the tariff wall, which we would have to do. We cannot be the odd man out in Europe and be here like a sore thumb. No one owes us a living and no one will put his hand out to take us in unless we go in ourselves. Therefore, it seems to me that we make or mar our own future in this regard.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan) rose.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will appreciate that under the Orders of the House a member of the Labour Party must be called at 4.45 p.m.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I appreciate that, Sir. In the few minutes left to me I should like to deal very briefly with this debate which concerns the Taoiseach's Estimate and which is also being used as an Adjournment debate. In this debate, as I understand the Rules of Order, we are expected to deal with the activities of the Government since their election or during their term of office. I propose to deal very briefly with what I will describe as the political activities of this Government and try to relate them to the economic consequences.

This Government were elected on 18th June, 1969. In the 18 months or so which have followed we have had extraordinary happenings in this country. We have had unprecedented happenings within the Government and within the party that supports the Government. In the spring of this year a plot to import arms illegally was disclosed in which two Cabinet Ministers, at least, were involved. Those two Ministers were dismissed. Another Minister resigned or was dismissed and a further Minister resigned rather than be associated with the Government or the Leader of the Government. These were four senior Ministers, not four newcomers to the political scene. They were four Ministers who were held out at the last election as people upon whom the electorate could rely, as people who would make good Ministers who would discharge their functions conscientiously and efficiently.

That disclosure was followed by an arms trial in which two Ministers were dragged before the criminal courts and charged with a breach of a fundamental law of this country, something akin to treason. They were acquitted and I would not blame the jury for acquitting them because, during that trial, we had Ministers swearing one thing and ex-Ministers swearing another. It was, indeed, very hard to decide who was telling the truth or where the truth lay. The jury brought in a verdict of not guilty. The Taoiseach seems not to accept that verdict because he said he is still convinced that there was an illegal attempt to import arms.

In the very brief time at my disposal that summarises the disclosures that were made to the public in the first year or so of this Government's term of office. The point I want to make is that the Government were not transformed overnight from a disciplined Cabinet, a united Cabinet, a Cabinet performing their duties, a Cabinet in which each of the Ministers was attending to his own Department, into a disunited disorderly, illegal assembly virtually, that was brought before the country last May. No, this was developing slowly over the years since the Taoiseach came into office because he allowed a low standard to prevail at ministerial level. We know the consequences.

Subsequent to the arms trial we had votes of confidence and no confidence not only in this House but within the Fianna Fáil Party. In May last, after this disgraceful disclosure was made to the House and the country, the Government party met and within an hour they came out smiling and said: "We are all united. Everything in the garden is lovely. There is no trouble." After the arms trial there was another vote of confidence within the Fianna Fáil Party. It was not so quick. Instead of taking one hour it took five or six and after that the Taoiseach succeeded in getting a vote of confidence. I say "succeeded in getting a vote of confidence" because he got it by threats.

In the early days of this Dáil the slogan was: "Let's Back Jack." Then in Longford-Westmeath it was: "Let's Continue to Back Jack." In the most recent by-election the slogan was: "Jack Leads." I want to put it on record that the Taoiseach does not lead the Government, that the Taoiseach does not lead the Fianna Fáil Party, but that he drives them. He drives his Cabinet and he drives the 75 Deputies he has behind him into the "Yes" lobby here to support him. That is a dangerous position for a Taoiseach and for a Government. With what does he drive them? He drives them with the threat of a general election. He drives them with the threat that if they do not support him he will expose them to the country and expose them to the risk of losing their seats. That is a dangerous situation.

What have been the consequences of this sort of government over the last six or seven years? The consequences have been a breakdown in the administration of justice, a breakdown in the respect of law and order, because the Taoiseach and the Government tolerated this sort of thing. I make no apology for going back to one incident in the Department of Justice. We found the former Minister for Justice openly writing a letter to a constituent advising that constituent to break the law by going in and taking illegal possession of a house and squatting there. When we drew the attention of the House and the country to that what did the Taoiseach say? He said he saw nothing illegal in it.

What can the Taoiseach expect? Can he expect his Ministers to have respect for law and order when he encourages them to break the law? Can he expect the people to have respect for law and order when he encourages them to break it? He and his Government misled the people into thinking that there is no regard for law and order. They misled the illegal organisations. They misled Captain Kelly. They misled John Kelly. Now they are reaping the benefit of it.

The tourist business has suffered a bad blow as a result of this and will continue to suffer. There is war going on between the Minister for Health and the doctors. The free choice of doctor scheme is now to be scrapped and we are to be left with the dispensary system because that Minister has not been attending to his business. I could go on if I had the time. We had a Planning Bill introduced here 18 months ago to deal with planning appeals and to remove the present system which is unsatisfactory but there has not been time to deal with it because the Minister there was not attending to his business and it was handed over to a new Minister.

These are the economic consequences —which I wish I had time to develop— of the failure of the Government and the breakdown in government. The greatest indictment of this Government ever made in my hearing has just been made by Deputy Carter. He said the rot set in two years ago and he said there is a need for a revision of the parliamentary procedure, that strikes should be dealt with and inflation should be curbed. The Government did not have time to deal with these things because they were involved in intrigue within themselves.

Mr. Corish

This is the adjournment debate and the debate on the Taoiseach's Estimate. We will adjourn some time around 7 o'clock. What I am concerned about, and I expressed this concern when I spoke in a similar debate on the 28th July, is when the Dáil reassembles. It has been usual for the Taoiseach to tell us in his opening remarks on an adjournment debate when it is proposed that the Dáil should reassemble but this time we are absolutely in the dark. This is an example of the scandalous treatment by the Taoiseach and the Government of Dáil Éireann.

I questioned the Taoiseach yesterday about the business that was ordered. Deputies must be amazed and bewildered when they read the Order Paper of the Dáil and discover that there are about 20 pieces of legislation still to be considered. I certainly will object to a long Christmas recess. I think I am as justified in that as I was in voicing the same objection in July. We have only had about six weeks of Dáil debate and this has not been taken up with important legislation for the benefit of the people. It appears to me that at the end of next session there will still be a lot of unfinished business.

Item No. 17 on the Order Paper asks for Dáil approval of the Third Programme: Economic and Social Development, 1969-72. I suggest we would have been better employed dealing with that motion rather than being engaged on the debates we have had since May of last year. We have II Estimates for this year still to be considered. We have a Road Transport Bill, a Prohibition of Forcible Entry and Occupation Bill—which I trust the Government will withdraw—a Local Government Bill, a motion, to be resumed, on Ireland's application for membership of the EEC. I suggest we would have been better employed dealing with that subject rather than wasting our time, as we seem to have been, talking about a Prices and Incomes Bill over the last few weeks. There is another Local Government Bill, a Central Bank Bill, an International Health Bodies Bill, a Film Industry Bill, a Fóir Teoranta Bill, an Industrial Credit (Amendment) Bill, a Higher Education Authority Bill, a Redundancy Payments Bill—one that is much needed—an Employment Agency Bill, a Dangerous Substances Bill—whatever that might mean in the Fianna Fáil context. There is still an amount of work to be done and I certainly will object, on behalf of my Party, to a long adjournment of the Dáil in view of the amount of work that has to be done.

I believe that the machinery of parliament must be restructured and recast if we are to do our job properly here as representatives of the public. The Government's behaviour in ordering business and dealing with it over the last nine months has done nothing but bring Dáil Éireann into disrepute. I suggest, therefore, that the Taoiseach should give serious consideration—and not just make a few complimentary remarks about it—to the idea of the reform of this parliament. Otherwise we will end up having at the end of the next session 16 or 17 items that might be regarded as being important left on the Order Paper until the following session and then, as I said yesterday, we will find ourselves engaged on financial business—the Budget—and these items, if not already dealt with, will be churned out without any debate or discussion here.

It must be recognised that nearly every public institution has changed in the last 50 years but to my knowledge Dáil Éireann has not. Local authorities have changed—legislation has been introduced, for example, in regard to the regional health authorities—industry has changed, not at the pace we would wish but it has faced up to certain of the realities of modern times; the churches have changed. I suggest, therefore, that it is time that we should see what can be done to make this appear to be a more democratic institution than what it appears at present. The range of governmental activity over the last 50 years has changed. We have had new Departments set up and we have more State and semi-State bodies than we had ten or 15 years ago. We also have more State agencies.

