Ministerial and Government Statements—Motion.

Mr. M. Hayes

I move:—

That this House is of opinion that Ministerial or Government pronouncements on supplies or other important aspects of the present emergency should be made to Dáil Eireann or Seanad Eireann, and that suitable legislative or administrative action should precede rather than follow Ministerial statements likely to cause alarm among citizens.

This is a motion which has been in my mind and in the minds of a number of other members of the House for quite a long time. I move it for the purpose of getting an expression of opinion from the Government on a general principle, that is to say, as to whether important announcements should not be made in the first instance, where practicable, to the Dáil or the Seanad rather than to newspapers, whether foreign or Irish, or at dinners or functions of various kinds as distinct from meeting of either House. It seems to me, Sir, that the principle itself is one of some importance. Ministers are servants of the people and are responsible in the first place to the Dáil. The Dáil, it appears to me, in the nature of things is the best instrument available through which to convey to the people important announcements or radical changes in our economy or otherwise. There may be defects in the Parliamentary system, but every effort should be made here to work it. That is especially the case in this country where owing to our history — our recent history and our remote history—we are unused, perhaps, to Parliamentary Government. Similarly, it seems to me that the best practical demonstration of unity of purpose and the realisation of the duty of everybody to do what he can in an emergency, is to be found by way of declaration to the Dáil or to the Seanad followed by reasoned and reasonable discussion and decision.

It should be borne in mind that unity of purpose, or even agreement as to a general plan, does not preclude reasonable discussion. At the moment Great Britain is at war. Her Ministers are naturally harassed and overworked and are bearing immense responsibilities but I am sure the House will have noticed that in Great Britain, the Prime Minister and other Ministers make all important declarations to Parliament. I realise, of course, that declarations which have merely a propaganda value may be made to foreigners but they, I think, are on a different footing from statements on the internal situation. Statements bearing on the internal situation should be made in the main before the Houses of Parliament.

In the motion, I am putting forward the view, which apparently the Government has not taken and does not yet take, that instead of making startling announcements, then allowing an interval to elapse and then proceeding to do something about it, the pronouncement should be made at the same time and on the same occasion as measures are being taken to cope with the situation. That would mean that there would be more encouragement for the people and it would lead to more unity of purpose amongst them. The policy that has been pursued since the beginning of the emergency has not varied. At first Ministers told us that everything was for the best in this country in spite of the war, that we had a magnificent Government which had shown great foresight, and that the country was to be congratulated upon our comparative immunity from suffering. Then we go from that particular attitude to another attitude where very serious things are threatened and where dark hints are given of imminent difficulty and trouble. It seems to me, Sir, that that kind of speech constantly made in the country is merely likely to trouble people's minds and, possibly, in the end, to create the worst of all situations, namely, a situation where Ministers have cried "Wolf" so often that nobody believes them at all.

The most recent example of the ignoring of the Dáil was the interview given by the Minister for Supplies to the Yorkshire Post. I am not attaching any very great importance to the giving of an interview to an English paper and it may be susceptible, I think, of a great many explanations, but I do feel that this is not capable of explanation. If on the 30th December, the Minister knew of the difficulties he mentioned to that paper, the necessity for general rationing, and so on, he must surely have been well aware of that situation before the Dáil adjourned in the middle of December. It would have been much more appropriate and much more helpful to everybody if the statements had been made to the Dáil.

Constantly, people who have intervened in matters relating to the emergency have been told that they were wrong, that they were beforehand and that they were defeatists. For example, the Minister for Supplies has now declared that we are going to have a system of general rationing; that bread may be rationed—the most difficult thing of all, perhaps, to ration. On the 5th March of last year in this House a motion was proposed asking for the setting up of a national register of consumers with a view to facilitating rationing should rationing on a general scale or to any extent become necessary. Rationing, it was stated, should have two objects: (1) the preservation of employment to the greatest degree possible, and (2) the giving of a fair deal to all sections and particularly to the poorer sections of the community. It was put forward by myself in that debate, in column 611:

"that the only way in which we can relieve the situation, which is bound to get worse, is by honestly telling the people what the position is."

I think still that if people were told fairly and squarely what the position is and what steps were being taken in the situation they would be prepared to go to almost any lengths. The Minister for Supplies in that debate did not agree that there was any necessity for a general scheme of rationing or even to take the first step, namely, the preparation of a national register. He refused the national register mainly on the grounds that it would be expensive, but he was not able to say what the expense would be and I think we are justified in believing that he actually had never found out what that expense would be.

Other Senators who debated that matter, Senator Quirke, for example, thought that such a step as the taking of a national register would be panicky. He described it as panic legislation and gave us a slogan with which we are very familiar, namely, "Trust the Minister." Unfortunately, those of us who have never trusted the Minister do not find ourselves in any better position to trust him now than we did many years ago. As a matter of fact, it must be borne in mind that only people who have entirely abandoned their own judgment and placed that judgment in the care of somebody else can adopt with satisfaction to themselves the situation that they trust the Minister and do not bother.

Senator Baxter on that occasion suggested that there would be considerable difficulty with regard to wheat after the next harvest. He said a number of things that have since then been proved to be true. His speech was described by the Minister for Education, who spoke on the second day, as a rather long and defeatist speech.

What I feel is most alarming about Ministerial speeches, no matter where they are made indeed, is that Ministers, getting up to talk about the emergency, appear to argue on their feet. Quite obviously, the Minister for Education had not given any consideration to this matter of a national register and just poured out arguments as you would in a debating society. The same thing occurred to us here on the question of fuel and transport with the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr. MacEntee. We had a debate on turf on a motion with regard to a turf order and the question was raised, if the turf were won how would it be transported to Dublin; how would it be kept in Dublin, and how would it be distributed in Dublin? The Minister gave quite an airy reply to the effect that if the turf could be got the transport problem would solve itself but, not very long afterwards, the Taoiseach told us the transport problem was insuperable.