All this makes it imperative that we should also change in order to keep up with the times. The Dáil has not changed, it still has the same old humdrum procedure and the Taoiseach must recognise that as well as anybody else. It appears to me to be merely a machine that turns out legislation, makes decisions by reason of the fact that the Government side have a majority. If this is to be seen by the public to be a democratic institution there must also be the appearance of Deputies being involved in that work. I can see that the Government have their rights. They have their responsibilities by reason of their majority but so too have the Opposition and it appears to me that, in some cases with the approval of the Ceann Comhairle, the Opposition are denied fundamental democratic rights that are open to Parliaments in many other countries.

In regard to the improvement and the amendment of legislation this is not a deliberative assembly. It cannot be said that Deputies are involved in decision making because there have been very few occasions during the time I have been in this House when a Taoiseach was big enough to say that he would accept this, that or the other amendment because he thought it would be an improvement. Automatically there is resistance from the Minister in charge of a Bill and it means that the majority in Fianna Fáil determine legislation. It should be recognised, no matter what criticism may be levelled at the Opposition, no matter what the Government may think of their personnel, that all the brains of the country do not repose on that side of the House.

The Dáil as a democratic institution is grinding to a halt and there is all the evidence that we are absolutely bogged down in dealing with measures and legislation, with discussions on the EEC or the Third Programme. We prepared a memorandum to which I referred some six or nine months ago with regard to changes in the structure of Dáil Éireann. We believe—this may not be acceptable to everybody—that the proceedings should be televised. Above all, we believe there should be more sitting days. It is ludicrous, or should I say scandalous, that the Government should have decided that we should go into Recess from the 30th July to 28th October. On that occasion the Taoiseach said I had agreed to the date of resumption. He was wrong about that. We agreed to the date of the Adjournment but we did not agree to a resumption as far away as the 28th October.

The Taoiseach

I do not think I said that.

Mr. Corish

Well, I think the Taoiseach did, but I am not making a big point of it. The point I was making before the Taoiseach came in was that we have so much to do as per the Order Paper that it would be a scandal if we were to have a long Christmas Recess because there are many things which have to be debated, many things with which we will agree, many things which we will resist and many things which I hope the Government will take off the Order Paper before we resume after Christmas. I referred to the rights and responsibilities of the Government and of those in the Opposition. The Opposition should be allowed some initiative in debate particularly in view of the fact that between all these benches we represent in terms of votes more people than the Government party do. We believe, and we have had none of this for months and months, that there should be a definite decision that three hours per week should be devoted to Private Members' time and also to the introduction of Private Members' Bills from the Opposition, or indeed from any of the ordinary members of Fianna Fáil.

We are also concerned about the procedure that has been adopted, perhaps by tradition, with regard to Private Notice Questions and the adjournment of the Dáil for even a limited time to discuss matters that may come up within 24 or 48 hours before the opening of the Dáil. We had this last week and I might say, and I am not making any apology for what I did last week and I have not been required to do so by the Chair, that we were so disgusted that such an important matter would not be discussed here that we took the only course open to us to demonstrate to the Taoiseach and the Government how strongly we felt about it and to demonstrate to the people what exactly was entailed in the announcement of the Taoiseach a week last Friday. I am sure the Taoiseach finds time to read newspapers, perhaps some of the English newspapers, and it must interest him to see that when things come up fairly quickly in Britain, or in any other part of the Commonwealth, it appears that the Opposition can get a debate within a matter of hours at the request either of the Leader of the Opposition or on the initiative of the Prime Minister.

There should be some machinery or some decision made to enable matters such as the Taoiseach's statement to be debated even for a limited time in Dáil Eireann. The Taoiseach has in some way approved of the notion that we should reconstruct and recast the machinery of Parliament. He has suggested that it might be sent to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges but with all due respect to that committee I do not think this is a job for them. I would sincerely urge the Taoiseach to introduce a motion, or go through whatever machinery he ought to, to establish a committee of the House to try to bring the House up-to-date and ensure that the 144 Deputies will be involved in public business. As it is they are not. As it is we get instant legislation when we have not got enough time. I know the Taoiseach may say that many of the Opposition, and perhaps some of his own people, speak for an undue length of time on measures, whether they be motions or Bills, but this is their right. Some system, which I would hope would be an agreed system, should be introduced whereby we can appear to the public to be, and to be in fact, the democratic institution that we do not appear lo the public to be at present. I know that the Taoiseach will have many points to reply to but this is one matter about which he should think seriously. It is not a party matter, it is something that concerns the Dáil and the country.

The Taoiseach dealt, although unfortunately I was not present to hear him, with the economy, but not at any great depth. He described 1970 as an excellent year. That is a pretty mild term with which to describe the year 1970. As far as I can see, from looking back, it was a mixture of bad with bad. It was depressing to learn that the expected economic growth rate for the year was estimated at 2 per cent as compared with 3½ per cent last year. The Taoiseach on the Adjournment debate last December told the House that he hoped, I do not think he gave the House any assurance, that it would be in the region of 4 per cent or 4½ per cent for 1970.

The Taoiseach talked about guarded optimism for 1971. I wonder why he used that qualified statement? As the head of the Government the Taoiseach should have given a review of the Government's intention for 1971 to ensure that the rate of economic growth would be a vast improvement on the 2 per cent it appears it is going to be for this year. If we are to continue in 1971, as we did in 1970 with regard to certain economic and social measures, it certainly will not be a very good year.

I do not think the bank strike or the cement strike can be blamed entirely for the dramatic increase in the number of unemployed during the past ten or II months. Every Deputy knows that each week there has been an increase of between 5,000 and 10,000 people on the unemployment register. What price therefore the Third Programme? What price the measures which the Government glibly announce from time to time whether inside or outside this House?

I do not have the emigration figures with me but suffice it to say that people are still leaving our towns and cities and rural areas, especially in the west. Replies from the Taoiseach and his Parliamentary Secretary to questions about increased unemployment ring very, very hollow indeed when we have regard to the unemployment figures and when we know that thousands of boys and girls are forced to emigrate every year.

The Taoiseach said the balance of payments is marginally down. He should not hide from himself the effect of the Anglo-lrish Free Trade Area Agreement on our balance of payments and indeed on employment. I do not think the position vis-à-vis the Anglo-lrish Free Trade Area Agreement is going to show much improvement in the next two or three years. It was conceded in the first few years of its operation that its effect was not very dramatic, but the effects of the Agreement, as Deputy O'Donovan said, have been felt since last July or the year before that, particularly with regard to our balance of payments problem. It is rapidly emerging, and I regret to say this, that the effects of the Agreement will get worse as long as it exists and is implemented or adhered to by the Government. It is for that reason we have asked for serious talks to take place between this Government and the British Government with a view to suspending the reduction in tariffs until it is shown that employment is not affected in the way it has been for the last three or four years.

I am not an economist but great play has been made in recent times about inflation. The impression most people want to give when they talk about inflation is that workers are getting too much money and are living beyond their means. When they talk about workers they are talking about people in the £14 to £17 a week class. They ignore the fact that there are people earning as much money here as people in the richest countries in the world. There does not appear to be any criticism of these people. This attitude was shown by Deputy Carter. As far as he was concerned the stress was on the unreasonableness of the workers who were demanding more. I shall talk about that later, but suffice it to say that workers are due a better standard of living. I know there are people who are critical and jealous of the workers because due to the actions of the trade unions they have a reasonable standard of living, but they do not have the standard I believe they are entitled to.

As far as inflation is concerned members of the Government party ignore the fact that they have been responsible for a great deal, if not all, of this inflation. All we have to do is look back at the Budget introduced last April, the supplementary Budget that was introduced in November and the Budget introduced by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs when he increased post office charges. The increase in the turnover tax alone contributed to half the total rise in prices in 1970. If members of the Government party want to talk about inflation they should take responsibility for the increase in prices which they voted for.

As a result of pressure from the Labour Party about three or four years ago the Government decided to introduce what they called a Prices Bill. I have not seen much evidence which would convince me that the Government were then, or are now, serious in attempting to control prices. From the speeches I have heard the blame has been laid on members of the trade unions. We have the usual Fianna Fáil criticism, by Deputy Carter, of the leadership of the trade union movement and what it should do. I do not know if Deputy Carter is a member of a trade union but he said he consorts more frequently with working people than do members of the Labour Party who are in trade unions, but it is very obvious from his remarks that he does not know how trade unions operate. Trade unions are not dictatorships. Trade unions in this country, as in Britain, are democratically run. Decisions are taken initially, whether it is for a wage increase, a reduction in hours or a withdrawal of labour, by rank and file members of the trade union, although they may have to be approved afterwards by the executive.

The Government thought fit to introduce the Prices and Incomes Bill. This was disgraceful treatment of the employer-labour conference. I do not believe there should have been any attempt—the Government must have learned their lesson in this respect a long time ago—to control incomes, wages or salaries. Certainly we would not agree to it. The Bill was introduced by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Colley, without consultation with either side. This is one of the most serious matters ever to affect the trade union movement yet there was no consultation with them. If legislation is being introduced to control some other profession, such as the legal or the medical profession, the Minister concerned is invariably able to say to the House that he consulted their particular executive, this organisation, or that organisation and they had come to some sort of an agreement, but in this instance the employer-labour conference, and particularly the trade unions, were ignored, not consulted to any degree whatsoever in the awful legislation contained in the Prices and Incomes Bill. It was on Friday, 16th October, that the Minister for Finance announced these measures. In that particular announcement he said that no part of the measures were negotiable. Yet he climbed down on several of the proposals he had made, particularly on the one in respect of the last wage round relating to the balance due in the phased agreements. What was worse still, and an insult to the trade union movement and to the employer associations, was his effort to try to push this legislation through the Dáil at a time when the employer-labour conference were meeting.

I do not know what the view of the Taoiseach or the Government is now on the Prices and Incomes Bill. I have no information as to whether or not it will be withdrawn or in what form it may come into Dáil Éireann, but there appeared to be an urgency about it last week when the Taoiseach was trying to bargain for a shortening of the debate on that particular measure in return for some sort of debate on the Offences Against the State Act. He was very insistent that the Prices and Incomes Bill should be concluded in the Dáil and Seanad before 1st January. He should—indeed, he must because he has the responsibility—tell us what is the intention of the Government with regard to the Prices and Incomes Bill.

I regard this intervention by the Government in regard to free collective bargaining on the part of the trade unions with employers as a very dangerous intervention. Again the Government did not appear to have learned any lessons from the past because, no matter what you provide for in legislation as to what workers might accept, any such legislation cannot be operated. You cannot force a man to work if he decides he will not work and, if you prescribe fines for him, and he does not pay the fines, what then? The implication is that you imprison him. You will not get away with that and the Taoiseach knows it and the Minister for Finance knows it. As I said, they must have learned something from the two measures introduced in the last seven or eight years; I refer in particular to the measures described as the Electricity Supply (Temporary Provisions) Act. It was found at that time that the Act could not work and I assure the Taoiseach now that, if he goes through with this particular measure, it will not work either.

I believe the Irish Congress of Trade Unions have shown themselves in the last two or three months to be reasonable and realistic in their demands. We said this on 28th October and, no matter what the outcome may be, I think tribute must be paid to the employer-labour conference for the time they spent and the work they did trying to get a mutually agreed formula as far as wages and wage increases are concerned.

The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, no matter what Deputy Carter may say, are a responsible body and they have shown themselves as such, especially in the last two or three months, by insisting that the Bill be withdrawn in toto. Some may ask if we want the provisions with regard to price control also withdrawn. I do not think it makes any difference because we have a Prices Act which gives the Government a fair amount of latitude to ensure that prices are not unduly increased, an Act which gives them power, if you like, to freeze prices when it is considered they should be frozen.

Deputy Carter talked about unions and how unreasonable they have been. I should like to give Deputy Carter a little example of how unreasonable the Government can be in the matter of increases. In 1967 about 500 staff officers in local government got an award as a result of arbitration; that award has not yet been paid and it looks now as if the Minister for Local Government will not approve the award. I suggest that, in accordance with the usual practice of the Government and the various Ministers, that arbitration agreement should be implemented. This was agreed in 1967, but it appears that the Minister now wants to "rat" on the particular agreement between the county managers and the staff officers.

A great deal of our difficulties in 1970 have been blamed on strikes. I want to say—it is no pleasure for me to have to say it—that under the system of industrial relations which we have strikes appear to be inevitable because the system ignores the dignity and personal rights of the workers. Glaring examples of this can be found in the two strikes highlighted in this debate, the cement strike and the bank strike, though the latter was really a lock-out, plus the collapse of the Hibernian Group. The cement strike and the bank lock-out affected thousands of workers. I would say that the blame lies on small groups of men who are in absolute control of Irish Cement Limited, and of the banks. If we are to get industrial peace, or even make a first move towards it, the system must be changed. It must be replaced by a system which does, in fact, safeguard the rights and the dignity of workers, such a system as we have outlined in our Labour Party policy document. If that policy were in operation I believe we would not have had these strikes and we might not have had the collapse of the Hibernian Group.

I know that practically every member of the Fianna Fáil Party is conversant with Labour Party policy and I am sure that the Taoiseach has at least read it. Deputy Carter talked about the man on the floor, what his responsibilities are and how he should be involved. The man on the floor, let me tell Deputy Carter, is involved to the extent that, when he is told to sweep the floor, he sweeps it, and when he is told to go to a certain machine, press a button and when a red light comes on, go to another machine and press another button until a green light comes on, he does that. The man on the floor should certainly be involved but not in the way Deputy Carter describes and not in the way some of the Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party think he should be involved.

The Taoiseach said he had read parts of our outline policy document and I should like him now, for his own benefit, to listen to this particular paragraph:

The Labour Party have done quite an amount of work on policy but, in particular, have devoted quite a big portion of the outline policy document to worker democracy.

I know how this has been represented by people like Deputy Joe Dowling and sometimes by the Taoiseach. If the Taoiseach has about 30 seconds to spare I Should like to read it for him. I hope he will absorb it.

The management board will include elected representatives of all workers within the enterprise and key technical personnel. Workers at all levels will be kept informed of their firm's prospects and future, of its opportunities and its difficulties, and they will contribute to the policy making that decides not alone the enterprise's future but also their own. Decisions relating to rationalisation, mergers, diversification, expansion, research, training, produce development, costings, investment and profit distribution will come as the result of consulting with them.

I am not suggesting that one can apply worker democracy to firms employing half a dozen people but I am suggesting that, in respect of hundreds of industries, worker democracy can and should be applied in order that workers will be involved. For example, in the Hibernian Group, the workers would have been apprised of the situation weeks and months before had they been involved in the way I suggest they should be involved. Their only involvement in the Hibernian Group was when they were given their insurance cards or were told that they were redundant. The same policy could be applied to Irish Cement, Limited; to the banks and to the other big industries.

Men are far more important than money and machinery. A lot of care is given to the investment of money and to machinery but the same sort of care is not always given to the most important elements in industry—men and women. Let nobody think that that is a dangerous sort of proposal. Let the Government think about real involvement and real participation by workers in industry.

The Irish Press spoke of my “scandalous behaviour” last week. I have no apology to make for it. It is not my form to do that sort of thing but, in the circumstances, I was justified in view of the attitude of the Chair and of the reluctance of the Taoiseach to have a debate. It was the only method by which I could bring home to the Chair and to the Taoiseach how strongly we felt about the announcement of the Taoiseach and the right of the Government to introduce Part II of the Offences Against the State Act any time they like.

The Government's statement and the Offences Against the State Act seemed somewhat smothered in this debate. The actual year of the Act gives away its very purpose. This Act was meant for a time of emergency. It was designed for such a period. That could not be compared with the year 1970. The world has changed. There have been various changes. Why there is a necessity to have this Act on the Statute Book now, I cannot imagine.

I believe our Constitution should not be set aside except during a time of war or threat of war. It should not be set aside except when the security of the State is threatened. The Taoiseach has not mentioned war or a threat of war. He has not talked about the security of the State. On the contrary, he has always described this State as being a very happy one, indeed. There was no mention of any of these things. There were references to kidnapping and to robbery with violence. I do not believe there is any point in having a Constitution which guarantees personal rights and civil liberties and then having an Act which can be invoked to take these rights away—except on the two occasions (1) in time of war or (2) when the security of the State is threatened. It is ludicrous not alone that the Taoiseach should make this announcement outside the Dáil but that he should refuse to debate it.

The Taoiseach

I did not refuse a debate.

Mr. M. O'Leary

How would the Taoiseach describe his action?

Mr. Corish

The Offences Against the State Act was introduced and passed by a Dáil in 1940. As I was trying to say when I was being so rudely interrupted last Wednesday, there is a new generation now. They have not a full appreciation of the implications of Part II of that Act. Let the new generation in this country know what it is all about. I do not believe that people understand—they may, by now—the implications of that Act and the drastic powers contained in it and given to each Minister of State. I do not know how that Act got through the House in 1940 having regard to the background of, in particular, the Fianna Fáil Party.