What I want to put to the House is that if the situation were faced up to in the proper manner there is no length to which people would not go if they were convinced that all citizens were getting a fair deal and there was clear direction from on top. I do not see that we can have any co-operation or that anyone can do what everyone wants to do at the present moment, namely, assist the Government, unless they can get a clear idea of what the Government does want and where the Government does want to go. My reading of speeches made outside Parliament has led me, rather reluctantly, to the conclusion that either they do not know where they are going or they are taking rather elaborate steps to conceal their direction from the ordinary reader and hearer.

With regard to declarations made outside the Dáil, we have broadcasts and we have speeches, and Ministers do not hesitate to make the most serious statements merely for, I think, debating purposes. We were told, for example, by the Taoiseach that we were the most blockaded country in the world. That is, I think, obviously not true, not corresponding to the facts. The Minister for Supplies, speaking at a dinner of the Institute of Journalists in January, 1941, told us that

"by force of circumstances, or deliberate design, each of the belligerents had taken steps the direct consequence of which is the curtailment or stoppage of supplies coming to us, although in the case of Great Britain action by design has only recently occurred."

Surely, if blockade by design has been entered upon by the British it is extraordinary that it has not had more effect than we have noticed since January, 1941. It seems to me that statement had simply no meaning and, at any rate, if it had a meaning and if it were true that Great Britain were beginning to blockade us by design—as distinct from refusing to send us something of which she was herself short or of which in her own judgment she could not spare any quantity—if such a very grave emergency had arisen as blockade by the British, the first people to be acquainted of that should certainly have been the Dáil.

Similarly, the Minister for Supplies has gone to a Fianna Fáil Cumann, or Fianna Fáil executive, or some kind of shadowy meeting at which the Press does not attend, and he denounces the black market. He denounced the black market last month. One wonders what has been done about the black market in the interval. In all these interviews, Ministers can make any kind of statement they please. Senator Baxter, speaking in the Seanad, is told that he is a defeatist. Members of the other House and members of this House are told that they are acting against the national interests by making certain statements. Ministers, however, can speak where they like and take all the advantage of being able to be reported as they please, but, as was indicated in the Seanad yesterday evening in regard to the wheat debate, their opponents must submit to a very rigid censorship.

The thing reminds me of a well-known story in Irish, and indeed in other languages, of the old woman who, on a very frosty night, went into town. The dogs barked at her and she bent down to pick up a paving stone to throw at the dogs and she found that the stones were frozen. She said: "Is bocht an scéal é madraí scaoilte agus clocha ceangailte"—it is a hard situation to have dogs loose and stones tied. That seems to be the situation that Ministers want with regard to this emergency. They want the opportunity to say what they like, whenever they like, to whom they please, and what would be regarded as alarmist and anti-national in anybody else is apparently the height of wisdom and national benefit in them.

Even the most recent speech of the Taoiseach at Navan struck me as very alarming for the ordinary person. I do not understand, for example, why the Taoiseach, like a fond parent, should be protecting us from the knowledge of interviews which irritate him and which would irritate us if we saw them, but which he is not going to let us see in case we should get irritated. The net result of that is that everybody in the country interested in one of the belligerents—and a great many people are interested in one or the other— begins to frame imaginary interviews. Some of them blame X and some blame Y, but the general effect is to inflame feeling and cause uneasiness. Each interprets the interviews as his own bias dictates. I do not know what these interviews are. I tried with members of the Defence Conference to find whether they had ever heard of these interviews.

Mr. MacDermot

Interviews were not mentioned.

Mr. M. Hayes

I should have said articles. I never heard of these articles and they had never heard anything about them. As a matter of fact, members of the Defence Conference can sometimes be told very important things about which they never heard in the conference. I had myself an example of that. I was able to tell a member of the Defence Conference of a very important happening, of which I was a witness, and he was told that there was no knowledge of the matter four days later, although it is inconceivable that a particular piece of information could not have travelled 130 miles between Sunday afternoon and Wednesday afternoon. I am sure it did. I see now, for example, that Ministers propose to go out on a grow more food campaign—Mr. Aiken at Castlebar; Dr. Ryan at Limerick; Mr. Derrig at Kilkenny; and Mr. Aiken at Cavan on 27th January—with, on occasions, officials of the Department of Agriculture. One wonders will these meetings be simply "grow more food" campaigns, or will they, like the meeting in Navan, be meetings at which external politics, defence, our imminent danger of attack owing to certain people writing certain articles and the growing of wheat will be all mixed up in one speech. I think it very undesirable that that kind of procedure should be adopted. It looks very much like Ministers going out and taking a political job, making political speeches and appearing in the forefront in the preparation of a political campaign under the guise of fulfilling certain duties during the emergency.

Without detaining the House any longer from the very important matter before it with regard to the price of wheat, I may say that it seems to me that there is no clarity, no decision at the top of the Government with regard to the emergency, with regard to supplies, or even, indeed, with regard to defence, and that it would be much more desirable that important statements should be made in either of the Houses of Parliament. It would get Ministers more assistance; it would inspire the country with more confidence; and it would help to build up institutions here which would give us strength to face any emergency which may come upon us.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I second, and will speak later.

Minister for Supplies (Mr. Lemass)

If that is all that is to be said about the motion, I suppose I had better intervene at this stage. I read in this morning's paper that Bismarck, the Emperor of Germany, divided the races of the world into two classes—the masculine and the feminine.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The same is true in relation to our flour and bread. It is a recorded fact that 470,000 acres of wheat were grown in this country last year. There has been some suggestion that the average yield was slightly less than normal, but if it was it could only have been so slightly less as to make no appreciable difference in the situation. In some districts the yield was above normal. On the basis of the normal proportion of the wheat harvest retained by farmers for their own use, either for the purposes of seed or to meet their domestic requirements, it was reasonable to assume that we would get from that acreage of wheat the 290,000 tons of dried wheat which we estimated. It was not that 290,000 tons were essential, except in so far as that every ton of wheat secured from the Irish harvest removed the necessity of having to import a ton of wheat and made available a corresponding amount of shipping space that could be used for the conveyance of some other essential commodities. We have not got the 290,000 tons of dried wheat that we anticipated.

Mr. Baxter

Would the Minister say how much has been got in?

Mr. Lemass

The quantity in to the end of December was the equivalent of 190,000 tons of dried wheat. We could import more wheat than we thought would be necessary by avoiding the importation of other goods which, from many points of view, are almost equally necessary, but we cannot, even if we utilise the whole of the shipping facilities available to us, make good the entire deficiency represented by the non-arrival from Irish farms of the quantity of wheat that we anticipated. It may be that a substantially large quantity of the wheat that we anticipated will yet come into the hands of merchants and millers from the growers. Wheat is still coming in, although not nearly in the quantity that is required. For some weeks past the average deliveries of wheat have not exceeded more than 1,000 tons a week, although our consumption is 1,000 tons per day. Our plans are based on the anticipation that there is still to come from Irish farms some tens of thousands of tons of wheat which will be available for the feeding of our people before the next harvest. As I have stated, we can increase the quantity of wheat that we will import, but even allowing for all the increases in imports possible, and for any reasonable anticipation of deliveries yet to come from Irish farms there will still be a deficiency in wheat.

It is desirable that the public should know that. It is desirable that that fact should be made clear to them. It is necessary, first of all, that the farmers should understand the difficulties they will create for the country if they withhold wheat unnecessarily. It is desirable that the members of the public should be warned against waste in relation to bread or flour or other wheaten products, and it is desirable that there should be a wider general realisation of the enormity of the offence committed by individuals who use the wheat required as human food as feeding stuffs for animals. It is the duty of the members of the Government to go to the public and make these facts known, and to make them known in a manner which will strike the public imagination, and get the members of the public to think about them and appreciate the importance of them as individuals as well as of the developments that are taking place.

It is true that there are classes of goods in respect of which it is not desirable a public announcement of a shortage should be made before supplies are got under control. I have been pilloried by members of the Opposition in the Seanad and in the Dáil, and through the Press, for announcing, in advance, a possible shortage of certain supplies. This time last year their complaint was the very reverse, as I will ask Senators to remember.

About this time last year I had to announce the impending rationing of tea and immediately there was a howl of criticism from many people because no previous intimation of the possible rationing of tea had been given. It was obviously undesirable that any undue reference should be made to a possible scarcity of tea, because tea is a commodity that can be stored and, if stored, it will keep for quite a long time. That consideration does not apply in the case of bread or some other commodities. In the case of tea, it was not until supplies in the hands of the wholesale trade were got under control that any announcement in relation to rationing was made, although there had been some intelligent anticipation of a possible shortage among members of the public beforehand. It is necessary to avoid making general rules such as Senator Hayes suggests in relation to matters of this kind. Where it is clear that the public, through their co-operation, and if they have the knowledge, can help to avoid difficulties, then the public must be given the knowledge. On the other hand, where it is clear that undue publicity might possibly create panic and a state of disorganisation in the matter of distribution, then publicity has to be avoided until precautionary measures have been taken.

Senator Hayes mentioned that such announcements should be made in the Dáil or Seanad, to be followed by discussion and decision. Where the action contemplated requires decision by the Dáil, the course indicated by him is followed. It is, of course, the normal practice of Governments, in times of peace, to try out new ideas upon members of the public, to discuss various legislative projects in public before legislation giving effect to them is introduced. That is not merely the normal practice, but it is a desirable practice, and it tends to strengthen rather than undermine the democratic idea. It gives the public an opportunity of expressing a general opinion on the idea before it is formulated in precise terms. It gives various bodies throughout the country an opportunity to make representations as to how their particular sectional interests might be affected by such legislation. It is desirable that members of the Government should speak frequently to the public concerning the general legislative programme of the Executive, their general ideas as to how future events may influence national policy, so that there can be developing amongst the public a knowledge of the circumstances that the country will have to face and a discussion as to the best means of coping with these circumstances.

I notice some criticism of Ministers giving interviews to foreign newspaper representatives. Of all the preposterous objections that have been advanced to actions of the Government, that surely takes the bun. There is an obligation on members of the Government, not merely to direct legislation in Parliament, not merely to lead public opinion within the country, but also to ensure that misrepresentations of the national position or national attitude outside the country are corrected, and corrected by the most effective means. Stronger and wealthier countries than ours maintain organisations in foreign countries for the purpose of dealing with these misconceptions and misrepresentations of the national position. We cannot afford to do that, but when it is clear, in relation to many important aspects of the national position or the national policy, that there is a misunderstanding existing in other countries, and if an opportunity of correcting that misunderstanding by giving interviews or statements to foreign newspapers is offered, it is the duty of members of the Government to avail of that opportunity. The contention of some Irish newspapers that Ministers should give interviews only to them is surely baseless.

Senator Hayes referred to some matters relating to the past, and I should like to refer to them also. It is not true that I made any pronouncement to the effect that general rationing will be necessary. It is true that we have taken a national register, or are in process of compiling a national register, following the census taken some time ago, with a view to ensuring that an extension of rationing will be possible of speedy execution if it is considered necessary. It is well known that recent developments in the war have immensely intensified our supply problem and, while it is much too soon to say to what extent that disimprovement in our position will involve an extension of rationing, it is obviously desirable that we should be ready for it, if it becomes necessary. It is for that reason we are preparing the national register and are arranging for the printing of ration books.