Any Minister of State can sign a warrant to intern any citizen and, as far as the Act is concerned, he does not have to refer to the Government. He does not have to get the permission of the Taoiseach or to consult any of his colleagues or the Attorney General. Under Part II of that Act, the Minister for Local Government could sign a warrant for the internment of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. I do not believe that Ministers should be given that sort of power. Certainly, I would give them power if it were confined to the internment of some Ministers by some respected member of the Government but it is scandalous that this should be applied to all citizens of this country. These are abnormal powers that have not been given to the Government in Northern Ireland. These are powers that have not been taken by the British Government. These are the sorts of powers that are peculiar to the Governments of Portugal, Spain and Greece. Surely the State has not degenerated to that stage that we should implement a measure under which men can be thrown into an internment camp without charge or without trial.

Let us not confine it to some organisations that have been mentioned and that have been deemed to be illegal. The Taoiseach must know and the country must know that this Act is not directed exclusively at those who would take up a gun. It can be directed at anybody. It can be directed at a protesting farmer or at a trade unionist whom the Minister for Labour or the Minister for Finance might accuse of inciting people to do certain things— even to go on strike. Any trade unionist, any farmer, can be interned without charge or trial. The Taoiseach may tell me that it is not the intention to do that but this is exactly the power he has taken unto himself. During the protest by the National Farmers' Association some few years ago, it seems to me that the Ministers were of such a temper that they could have decided that certain farmers should be interned. I wonder if the Taoiseach is sorry he had not decided to do this before last May. Then he would have had an opportunity of deciding that Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey should be interned.

Mr. M. O'Leary

He may do it yet.

Mr. Corish

This is a dangerous measure to have on the Statute Book. Some few years ago—I think on the initiative of the late Deputy Seán Dunne—we moved here for the removal of that Act because we felt that a measure introduced in wartime should not continue to be on the Statute Book. We have confidence in the normal processes of the law in any situation that could arise. We certainly have confidence in the Garda. If the Taoiseach wants to do anything to ensure greater security for our citizens and for himself he should tell the Minister for Justice that the Garda force is under strength and that there should have been greater additions to the force over the past few years.

A conspiracy was mentioned. The Attorney General acted swiftly against Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey. Conspiracy is a crime. The Government do not need any special powers to deal with it. There was an allegation of conspiracy in the arms trial. That can be coped with under the present system and without invoking Part II of the Offences Against the State Act. We deprecate the fact that the announcement was not made in the House, apart from its timing after the by-election.

This has certainly been a year of crises. To mention but a few, we had the arms trial, the Cabinet crisis, the Government crisis, the inflation crisis and now the internment crisis. The word has become a cliche. The country cannot afford a repetition of these crises of 1970. We cannot afford paralysis in Government because we have had that for over nine months. We do not want more Government by Press conference. The awful thing is that these crises were created by the Government themselves and they are entirely responsible if there is inflation and insecurity. The effect on Fianna Fáil is not important but the effect on the ordinary people is important. Therefore, it is for the Government to show concern for these people by tackling the problems virtually ignored by them for the past year. The greatest of these, of course, is Ireland's application for membership of EEC, That debate has been shelved, whether deliberately or not, by the Government. We are getting the minimum amount of information from the Minister for External Affairs and the others involved. We are virtually in the dark as regards EEC negotiations. I, therefore, believe the Taoiseach should shorten the recess whatever it may be. We cannot afford to be in recess when we have such problems.

Mr. Donegan

The Taoiseach suffered in every house in the country today that bought an Irish Independent, an Irish Times or a Cork Examiner because of the credibility gap. The year 1970 ends with a set of circumstances which do not allow people to believe in the Taoiseach or the Government any more. The arms trial and the events of last May have, I believe, clouded more serious issues. Even though the former were extremely serious issues, the economic state of the country, and the jobs that may be lost are of paramount importance but they were, perhaps, clouded by the highly attractive reading provided by the arms trial and the other matters.

As quoted in this morning's Irish Independent the Taoiseach said: “The Government will not flinch from its duty.” The heading refers to the internment of people under the Offiences Against the State Act. How can the people believe that the Taoiseach will do what he says, whether it is desirable or not, when one looks back through the year to the Budget of April 23rd, for example, which imposed 2½ per cent extra turnover tax, which I shall deal with later? This was the most important factor affecting prices during the year. Or take the evening when a Minister had been sacked and the Taoiseach said he had resigned but when replying to the arms trial debate he admitted he had asked for the Minister's resignation. When asked at Question Time one evening by Deputy Cosgrave if this was the tip of the iceberg or could we expect more resignations he replied “I do not know what the Deputy is talking about”. The following morning we found that two more Ministers had been sacked and one had dismissed himself. Surely, then, the question in everybody's mind, on opening whatever paper they bought this morning, whether they are Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Labour supporters or otherwise, was “Does he really mean it? Is it true?” It is sad that this should have happened.

The credibility gap is further widened by the announcement we had not so long ago by the Government that they were freezing the 12th round. One could imagine that the Government for the past two months were acting like a striptease artist: they had frozen the 12th round during the week and before the week was over, that was changed. Now, we have a possible withdrawal of the Prices and Incomes Bill and, in true Fianna Fáil fashion, we are now in the last serious debate of the year on the work of the Government in the calendar year 1970, and we will not be told whether this Bill is being withdrawn or not until they have us all safely home where we cannot ask questions.

Is this something that creates credibility and allows the Taoiseach to lead the nation? If he had made a state of the nation speech yesterday in circumstances in which everybody knew everything he had said during the year was, if not true, certainly his true opinion of facts as they were, then he could possibly have carried his belief into every home and conveyed to everybody that he was saying what he meant. Unfortunately, with the matters I have outlined in the background during the year, there is no hope that the people could trust their Taoiseach. That is something I do not like saying but it is a fact fortified by the evidence that I have adduced.

While the Prices and Incomes Bill may not be withdrawn it must be remembered that there was sister legislation in the Finance (No. 2) Bill. The Prices and Incomes Bill governed wages, incomes, dividends, rents, directors' remuneratiton and a long list of things that should probably be governed in the present situation, but the Finance (No. 2) Bill imposed higher corporation profits tax on companies to such an extent that some companies have had to set aside from this year's profits tens of thousands of pounds to meet this retrospective tax which we are in the process of passing through this House.

There is no talk of withdrawing the Finance (No. 2) Bill, although the only reason we had two Bills was that one related directly to budgetary provisions and the other to price control. I do not know if the Taoiseach and the Government have lost complete control of the economy, whether they cannot successfully deal with any group in the community, but it seems to me there should also be consideration of the withdrawal of the Finance (No. 2) Bill if there is to be a withdrawal of the Prices and Incomes Bill.

I am fully aware that there is in the Finance (No. 2) Bill provision to raise £3.5 million but there is nothing wrong with keeping the Dáil in session even next week and raising this sum in another way, if the piece of legislation which is or is not being proceeded with has a direct effect upon the one which we are definitely proceeding with.

The Taoiseach

If that happened, the Deputy would get a great fright.

Mr. Donegan

I certainly would not, but may I point out the stupid and ridiculous situation in which we are spending millions on grants for new industries and the re-equipment of existing industry and at the same time withdrawing from their net profits moneys that could be provided for capital expenditure. With one hand we are offering the carrot; with the other, we are using the stick. Why is there such a ridiculous approach to industry in this way?

The Taoiseach is reported in today's papers—I do not quite agree with him —as saying that the four main heads on which we should judge progress during the year are employment, balance of payments, movements in price levels and whether there was a rise in living standards. A Taoiseach making a state of the nation speech should be very painstaking to see that he compares like with like and does not gild the lily because, if he does, he loses credibility. It is his job to lead the people and, so long as he is in that seat and the less he succeeds in being their logical leader and a proper Taoiseach, the worse it will be for the people.