Members of the Dáil and Seanad who proposed this course before have not had to take into account the immense difficulties there are in present circumstances of doing these things. The printing of some 3,000,000 ration books, the mobilisation of the supplies of paper and other materials necessary for that purpose, is a task of immense difficulty and it is going to take some time to complete. But no decision has yet been taken to utilise these ration books, when available, for the rationing of any commodity and any announcement to that effect, through the Press or elsewhere, is entirely unauthorised.

The Minister did not add that.

Mr. Lemass

I did not add other things either.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The Minister started off by talking about nagging. Now, I must say that, when the Minister goes on in that way, he does not convince me in any way that he is speaking honestly. But what shocked me and what is much more serious is that yesterday we had the Minister for Agriculture here, who, with a sort of naiveté and simplicity that ought to be charming, seems to be quite honestly outraged and shocked that the people of this country were so impossible as actually to let their minds register any judgment on Government action. The Minister talked about nagging here. Nagging I always associate more with tone of voice. If gramophone records had been taken of the two speeches already made, a person not knowing the language but listening only to the sound of the voice would have assumed that the word "nagging" applied to the second speech and not to the first. I do not know whether the Minister was just a bit careless and loose in his thought, but at one time he became quite eloquent on the duty of Ministers to communicate to the people when there were grave dangers; he talked about the people's co-operation, and used a whole lot of words about danger and so on. What I was waiting for him to do was to explain how it is the duty of an Irish Minister, when this country is in grave national danger and requires the rallying of our own people, to address them through a provincial English organ which circulates only in Yorkshire. It may be that the future of this country depends on the people of Yorkshire and their rallying to the service of Ireland at the moment, but at least if that is so the Minister might have said something to prove it to us.

I am not going to ask that Ministers never open their mouths except inside the legislative Houses. I am not going to ask that Ministers should never speak on the wireless, or that they should never give interviews to the Press, or that they should never give interviews to the foreign Press. Far from it. But the Minister's case rather destroys itself. With regard to the statement he made to this English provincial newspaper, as far as I remember it, that it may be necessary to ration bread here, he tries to prove that there is nothing new in that because he had said in the Dáil that it may not be possible to have our loaves consisting exclusively of wheat. That is not the same thing at all. If the difference in the position between the making of the statement in the Dáil and his addressing the people of Yorkshire was the difference between a doubt as to having loaves consisting entirely of wheaten flour and a doubt as to having sufficient loaves for the people, that is a very big difference. It does seem to me that, if the position has changed to that extent, and if the Minister realised, as he seemed to do, that the Dáil or the Irish people were the right recipients of information, they were the right recipients of that piece of information.

In the latter part of his speech he came out with this business about a blockade. If the German papers announced that the Irish Government were participating in a blockade of Great Britain, would the Minister attribute the same connotation to the word "blockade" there as he attributes to it in his speech? The word "blockade" means taking action to impose hardship on another country by interfering with their receiving of supplies from outside. We do not allow the export of quite a number of commodities to England. Quite recently we had the Taoiseach talking about those anti-Irish articles in papers outside. If an English paper or an American paper said that we were helping to blockade England, the Taoiseach would get up and talk about this diabolical, outrageous and lying slander upon our people. But the Minister here can get get up and talk about the English blockading us: "We are the most blockaded country in the world, by force of circumstances or by deliberate design." It might be suggested that he has not said there that anybody is blockading us by deliberate design, but he goes on to say: "although, in the case of Great Britain, action by design has only recently occurred." I think that merely shows incapacity to think clearly, but if a person with a trained mind tried to work that off on me I would say he was most patently and outrageously dishonest. He uses the word "blockade". He says we are very much blockaded, and then he indicates that it may be by force of circumstances or it may be by deliberate design. Then he says that in the case of Great Britain, "action"—he does not say "blockade" there, but the word "action", by reference back, means the action of blockading —by design has only recently occurred.

Then here he gets up to prove his case by saying that, whereas there had been a sort of open licence for all exports to Ireland from Great Britain, the British Government suddenly revoked that and tended to curtail exports. But we do it. Why do we do it? Is it an act of hostility to England? It is nothing of the sort. The first duty of the Irish Government is to the people of Ireland, and the first duty of the English Government is to the people of England. It may well have been—I cannot cast my mind back to last January to know exactly what the circumstances were then— that the English Government would have been failing completely in their duty to their own people if they had failed to do that. But the Minister's speech on that occasion to his compulsorily educated or literate Fianna Fáil body could mean nothing to them but that the British Government were trying to impose hardship upon them——

Mr. Lemass

The speech was to the Institute of Journalists.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Well, I suppose they are at least compulsorily literate. Now, that is the type of dishonest speech that to me is completely intolerable. This idea that, when we desire to retain our butter here for our own people it is quite right for us to do it, and that nobody must say a word about it, but that when England, with her own people facing enormous difficulties, takes steps for the preservation of her own people, it is a sort of outrage to us, shows at least an incomplete mind. It shows that enormous national arrogance and ignorance which is such an affliction in this country.

Now on another matter. Wireless is a comparatively recent invention and, therefore, I suppose there has been no codified protocol as to what is good manners with regard to it. About Christmas time I listened to an ill-conditioned address from the Prime Minister of this country to the people of America over the heads of the American Government. Nobody here was a bit shocked by it. But if Mr. Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of England, made a broadcast purporting to be to the citizens of this State, then you would have the Taoiseach and all his Ministers going around saying that this was an outrage that was not to be tolerated and that we could read nothing into it but proposed aggression by England. This idea, that the standard of conduct to be expected from our Ministers must necessarily be assumed to be lower than we demand from Ministers of other countries is, to me, nationally degrading.

I cannot see what right the head of the Government of one country has in relation to another except to communicate according to intelligence or affection with the Government of another country, which is the vehicle and the mode of expression of the people. Instead of that, regularly every year, and especially this year, after the United States of America had been attacked in war, from Dublin here the Government and the legal authority of America is neglected when a Minister of this country purports to speak into the homes of all the American people. You may say that that is all right, but if it is, Mr. Winston Churchill or any English Minister has a right publicly to broadcast to the people of Eire, or whatever is the name of this State—I have never been quite clear on that since the Consituation was messed about with. What is our position? We are like the touchy inferior person who always feels he is not being treated fairly. That is innate in the person who is consciously inferior. We can do these things. It is all right for us to talk to people in America; but it would be an outrage for somebody to do it to us. We can talk about blockading us by design, but if anyone said that we are participating in the blockade of England we would say that was outrageous.

Mr. Kehoe

Many years ago one of the greatest Irishmen of our time told me that this country has always been divided into two sects—those who wanted it run from England and those who wanted it run from America. As far as the Government is concerned, it seems to me that it almost combines these two sects—not that it wants it run from England or America, but Ministers have consistently shown themselves to be more worried and more concerned about public opinion in those two countries than at home. Ministers have a perfect right to give interviews to newspapers of other countries, but what they have done, to an extent which becomes an evil, is to make pronouncements which, in so far as they are true, are of vital interest to the people of this country and of less interest to the people of other countries, and they have been tending towards an abuse by making that a general practice, instead of an occasional practice for which each occasion would demand its own justification.

The Minister seems to me, in his speech, consistently to mislead, to befog our minds, to change the usage of words and to get away from the fact that he made an important pronouncement, of vital interest to our people and of very little interest to the people of another country, to the representative of a newspaper which circulates only in one county in England, and what he had to say only became known to the people of this country through the accident of an Irish journalist calling attention to it in an Irish paper, a thing which might very easily have been overlooked. The Minister has completely evaded the whole issue put before him.

Liam O Buachalla

I do not share Senator Hayes's dissatisfaction with the various methods taken by the Government and Ministers to keep the public informed about developments, or possible developments, in this country in recent times. As far as I am concerned and as far as my knowledge goes of the country, these methods of informing the people, for instance through the radio or through speeches at public meetings or at specially convened conferences, meet with the utmost approval by the people. Complaint has been made here this evening that sometimes these statements tend to shock people. Any person who has examined the position carefully and fairly will, I think, agree, that if these statements could be worded somewhat differently—more strongly, in fact—than they are, in order that the people might really be shocked into a realisation of their position and their responsibilities, it would be all to the good.

I would like to ask the Minister to be good enough to convey to the Minister for Agriculture that he might make statements more often to the people with whom he has to deal. From time to time it is necessary for the Minister for Agriculture to make orders which are published and just left at that. More than a week ago the Department of Agriculture saw fit to impose a curtailment on the export of certain classes of live stock. The matter was covered last night by Senator Baxter's motion on the adjournment. Farmers and certain responsible citizens—for instance, some parish priests—have mentioned to me that it would be advisable if the Minister for Agriculture, when he is making an order of that kind, would accompany it with a statement setting forth, as completely as he can, the reasons for such an order. As a matter of fact the particular order in question gave rise to a good deal of rumours and uneasiness, and that uneasiness has not been allayed and will not be allayed until the people will have read the statement made by the Minister last night in reply to Senator Baxter's motion. So I would like that the Minister for Agriculture—and indeed every other Minister—when an order affecting the mass of the public is to be made, should accompany it by a statement over the radio or by means of a Press interview or in some other way that may occur to the responsible Minister as being proper at the time.

I would also appeal to the Minister and the Government to consider the necessity of the appointment, both in Great Britain and America, of competent Press attaches, in order to keep our position before the citizens of those two countries. Anybody interested and studying some of the articles, comments and statements appearing in journals in America and Britain—for instance, in Britain only two days ago, a very dangerous type of article appeared in a certain daily paper—will realise how important it is that we should have competent Press attachés in those countries to keep every aspect of our position properly before the citizens of those countries. Otherwise a state of affairs may be brought about in those countries which would have unfortunate consequences for us here.

The Minister need not feel uneasy with regard to anything that Senator Hayes may have said here this evening. The public does appreciate this method of informing them of essential facts, or informing them with regard to possibilities. For myself, the only complaint I have to make is, as I have already said, that on some occasions statements are not worded strongly enough in order to shake the people more quickly into a realisation of their responsibilities.

Professor Magennis

On a point of order, may I draw your attention, with all respect, to the terms of this motion—

"That the House is of opinion that Ministerial or Government pronouncements on supplies or other important aspects of the present emergency should be made to Dáil Eireann or Seanad Eireann..."

What I am submitting to you is that the proper interpretation of that is that, irrespective of whether the pronouncement of a Minister or of the Taoiseach is, in the view of his opponent, imbecile or idiotic, it is not relevant to discuss the imbecility or idiocy. What we are discussing is the selection of other avenues of publicity for pronouncements than the avenues of the Legislature. I submit, with all respect, that that is the proper interpretation.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am afraid that that is not the interpretation put on the motion in the course of the debate, and I do not see how a debate on this motion could be conducted without a certain amount of discussion of the contents of these statements.

Professor Magennis

Is your ruling that, if irrelevance begins, it must be permitted to continue?

Leas-Chathaoirleach

I have detected no irrelevance, so far, in this debate and Senator Douglas is not now irrelevant.