The Taoiseach compared the present employment in industry with the employment in the first half of 1969. In other words, he took not a 12 but an 18 months period as a comparison. Having done that, he said we had 5,000 more people in industry and that this was a great thing that had happened in the period from the first half of 1969 to the present day. I would draw his attention to the fact that 30 years ago 85 per cent of the population of America lived in the country and 15 per cent in the towns and that five years ago 85 per cent of the population of America lived in the towns and 15 per cent in the country. Inevitably, even if the Taoiseach introduced further repressive legislation against industry, it is in the nature of modern life that things are now made in factories which very often used to be made at home and that we will have more factory employment. Remember that, unless we can provide 12,000 to 15,000 new jobs in industry per year to make up the numbers leaving the land, we will have gross emigration. The vital statistics tell us that and they do not lie. The statement made by the Taoiseach is a statement of failure and of the complete negation of the Third Programme and everything that went with it. It is no use to us to be told that in a period of 18 months there were 5,000 more people in employment. I am in favour of the payment of grants but if I look at the amount spent in that period of 18 months to get those 5,000 new jobs I am horrified, and any right-thinking man would similarly be horrified.

The Government have not provided the climate for growth. Whatever you do, whether you give grants or not, the industrialists will come here if they see opportunities to make goods better and cheaper, to declare a profit and to pay their shareholders. The Finance (No. 2) Bill is a repressive piece of legislation so far as that desirable situation is concerned. The position is that no matter how much money we give out in grants, if we do not create that climate for growth in industry we will be faced with the horrible figure of only 5,000 jobs in 18 months whereas we need from 12,000 to 15,000 new jobs every 12 months.

I want to refer to the second heading in the Taoiseach's speech, that is the balance of payments account. He said we would have a slight improvement in 1970 on the position in 1969. We would have an improvement of £4 million but we could not tolerate a balance of payments deficit of the order of £60 million to £70 million. I could not agree more with him on the second statement. We certainly cannot continue to tolerate a balance of payments deficit of that order. I want to point to his nice, little, soft, slithery £4 million improvement. What is the real truth? The bank strike and the cement strike resulted in less imports. I met a fairly large builders' provider in this city and I asked him how much goods such as timber and cement for the building of houses he had not imported during the cement strike. He said "Start thinking at £1 million". Let us go to Limerick, Galway, Donegal, Cork and come back to Dublin—the Taoiseach boasted they were building 14,000 houses a year— and think of all the articles which have to be imported for houses, because they are not manufactured here, and we will realise how much goods we did not import because of the cement strike. People who were in difficulty during the bank strike had one weapon in their hands: if they had considerable stocks they could run them down.

The building industry of this country has not recovered from the cement strike and it will be next March before it is in full swing again because contractors who have got a time period are notorious for not starting until the good weather comes. We missed all the good weather of 1970 as a result of the bank strike. There is, therefore, no incentive for a builders' provider, a contractor or anybody else to set up stocks and buy in goods. If the true figure for our balance of payments were available, if we could assess the goods which were not imported as a result of those strikes, we would find that our balance of payments situation was far worse than the £60 million to £70 million which the Taoiseach says cannot be tolerated.

I want to refer now to our economy. Every modern economy needs constant attention. It is the duty of the Minister for Finance and the Prime Minister of any country to deflate the economy to some extent at times and then there is the pleasant duty of reinfiating it when things have righted themselves. Those movements and dealings with the economy should be minimal and should cause the least hurt to people.

What happened between 1968 and 1970? I have been in this House for 16 years and during that period we had the highest number of by-elections we ever had. We had five by-elections and a general election during this period. I want to accuse the Government of stating through the Minister for Finance, then Deputy Haughey, in March, 1968, that we had a serious financial crisis and that our economy needed correction. When they decided to go to the country in June everything in the garden was lovely. Their plan was that, having got back, they would then apply correction to the economy and things would be all right.

They probably would have done something to correct the economy if we had not those by-elections. While the effect on the economy would have been punishing and hurtful it would not have been half as bad as the credit squeeze we will have for the next two or three years. Death intervened and in one famous case a resignation took place. As time went on by-election after by-election took place when the Government sat back and did nothing. They are professional politicians who think more of their jobs than anything else. They let the economy run riot during that period and now we have reached the stage where the figure of £60 million to £70 million cannot be tolerated. We will not know until the rush starts on money next spring, if the money is there, what that balance of payments deficit will be. I suggest it would have been, if things had been normal, of the order of £100 million. Despite this the Government were prepared to let things go on as they were.

The country should realise that, because of the inaction of the Government, because of their political prostitution, because of the fact they like their jobs better than the people's rights, because they did not act and apply a mild deflation to the economy and then reflate it again over a period of 18 months, things in this country for the next two or three years will be extremely difficult. We will have a very heavy credit squeeze. The banks do not yet know what the situation is. We have to wait and see. Some people say it will be the end of January, some say next February and some say even next March before we know what the situation is. But when we find out what the situation is as far as spending in the banks is concerned a vicious credit squeeze will be applied because the money will not be there. The only reason why the normal procedure of slight deflation and reinflation was not properly executed was because of the general election, five by-elections and people who thought more about their jobs. I again give as evidence of this the speech on 18th March, 1968, just before the general election, of Deputy Haughey when he said we were facing a crisis. The crisis was very nicely swept under the carpet for every by-election. Like the statement about the Offences Against the State Act, it was kept until after the by-elections. How completely and absolutely without responsibility can this Government get? I do not know.

I am no economist and I have no letters after my name that the people cannot take from me, but I am utterly convinced that the present state of the economy, which is directly attributable to the non-action of the Government, cannot be cured in less than two to three years. That is what we are facing. Does the House know what will happen? They will decide when to have the general election on the basis of how long it will take to cure it. If they think it will take longer than the lifetime of this Dáil, they will go to the country next spring. If they feel they can apply severe and repressive measures now and get the economy back on its feet-perhaps putting a lot of people out of business in the process, and sending many people on the emigrant ship-they will sit there. Nothing will decide which they do, except their own jobs.

I want to talk now about price levels. Yesterday the Taoiseach mentioned that the increase in price levels in 1970 would end at 8 per cent. I want to suggest that the greatest single factor in that price increase was the application of a further 2½ per cent turnover tax on 23rd April last, the day when drainpipes were falling on their heads. This 2½ per cent, when translated into ordinary business operations, no matter how the prices section of the Department of Industry and Commerce operates on it, will end up at about 4 per cent. We have also had what the Taoiseach or one of his Ministers described as a mini-budget and which I, to be in the fashion, described as a maxi-budget, adding 5 per cent more to give a 20 per cent wholesale tax on certain items, including mobile homes which old people are provided with because the Government have failed to provide them with houses.

These are the things that increased prices. I want to suggest that, if indirect taxation of this kind is applied generally over all household goods, foods and necessities, the trade unionists will seek to get their money back through higher wages. Whatever this House does, whatever the Taoiseach does, they will get those increases, and they will get their money back. We may as well face the fact that they are right, and that they should not accept a lowering of their standard of living just because the Government have made a mess of the job.

Surely there should be a constant rise in the standard of living of this nation? This was the fourth heading on which the Taoiseach based his speech; the rise in the standard of living. I can find no evidence of a rise in the standard of living during 1970. I can find every evidence of people who were hard pressed to pay their bills. Of course the consumer price index does not include everything that is a necessity today. Some of the items on it are out of date. Deputy Cosgrave has a very good habit of asking a question every three months about the consumer price index and the list of goods, lengthy though it may be, is provided for us in the Official Report.

When one looks at that list of goods one sees on it many articles that are not in common use today and one notices that many articles are not on it which are in common use today. The increase of 8 per cent mentioned by the Taoiseach is probably far more than 8 per cent. During 1970 people have been hard pressed to pay their bills and they have not had enough money to raise their standard of living. The natural expenses of the household, the expenses of children, clothes, food, rates and rent have mounted spectacularly and people are worse off. On the fourth heading I suggest that the Government have also failed.

A fifth heading was mentioned by Deputy Corish and glossed over in the contribution by the Taoiseach, that is, the question of our negotiations for entry into the Common Market. We are a small nation and we should bargain. Any difference of opinion there seems to be in the House about our joining the Common Market and, indeed, about our operations under the Anglo-lrish Free Trade Area Agreement, derives from the failure of the Government to bargain.

Last week the Minister for External Affairs formally made our application and opened negotiations. I am slightly incorrect there. Our formal application was made quite a long time ago but he opened negotiations last week. He asked for special terms for jute and the motor car assembly industry. What about the footwear industry? What about the electrical goods industry? Are the Taoiseach and the Government aware that Italy has flooded France and other countries with electrical goods? Are they aware that there is a crisis in the footwear industry? As a small nation going in there without the power to affect the economies of large nations in any way, why did we not ask for special terms for those two items and many more?