Mr. Douglas

I am quite unable to see what my reference to the word "blockade", so far as I was allowed to go, had to do with the point of order which has been raised. I was proceeding to develop my point on lines which would make for greater relevancy in the debate. By making that point, I was hoping to bring the debate more closely to the terms of the motion. I was saying that the exact meaning of "blockade" might not be of any great importance but that the meaning conveyed to the people of nations with whom we desire to remain on friendly terms was of considerable importance. If that reference to blockade had been made to Parliament there would immediately have been a question as to what was in the mind of the Minister. A couple of days after, I happened to be in a neighbouring country and I found that great attention had been paid to a reference made by the Taoiseach to a "blockade". It was taken to mean hostile action to this country. I doubted that meaning, but I obtained a copy of the Oxford Dictionary and found that that meaning was perfectly correct. There is no such thing as an accidental blockade. However, that is not my point.

My point is that, if that reference had been made in Parliament, it would have been challenged and something such as has been said here to-day would have been drawn from the Minister. I took an early opportunity when I came back of drawing attention to the matter to which I have referred, and I received an explanation from the Minister for Finance which put a different complexion on the utterances of his colleagues. I believe that that was all to the good. My object in referring to blockade was to bring the debate back to this question of utilising the Oireachtas for these pronouncements. Even if we could, I do not think we ought unduly limit Ministers in their pronouncements, but I, for one, view with a good deal of uneasiness what, I think, is the growing disregard of the authority of Parliament, not so much on the part of Ministers as on the part of the people of the country. When there is an important change Parliament should be called. We have too long periods in which neither House is in session. In a period of emergency, we should not have these long periods. Ministers should, when possible, make their statements to Parliament. When the matter dealt with is of importance Parliament should have the preference.

I cannot follow the Minister in his statement that the most suitable way for getting the greatest amount of publicity was by the medium of speeches made at a club where the Press was present. There is no evidence that you will get more publicity anywhere for a speech than in Parliament. I hope that that will always be the case. I am not satisfied that our newspapers are giving as much space to Parliamentary debates as they should but, to do them justice, they do give space to Ministers. If we are to maintain the idea of democracy, particularly during a time when there will be a limited amount of ordinary legislation and when a great deal of legislation must be of an administrative character, effected by means of orders, it is desirable that the fundamental essence of democracy—the responsibility of the Government of Parliament—should not be forgotten. One thing I have greatly admired in Great Britain during the war is the lack of objection to criticism. The people there have said that they can face criticism and that it will make them strong. While I am against unfair criticism and do not knowingly indulge in it, I believe, at the same time, that criticism is helpful even in an emergency and that, if it were not for the criticism from the Opposition here and in the other House, our State would be much weaker than it is to-day. At present, the only kind of discussion which is given the proper amount of space in the Press is that led by a Minister. The only way you can get people to remember that Parliament is the Government and that what we call the "Government" is the Executive of Parliament is by taking advantage of every opportunity to have important statements made in Parliament. It should be the place in which such statements would be most frequently made. If one picks up any of the three Dublin daily newspapers, and compares the space given to Parliament with football notes, racing notes or even the stock exchange, it will be seen that at a time of emergency like this, the fundamental government of the country is not being properly reported at all. If there is some stupid or relatively unimportant criticism it will be reported, but quite serious criticism which may take place in this House will not be.

Not on this motion.

Mr. O'Donovan

I want to refer to the wording of the motion which suggests the way in which Ministerial or Government pronouncements should be made. Every speaker, and even the proposer, stated that what is suggested would be ridiculous as they did not want to deprive Ministers from speaking outside the Oireachtas. Everybody here understood that that portion of the motion was irrelevant. Even the proposer admitted it. The second part of the motion suggests "that suitable legislative or administrative action should precede rather than follow Ministerial statements likely to cause alarm among citizens". Nowadays Governments can legislate overnight by way of emergency orders, and administrative action can be taken by a Department.

To my mind, the only sense that can be taken out of the motion is that the Government should become dictators and that we should not have a democracy at all. We are told that suitable legislative or administrative action should precede rather than follow Ministerial statements. Therefore, Senator Hayes recommends that you do a thing first and talk about it afterwards. I cannot see that there is any sense in the motion. I think it is perfectly ridiculous. These are the only remarks I shall make upon it.

Mr. Quirke

When I read the motion, to be quite frank I did not think that Senator Hayes was really serious about having a very long debate or about having, as it eventually developed, a sort of general attack on the Government. I did not think that that was his idea. I thought it was merely brought forward for the purpose of giving such Minister as might happen to be present an opportunity of explaining Government policy on matters directly concerning the nation at present. I would almost go so far as to say that I interpreted the motion as an invitation to the Minister to do things in the way that Senator Hayes would like him to do them, in other words, to avail of sittings of this House or of the other House to make such statements as the Minister might think necessary. The discussion has certainly taken a very different course to that anticipated by me, and I am definitely sorry that many of the statements which we heard have been made. Senator Hayes made several references to such things as the transport of turf, and suggested that statements that were made by the Taoiseach did not prove true. If the Taoiseach made the statement with which he was credited by Senator Hayes, that is that the transport of turf presented an insuperable problem, and if it did not prove to be such subsequently, then I think instead of having a full dress debate about it, Senator Hayes should, like the rest of us, be quite pleased that things did not turn out in the way that was anticipated, if they were anticipated as badly as the Senator suggested they were by the Taoiseach. I think we should be all very grateful that the position is as explained to us here by the Minister for Supplies, that whatever other worries we may have, we at least have eliminated one worry which was uppermost in the minds of most of us not very long ago, namely, the prospect of a fuel famine in the City of Dublin. We should be thankful to God that that danger has disappeared and give credit wherever it is due. Where it is due is not for me to say.

With regard to the general idea that statements should not be made at public meetings, particularly if these meetings are held under the auspices of any political organisation or section, I am in entire disagreement with any such suggestion. I believe that Ministers and the Taoiseach would be lacking in their duty if they did not avail of such occasions to make statements on matters of importance. If we arrived at the stage where the Taoiseach or any of his Ministers would be so scared of the criticism of their political opponents that they would not dare to make statements of national importance or avail of such opportunities to make such statements at a political meeting, when that political meeting coincided with the necessity for making the statement, then I say we would have got into a very serious position indeed.

With regard to Senator Fitzgerald's speech, I am afraid that he is at least very inconsistent in his statements. He pointed out various things which had been done which should not have been done. Amongst other things, he said that we should expect from the Ministers of our own Government at least the standard of decency that we would expect from the Ministers of another country. All I have to say in that connection is that because of the standard of decency and because of the outstanding ability and general conduct of our Ministers, the reputation of this country has been raised in the opinion of thousands of people scattered all over the world and that the Taoiseach's conduct in general has done credit to this country whereas the conduct of Senator Fitzgerald has done it anything but credit. I do not want——

Mr. M. Hayes

The Senator does not want to be offensive I take it?

Mr. Quirke

Until Senator MacDermot becomes a Minister, I think he will not be relevant to this motion.

Mr. Campbell

What may be ill-conditioned in the Taoiseach may be very admirable and highly approved of in other people. That is only by the way. I want to make the point that I deplore Senator Fitzgerald's reference here this evening. It comes poorly from a man of that type to make a reference of that kind, from one who poses as being highly educated, not semi-educated like some of us who sit on these benches. However, while approving of the motion in principle, I want to say that I would suggest seriously to the Minister here that if any pronouncements of that type have to be made and if it is impossible to have more frequent meetings of the Dáil and Seanad—and I do not think it is impossible; I think the House ought to urge that more frequent meetings be held—the Minister ought to avail of that medium which I suggested earlier, that is the metropolitan and provincial Press of this country.

Professor Magennis

I feel that I ought to explain to the House and to Senator Douglas that my interruption of him, on a point of order, was in essence a compliment to Senator Douglas, for I sat with patient endurance, without opening my lips in protest, to a very long spate of irrelevance, and it was only when I feared that he was about to follow the bad example that I interposed, because Senator Douglas is the one member of the House who has received from me the most frequent complimentary allusions for sanity of view and moderation of expression. Both he and the last speaker approved of what is not on the Order Paper. In their own minds, they amended the resolution and applauded that amended resolution. I should say that Ministers and the Taoiseach would vote willingly for a resolution that important utterances of policy, that declarations of State would find their most appropriate place of utterance in the Legislature. If it were Senator Hayes's intention to declare that doctrine of Parliamentary government, I think he would have the support of every one of us without demur; but what he has asked us to do is to declare that a Minister is to be deprived, by the fact of Ministerial office, of that freedom of speech, of comment and of criticism about public affairs which we lesser individuals claim for ourselves at all times. If there is any meaning at all in the resolution, that is what it amounts to.

Furthermore, those who have spoken in approval of the resolution have forgotten what the Senator himself appears to have forgotten, that this is a double-barrelled, or, using more respectful language, a two-clause resolution, and he said nothing whatever in support of the second clause. He abandoned it from the very beginning. "That suitable legislative or administrative action should precede rather than follow Ministerial statements likely to cause alarm amongst citizens"—we have not heard a syllable as to that, as to how such a thing is to be secured. We have not heard how legislative or administrative action is to precede a statement that might cause alarm. Cause alarm amongst whom? —it might be asked. I take it that he means among the public in general. How is legislative action to be taken before making statements likely to cause alarm? Surely if legislation is introduced an explanatory statement will be made as to why it is introduced, and for what purpose, and what benefit to the State is to accrue from its enactment. How could there be any debate of any value whatever with the suppression—the total suppression, according to the sentiment of this—of statements likely to cause alarm?

Suppose some further legislation is introduced with regard, say, to the defence of the country. Would not every member of this House ask that we should be told what new menace has arisen, or what new event has occurred, which has necessitated appeal to further legislation, and that exposition of the measure proposed would undoubtedly cause alarm to the people whose hearts are fluttering over every statement a Minister makes, and would cause alarm amongst those who, notwithstanding the pretended truce of God between the Parties, are on the look out for matters on foot of which to attack the Government. After all, what was Senator Fitzgerald's characteristically incoherent and inconsistent speech but an attempt, at the cost of all relevance, to parse every utterance of the Taoiseach and Ministers for quite a considerable period past?

Senator Hayes told us an amusing story. He recalled another story to my mind—that of the Jew, who, forgetful of the requirements of his code, was indulging in a little pork, and, by a strange coincidence, a thunderstorm occurred simultaneously, and he was heard to exclaim: "What a fuss about a little piece of pork." I feel that this motion is a fuss about nothing. It is a fuss about the fact that the Ministers take the public into their confidence. Remember, if you can, that amongst the various irrelevant things Senator Fitzgerald said—I find it difficult myself to remember—was the statement that Ministers ought to take the public into their confidence, and immediately he rates them for taking the public into their confidence on occasions when the House is not sitting, and on occasions when something has arisen which is not of sufficient importance to inflict upon the country the expense of calling the House together.

In my own boyhood, there was a book to be seen in almost every bookseller's window, and even in what are called stationery shops, entitled: The Polite Letter-Writer. Senator Fitzgerald apparently feels himself fit to produce a similar sort of aid or guide for the polite speaker, especially addressed to Ministers and men in office to tell them what to say on a particular occasion, the exact formula with which to begin and with which to conclude, and he prescribes these formularies in the name of liberty. It is very unfortunate for the country that he is not a Minister, because then, in his Ministerial utterances, he could set such a fine example to his colleagues that they would be inflamed with the desire to do as he did. I think this debate is a gross waste of the time of this House and a gross waste of paper which will be necessitated in the printing of the Official Report of this debate, and I believe the time has come for the issue of an order, in the interests of the paper supply, limiting speeches.