These are the differences that exist in this House in relation to the Common Market and there are no other differences so far as I can see. When one addresses one's clear thinking to this matter, that is all the difference one can see: the failure of the Government to go in in a bargaining position. For two years I was privileged to be on the Council of Europe and that gave me some opportunity to see how continentals work. They are tough, hard bargainers. They take every opportunity to get the last Is and they are right. We seem to be in the act of slobbering into the Common Market like nice fellows. I do not think that is "on". As we go into the Common Market we must bargain and bargain very strenuously.

I almost omitted to mention—and I am very glad I remembered it—the fact that we have said that we will agree with the fishery policy but that we would like to talk about it afterwards. I do not know whether any member of the Government ever got his feet wet, but if you leave Dunmore East at the moment you will find about ten or 15 miles outside it huge Dutch trawlers of 300 tons gathering herrings. You will find Russian trawlers gathering herrings and they have a factory ship on to which they can unload them for processing. You will find French trawlers. If the limits are removed they will come in for our inshore fishing, willy-nilly, right or wrong. Our fleet is almost entirely restricted to inshore fishing boats. When I talk about inshore fishing boats I mean 55 or 60 foot trawlers. We have acceded to the Common Market policy on fisheries and said we would like to talk about it afterwards. We should go in there shouting. We should go in there bargaining. I find the Government's complete failure to do this inexplicable. I find it sad. If they are not got out soon it may be extremely hard to correct this position.

Before passing from the Common Market situation I want to remind the Government that in all the choice industries we are in serious trouble. A middle-aged man like myself, Deputy Fitzpatrick or the Taoiseach will probably go into a shoe shop and buy the same brand and the same shoes he bought last year if they were comfortable and he liked them. If a young lady, who would buy considerably more shoes than we do, goes into a shop and is shown ten different pairs of shoes and if, as is becoming the position under the Anglo-lrish Free Trade Area Agreement, seven or eight pairs of those ten are British or continental, the likelihood is that to match her frock to go to the dance she will buy one of the imported pairs. This weakness, as far as the home trade is concerned, exists in every area of industry in which there is a wide choice, whether it is fabrics, shoes or whatever it is. We have few factories producing a small number of articles to show the consumer and there can be imported from abroad a huge number of similar articles. The position is that our home trade is severely threatened.

If our home trade is threatened what is our position? We do not export enough at present to compensate us in any way for the loss of our home trade. The last figure I heard was that 70 per cent of our shoes were sold at home. We did not ask for special terms. Yesterday in this House the Minister for Transport and Power, answering for the Minister for External Affairs, informed me that it was very far away and we had seven or eight years to prepare. I suggest to the Government that in certain of these industries we do need special terms, no matter how far away it is, simply because of the limited choice which we can put before the consumer.

A fair example is the fact that if one were in a wholesale house in London and was brought to the wallpaper room one would there be shown 8,000 to 10,000 brands of wallpaper. We have in this country one wallpaper factory. I am sure they do not produce any more than 50 or 60 designs. Surely if we are flooded with this choice of articles the chances are that my wife or anybody else's wife, without even knowing it, will buy goods from abroad. If this happens we have lost our home trade; and if we lose our home trade and we have not got a great export trade, where are we? I know the great patriotic thing to do is to gird one's loins and say "We will fight it." One must be pragmatic too and be prepared to look at the thing as it is, and there is no point in saying everything in the garden is rosy if it is not. The right thing to do is to face up to it now.

The bargaining of the Government at the Common Market has been nil. It is despicable that this is so and I believe that in both parties on this side of the House there is a consensus of opinion that if we have to go in we must bargain as all the continentals bargained.

I do not intend to devote much time to Government crises except to mention them in passing, but the events of the last year bring seriously to mind the question of what kind of Government and what kind of Taoiseach this country desires. One must think about our society and consider what sort of society it is. The first thing that comes to mind is that we have not got, as they have in Britain, large numbers of one class or another from which either the Labour Party there or the Conservative Party draw support—the Labour Party because there are a large number of industrial workers, the Conservative Party because there are a huge number of middle-class people. Therefore, the Government of this country will, I think, always be drawn from a group of people representing the whole spectrum of Irish life.

To be a Government here the parties that compose that Government or the party that composes it will have to have support from every stratum of Irish life. They will have to have support among the trade unionists, the farmers, the businessmen, the self-employed, the small shopkeepers, the industrialists, the professional men, the men in local government and the civil servants. I want to say quite clearly that Fianna Fáil was such a party, Fianna Fáil was a party that did command support from all those sections of Irish life, but I do not think they do now. I try to think then where the rot set in. Quite frankly, I believe the rot set in with the arrival of Deputy Seán Lemass as Taoiseach because something that had been there—largely because of the length of time they had been in power—blossomed forth. I refer to the sort of thinking and the sort of actions that one gets from a Taca-based society.

Taca was not just thought up and Taca did not just happen. What happened, in fact, was that a large number of people had received over a long period favours to which they were not entitled. This brought about a belief that if one were a rich man the right thing to do was to join the Government party, join Taca, give large subscriptions and that one would get not 20s for one's £ but 21s or perhaps 22s, whereas anybody who was foolish enough to adhere to the other parties would get 18s or 19s for his £. This belief grew and grew. That is why we have reached the very nadir of standards in this House. That is why we have bad the situation where this philosophy has come right through even to the Cabinet, where is was possible for Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey to believe that they could even break the law in the course of their ministerial duties. I want to adduce in support of my statement the words of the Taoiseach when after the arms trial he said that they were not found guilty of conspiracy but that conspiracy is a very, very difficult charge to prove. Fianna Fáil have moved from this stage to the sorry plight in which we see them now—everybody knows that even before the night of the long knives and to a much greater degree after it, we had Deputy Haughey, Deputy Blaney and Deputy Colley all contesting for the job of Taoiseach with Deputy Lynch—in which they extend preference in return for support. That, to me, places Fianna Fáil in the position of being a party not fit to govern the Irish nation. The Irish nation deserves better and I think the Irish nation will decide to get better.

The party to which I belong has no people in it who regard themselves as godheads who can break the law, who regard themselves as people who can give anybody 21s for the £. If there is anybody in this country who would try by putting us in, by putting Fianna Fáil out, to get more than their due in justice, then I advise them not to go towards our camp, perhaps to go towards the Fianna Fáil camp. The reason why the dignity of the Dáil has been dragged through the gutter in the last 12 months is the reason I give. Fianna Fáil had become a Taca-based organisation. Fianna Fáil had become the organisation to which you went to get something which you should not get. That is the reason why the Taoiseach has had all his problems. That is why even the Dail itself has now become a laughing stock. It is a sorry thing that we have to think now about the British Parliament and the way it works as distinct from the way our Parliament works.

I do not want to bring up any personal matters that occurred in the British Parliament but there was there a gentleman, Mr. Profurno, who resigned as a Minister of State—not for any action outside Parliament but because he told a lie. I would not suggest, and I would be out of order if I did, that the Taoiseach told deliberate lies, but I do say that if the Taoiseach at three o'clock in the afternoon tells the House that he does not know what Deputy Cosgrave is talking about when Deputy Cosgrave asks "Is this the tip of the iceberg?" and if he sacks two Ministers by the following morning that that is not a case for the resignation of the Taoiseach but a case for the resignation of the Government and a clear going to the people to seek a fresh mandate. Whether or not the time was propitious, it was their duty to do that and it was what they should have done. That is what would have happened in the British Parliament. our ancient enemy whom we regard as not being of the same standard as ourselves.

Again on this question of the dismissal of the Minister for Finance, the major Ministry apart from the Ministry of the Taoiseach, the dismissal of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, probably the second most important Ministry, the resignation of the Minister for Local Government, who handles the most money, apart from the Minister for Finance, in the Government, and the Taoiseach's call for the resignation of the Minister for Justice, the custodian of justice-we had all this and yet they would not go to the country. All this was done and the precedents in Parliament all over the civilised world were cast aside. You may say that they had hard necks or anything else you like, but the fact is that four major Ministers were gone. They had either left or had been dismissed. The question had arisen as to whether or not the Taoiseach had told an untruth and in that situation in any Parliament west of the Iron Curtain there would have been an instant resignation and the Government concerned would have gone to the people.

It is extremely difficult for anybody to understand how a Government can continue under these circumstances. It is extremely difficult to understand how, after all that was said by Deputy Flaughey and Deputy Blaney, we should see them trotting through the division lobby the other night to vote. These are things that could not happen in any civilised country except here. These are things that could not happen under any Government but a Government that had been in power for 40 years and had grown so fond of power that they believed only they could govern and that they could behave in such an arrogant manner and not go to the people when their very honour was questioned.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The order of the House provides that the Taoiseach gets in at 6.15 p.m.

Mr. Donegan

I know that. Sir. I want to conclude by saying that we in Fine Gael have an alternative to Fianna Fáil. We are extending our effort neither to the left nor to the right; we are extending it to every stratum of society, just as at one time the Fianna Fáil Party extended. We are extending it to people on unemployment benefit, whom we will look after better than Fianna Fáil have, to the workers, the farmers, the businessmen, the industrialists and everybody else. We are asking for their support and we will accept support for our policies without derogating from any decent body in this House which likes to give us that support.

The Taoiseach

The outstanding feature of this debate has been the failure of Deputies opposite who have taken part in the debate to make any convincing case against basic Government policies on any serious grounds. Indeed, most of them did not even try to make an attempt; they were far more interested—as we have just heard —in rehashing past events and scoring small debating points. Much like the winding up speech, the opening speech from the Opposition benches, by Deputy Cosgrave, was in the same mould. Even to Deputies who support him in his own party his contribution must have been, to say the least of it, disappointing. That he should have seen fit at this hour to rake up again these old problems, old problems of ministerial dismissals and resignations, shows how bankrupt the case of the Opposition is in relation to Government policy. We were, I would like to remind the House, supposed to be discussing Government policy and administration in all its aspects over the past 12 months.

Mr. Ryan

Including the dismissal of Ministers over the last 12 months.

The Taoiseach

Yes, but we had the same old clichés trotted out, allegations of untruths and this feigned and pretended shock, as we have just heard from Deputy Donegan who, in the middle of his economic pontifications, treated us to Bumble-like pronouncements about standards of behaviour. I wonder do Deputies opposite forget that the people have spoken out in support of my decisions and my actions as Taoiseach and in support of the Government's policies generally. If any of them doubt that I would remind them again of the results of the Donegal-Leitrim by-election and the South County Dublin by-election and I invite them to have another look at the figures to see what they portrayed. I would like Deputy Donegan in particular to have a look at these to see if they give any indication of the rot which he says has set in in Fianna Fáil. On the contrary, he will see there vivid and virile signs of growth.

I was expected to, and I propose now to deal with the Prices and Incomes Bill and the negotiations recently concluded between employers and trade unions. The Prices and Incomes (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1970 was introduced at the beginning of the term because of the failure at that time of the employer labour conference discussions and because of the threat, which then existed, that this breakdown posed for the economy. The Bill, as Deputies are aware, received its Second Reading debate and was not resumed this week.

I should like to go back briefly on the history of this whole matter. Following a report from the National Industrial Economic Council the Government encouraged the trade unions and the employers' associations to come together to work towards a prices and incomes policy as was suggested in the NIEC Report. They both responded and as their first task they tried to work out a pay increase formula for the period following the termination of the 12th round agreement.

After some five or six months of negotiations under an independent chairman they did not succeed in coming to an agreed formula and failure to come to an agreed decision was reported by the chairman of the Employer-Labour Conference. At or about this time announcements appeared in the Press of what seemed to be inordinate demands for pay increases on the part of some unions. To say that these were inordinate or substantial is putting it mildly. Most people regarded them as alarming. If they had been conceded, even in terms remotely approaching the amounts claimed, they would have had a dire effect on the economy, not alone from the effect the increases would have had in themselves but also from the effect of the successive demands and settlements which would have resulted.

During the period of the negotiations members of the Government, and I myself, exhorted the two parties to come to a reasonable settlement and said that we wished to have an acceptable voluntary pay rise agreement but, if that was not possible, then we would have to take appropriate action. After the announcement of the failure of the negotiations, and following the reports to which I have referred of substantial claims for increased wages, the Minister for Finance announced the introduction of the measures which are now laid out in the Prices and Incomes Bill.

At that time, before the Bill was actually introduced to the House, we were approached by members of the executive council of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and asked if the Bill might be withdrawn or at least that part of the Bill dealing with wages be withdrawn. We explained if it was not possible to reach agreement then the Government would have to have some means whereby inflation would be controlled and in order to do that and in order to satisfy Parliamentary procedures we had to proceed with the Bill. The labour representatives did suggest that we withdraw the 6 per cent ceiling on wage increases taking place from 1st January, 1971. They said it was important that this 6 per cent should not appear in the legislation because if they succeeded in getting negotiations going again with employers it would be important that a specific figure like this should not be mentioned.

The Government accept that this was a reasonable argument and decided not to put any specific figure into the Bill. Negotiations then proceeded. Last week the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Irish Employers Confederation have, as the House is aware, following further intensive discussions, informed the Government that they are prepared to ratify a national agreement on wages and salaries, and that plans are being made for the formal signature of the agreement.

The proposed agreement provides for increases greater than the Government would wish in the light of the economic situation. It is obvious that it goes further than the Government proposals announced on 16th October last but it represents a welcome scaling down of expectations. The Government are hopeful that if it is effectively adhered to it will ease inflation. It will not, however, result in any very dramatic improvement in 1971 as compared with 1970. Because of the phasing of 12th round settlements total money incomes will rise substantially in 1971 quite apart from any increases under the proposed new agreement. This, coupled with the size of increases under the new agreement, means that inflationary pressures will continue during 1971. Furthermore, the provision of a cost of living increase to operate in early 1972 is, in view of the already inflationary situation, something about which the Government must have serious reservations. Such a clause could create problems of its own during 1972.

It is evident, therefore, that the proposed agreement must be viewed with some reservations. The Government believe however that a voluntary agreement resulting from free collective bargaining is, if it has regard to the national interest, preferable to solutions imposed by legislation. Furthermore the provisions in the proposed agreement for curbing the use of strike or other industrial action hold out real hope for greater industrial peace and for improving the record we have in the field of industrial disputes, which is not a good one. Despite its faults the Government are prepared to accept the terms of the agreement as being on balance in the national interest, if it is to be observed in the letter and spirit with which it is negotiated. It is, however, essential that we keep up our efforts to arrive at satisfactory arrangements which will ensure that incomes and prices develop in a way which will contribute best to economic and social progress.

The Irish Congress of Trade Unions have asked that in order to enable them to ratify the agreement in accor-base dance with the direction given by the special delegate conference, the Prices and Incomes (Temporary Provisions) Bill be withdrawn. They have given a firm assurance that they intend the agreement to work. The employers for their part have asked that some legislative arrangement be available to protect the agreement. The Government, after careful consideration, and bearing in mind particularly the assurance given by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, have decided that they will withdraw the Bill.

Mr. Corish

Hear, hear.

The Taoiseach

This action is an indication of the value the Government places on the voluntary principle in industrial relations. It is designed also to demonstrate our goodwill and our desire to promote a climate where industrial relations problems can be dealt with in a spirit of mutual tolerance, respect and understanding.

I am sure that both employers and trade unions recognise the importance of industrial peace and will avoid futile conflicts in which even the victor may secure nothing more than the ashes of pyrrhic victories. The promotion of industrial peace is an important and worthwhile idea in its own right. In the present circumstances of our country it assumes a wider importance in that it contributes to the fabric of peace in all our society. Industrial divisions no less than sectarian or other divisions can inflict the same searing blows to the attainment of a society in which all Irishmen may live and work in peace and brotherhood.

In pointing towards the industrial outcome which we seek and which we may reasonably expect to result from a voluntary pay agreement we must not ignore the possibility that problems may arise. I should make it clear, therefore, that should further economic difficulties, whether caused by the agreement or by any other factor, call for action, the Government will take any necessary corrective measures.

The economic outlook is by no means certain and, in particular, there are no grounds as yet for any complacency about inflation. It will be necessary to continue damping down inflationary pressures right through 1971. Since the new voluntary pay agreement will make a smaller contribution than originally expected it will be necessary for the Government to place even greater emphasis on monetary and fiscal measures in order to achieve the result we desire. I make this point because there appears to be some misunderstanding concerning the manner in which economic measures operate. Deputy Cosgrave suggested yesterday that, if income measures were relaxed, then the Government should also relax its budgetary measures. Deputy Donegan followed on the same lines again today. This thinking is, of course, completely wrong. There can be no general relaxation of anti-inflationary action and, consequently, if one policy operates more lightly others must, if anything, be intensified.