Professor Johnston

There will be gas rationing soon, anyway.

Professor Magennis

I wonder is Senator Hayes keeping back what he has to say on the second section of his resolution for his reply? I take it from the movement of his head that he does not intend to do so. Very well; the motion is then reduced to this:

That the House is of opinion that Ministerial or Government pronouncements on supplies or other aspects of the present emergency should be made to Dáil Eireann or Seanad Eireann.

The Senator is sufficiently a master of English, notwithstanding his proficiency in the vernacular, to know that if he says "Ministerial or Government pronouncements" he is repeating the same thing. What is a Government pronouncement but a Ministerial pronouncement? He says it should be made to Dáil Eireann or Seanad Eireann. He does not say that all pronouncements should be so made, but that a pronouncement upon important aspects of the emergency should be so made. Who is to decide what is of sufficient importance to necessitate the calling of a meeting of the two Houses? I think that if the Senator will take time to consider his resolution he will see that it is unnecessary.

Mrs. Concannon

Since this debate has stressed the importance of the fact—especially at this time—that we are defending democracy as well as the importance of Parliamentary institutions, I think it has served a very useful purpose. I agree with Senator Douglas that Parliament should play a more important part than it has been allowed to play, and I think this debate is useful in emphasising that. I would like to bring to the Minister's attention the very important consequences of Parliament meeting more often even if that causes some inconvenience to the Government and some expense to the nation. It would have this effect that it would help to do away with a great crop of rumours, which is perhaps one of the greatest dangers that we are exposed to at present. If we met more frequently, in the quiet atmosphere of this House, I think that a good many of those rumours would be scotched at birth. By meeting here and seeing our Ministers we would know that they were not negotiating behind our backs and were not in jail or doing the other things that we hear so much of. Even if it were for nothing else except to see our Ministers, I think Parliament ought to meet more frequently. On the other hand, if Parliament does meet more frequently and wishes to play the part it is meant to play in democracy, there is a great responsibility on members of the Oireachtas not to take up the time of the House or of Ministers with speeches that would be all very well in the leisured atmosphere of peace, but that are quite out of place in present times when the country has serious problems to face. No matter on what side of the House we sit we should all be ready to help our Ministers to face up to those problems because they are not the problems of a Party but of a nation. We should not be fighting old battles at the present time. There may be a serious battle before us, and hence we should join our forces for that battle. The tone of the speeches should be as practical as possible.

I support the suggestion of Senator Campbell that the Minister should consider using Press conferences to a greater extent. They might serve a useful purpose. I did not read the alleged interview which the Minister is supposed to have given, but I read the references to it. For dealing with a matter of that kind, Press conferences might, I think, serve a useful purpose. It is important, as the Minister has said, that the people should know what they have to face. They are living, as has been stressed repeatedly, in a fool's paradise. I was coming from Mass one beautiful summer's morning some days after the Taoiseach had delivered a speech to the country, and met a woman on holiday in Salthill who said: "I wish he would leave us alone to enjoy our holidays." It is all very well to enjoy our holidays, but in these days we should all be prepared for every kind of test and should rally our forces for that purpose. It would be all to the good that the people should know the exact position. The motion does not say that all the statements made by Ministers should first be made in the Oireachtas. It does ask that the people should be informed through the Oireachtas. That, I suppose, would be the normal way of doing it since the people read the Parliamentary debates as far as they are reported.

Mr. Hawkins

Senator Hayes referred to the meetings addressed by the Taoiseach and other Ministers, as well as by officials of the Department of Agriculture, in the food and fuel campaign. What has struck me very forcibly is that members of what one might call the Opposition Party have not appeared on any of these public platforms to urge the people to grow more food and to cut more fuel, although they have addressed public meetings urging our young people to join the national forces.

Mr. M. Hayes

Because they have never been invited to do that.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

I do not think this motion calls on them to do that.

Mr. Hawkins

The public meetings with regard to the food and fuel campaign have been called together by the county committees of agriculture or by county commissioners. They are not political Party meetings. If the county committees of agriculture have failed to invite the members of the Opposition Party to those meetings, then I say they have failed in a very serious obligation to the country, because at the present time nothing would be better for it than to see the people on the opposite side rise above Party politics and go out, as they have done in the drive for recruits for the national forces, and encourage our people to grow food and cut the amount of fuel the country needs. If, as Senator Hayes has stated, they have not been invited, then I suggest to the Minister that he should take the matter up with the Department of State concerned, and see that they are invited to future meetings. If they are invited and do not attend, we can then say that they are not big enough to overcome Party politics.

Actually the Senator did not accuse him, because he was not allowed to say anything about it— it was simply a passing reference.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

The original remarks were not in order and it would not now be in order for Senator MacDermot to reply to them.

Mr. MacDermot

I do not intend even to attempt to reply, but merely to urge, on the general principles which the supporters of the Government have very properly been putting forward this evening on this motion, that it should be the duty of all of us in times like these, before making harsh criticisms of other people, to get the authentic text of what they said. If any Senator at any time wishes to get the full text of anything I said, I shall be very glad to place it at his disposal.

In a way I regret this motion should have taken so long. I did not think it would have occupied so much time, but at the same time I think it has done a certain amount of good and has brought out a certain measure of agreement. The terms of the motion have been criticised. I admit the second part of the motion is peculiarly defective and the word "precede" should certainly be "accompany".