I mentioned in the course of the last general debate we had here the Government's determination to seek reductions in State expenditure on both capital and current sides. I said then it was not easy because much of it on the current side is based on remuneration for the public sector and it is not easy —in fact, it is impossible—to have any worthwhile reductions on that head. On the capital side of the account it is almost equally difficult in that, when capital expenditure is made available in one year, it inevitably generates more capital expenditure the following year. The Government will have to take difficult decisions. In fact, the Government have already taken some decisions which will not be easy to live with; there will be some disappointment in expectations and that will extend to both the capital and the current side. I should also add that the Government will continue with their plans to extend the scope and effectiveness of price control.

Before I rose to reply to the debate I received a report from the Minister for Labour of meetings he has had this afternoon with representatives of both the Irish Employers' Federation and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

Mr. Corish

If there is a difference between the words "ignoring" and "ignorance" then——

Deputy Cosgrave alleged that the Government and I have been ignoring the Dáil. Deputy Corish made the same allegation. Deputy Cosgrave alleged that the Dáil was being ignored because what he described as "major announcements " were being made outside the Dáil, basing his charge on the recent announcement by the Government of the possibility of the introduction of Part 2 of the Offences Against the State Act being made in the form of an official statement and not in the Dáil. I want to reject completely Deputy Cosgrave's charge. I have already explained to the House the reason why it was not possible for me to make this statement of 4th December in the House the day before; that was my intention but circumstances made it impossible.

Dr. O'Connell

The Taoiseach's statement was a contradiction.

The Taoiseach

Deputy Cosgrave knows, as well as every other Deputy, particularly those Deputies who have held Government office, that circumstances frequently arise which prevent a particular statement or announcement being made in the House and the reasons for this have nothing whatever to do with a deliberate intention to ignore the Dáil. In any event, charges of this kind do not come well from Deputies opposite, especially those who were members of the first inter-Party Government, when possibly the most important political announcement ever made in the last quarter of a century about this country was made not just outside the House or in the country but outside the national territory. I refer to the repeal of the External Relations Act.

Mr. Corish

It was made in this House by the late Deputy William Norton.

Deputies

Shut up.

Deputy Cosgrave never tires talking about what he calls the internal conflicts within Fianna Fáil. I think he should stop worrying——

Mr. Tully

Eternal.

The Taoiseach

——because Fianna Fáil are well able not only to manage their own affairs but also to manage the affairs of the country.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

The Taoiseach

I think Deputy Cosgrave has enough on his own hands to look after the internal conflicts in Fine Gael. When he has solved them, it will be time enough for him to point the finger at internal conflicts in Fianna Fáil. For the past 40 years Fine Gael have been hoping for the collapse of Fianna Fáil. I can assure them that they will be waiting another 40 years and, even then, they will not——

Mr. Crowley

Do not be too hard on him.

Mr. J. Lenehan

Do not be too hard on him.

The Taoiseach

I want to refer to the suggestions that the time of the Dáil has been wasted during the year. I want to say advisedly that if time was wasted the blame for that rests mainly on the Opposition benches. Where did the repeated demands for motions of no confidence come from?

Mr. Tully

Where did the no confidence come from?

The Taoiseach

Where did the four and five hour speeches come from? Incidentally, when giving his view that the Dail generally worked efficiently and effectively and when he said we did not have to wait the arrival to this House of certain intellectual experts, I think the Deputy was being a lit hard on some Members of his own party, especially Deputy FitzGerald. There have been references during the course of the debate and in other places to the parliamentary system and it is only right that I should deal with them. There have been references in newspapers and other media to the degradation of the parliamentary system with the inference that the Government are to blame. I want to reject such allegations. They display lack of understanding of how the parliamentary system works—that it is based on political parties and how this system functions. Deputy Cosgrave commented in his speech here that the parliamentary system as we know it is always regarded as bad until some other system is tried and is found to be far worse. Members of a party unite in their endeavour to implement an agreed set of principles and policies. There must be differences in individual emphasis, judgment and opinion. They will inevitably and continually arise as they will in any other forms of human association. Total unanimity implies a pattern of conformation in which the minimum of dissent is expressed.

That is the Taoiseach's recipe.

(Interruptions.)

The Taoiseach

The Government and the Fianna Fáil Party have been taking a verbal bashing from the Opposition and indeed from people outside the Opposition not only in the past year — more particularly in the past year — but in recent years. It is to be expected that the party in power, no matter who they are, will always be criticised; and I readily acknowledge that some criticism is Justified but, justified or otherwise, we can take on our political opponents at this level. One cannot always do that in regard lo criticism from newspapers because it is said that one never gets the last word where newspapers are concerned. Fianna Fáil have had to live with mainly an Opposition Press ever since they were founded and, thank God and thanks also to the maturity of the Irish people who shape their policy from their own objective assessment of the situation and not from leading articles in newspapers they have survived.

After the events of last weekend in Cork and what Deputy Andrews, I think, described as the Labour laugh-in on television on Tuesday night, it is little wonder that they were so loth to talk about coalition. We are told that at the Cork conference 396 voted for coalition and 204 against but that about 150 delegates left with Deputy Dr. Browne.

(Interruptions.)

The Committee divided: Tá, 73; Nil, 66.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.
Alien, Lorcan.
Andrews. David.
Barrett, Sylvester.
Blaney, Neil.
Boylan, Terence.
Brady, Philip A.
Brennan, Joseph.
Brennan, Paudge.
Briscoe, Ben.
Brosnan, Seán.
Browne, Seán.
Burke, Patrick J.
Carter, Frank.
Carty, Michael.
Childers, Erskine.
Colley, George.
Collins, Gerard.
Connolly, Gerard C.
Cowen, Bernard.
Cronin, Jerry.
Crowley, Flor.
Cunningham, Liam.
Davern, Noel.
Delap, Patrick.
de Valera, Vivion.
Dowling, Joe.
Fahey, Jackie.
Faulkner, Pádraig.
Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
Flanagan, Seán.
Foley, Desmond.
Forde. Paddy.
French, Seán.
Gallagher, James.
Geoghegan, John.
Gibbons, Hugh.
Gibbons, James.
Gogan, Richard P.
Haughey, Charles.
Healy, Augustine A.
Herbert, Michael.
Hillery, Patrick J.
Hilliard, Michael.
Hussey, Thomas.
Kenneally, William.
Kitt, Michael F.
Lalor, Patrick J.
Lemass, Noel T.
Lenehan, Joseph.
Lenihan, Brian.
Loughnane, William A.
Lynch, Celia.
Lynch, John.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacSharry, Ray.
Meaney, Thomas.
Molloy, Robert.
Moore, Seán.
Moran, Michael.
Nolan, Thomas.
Noonan, Michael.
O'Connor, Timothy.
O'Kennedy, Michael.
O'Leary, John.
O'Malley, Des.
Power, Patrick.
Sherwin, Seán.
Smith, Michael.
Smith, Patrick.
Timmons, Eugene.
Tunney, Jim.
Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

Barry, Peter.
Barry, Richard.
Begley, Michael.
Belton, Luke.
Belton, Paddy.
Bruton. John.
Burke, Joan.
Burke, Liam.
Burke, Richard.
Burton, Philip.
Byrne, Hugh.
Clinton, Mark A.
Cluskey, Frank.
Collins, Edward.
Conlan, John F.
Coogan, Fintan.
Cooney, Patrick M.
Corish, Brendan.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Coughlan, Stephen.
Creed, Donal.
Crotty, Kieran.
Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
Desmond, Barry.
Malone, Patrick.
Murphy, Michael P.
O'Connell, John F.
O'Donnell, Tom.
O'Donovan, John.
O'Hara, Thomas.
O'Higgins, Thomas F.
O'Leary, Michael.
O'Reilly, Paddy.
Dockrell, Henry P.
Dockrell, Maurice E.
Donegan, Patrick S.
Donnellan, John.
Dunne, Thomas.
Enright, Thomas W.
Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
Finn, Martin.
FitzGerald, Garret.
Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan.)
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Fox, Billy.
Governey, Desmond.
Harte, Patrick D.
Hogan, Patrick.
Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
Jones, Denis F.
Kavanagh, Liam.
Keating, Justin.
Kenny, Henry.
L'Estrange, Gerald.
Lynch, Gerard.
McLaughlin, Joseph.
McMahon, Lawrence.
O'Sullivan, John L.
Pattison, Séamus.
Ryan, Richie.
Spring, Dan.
Taylor, Francis.
Thornley, David.
Timmins, Godfrey.
Treacy, Seán.
Tully, James.

Tellers : Tá: Deputies Andrews and Meaney; Níl: Deputies R. Burke and duskey.

Question declared carried.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 17 Dec 1970

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

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Dec 1970