When speaking on this Bill last year, I referred to some agricultural problems which at the time seemed to be the subject of perhaps the greatest grievance amongst the agricultural ocmmunity. It is only right that I should commence my remarks by thanking the Minister for Finance for what he did on the beet issue. It is grand to see the sun shining to-day. It is an encouragement to those of us who are engaged in agriculture, especially after the weather we experienced in the last two years. I believe some Senator said yesterday that he wished the Government would do something about the weather.
Appropriation Bill, 1947 ( Certified Money Bill ) —Second Stage (Resumed) and Subsequent Stages.
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
They have done very quick work.
If the good weather that we are enjoying to-day is the response from Above to prayer, fasting and alms-deeds, that is all the more reason why we should plead again, and hope that some further benefits will be bestowed upon us. As regards beet growing, I should like to tell the Minister that the position is very nearly right, but then as usual there is a slight snag in what is offered to agriculture. Within the last fortnight I found strawberries getting very ripe, and as a grower of beet I communicated with the general manager of the sugar company. He is the most enthusiastic man that I have ever found working for the cause of agriculture in Ireland. I refer to General Costello who, in a reply, told me that it would be impossible for him to order a release of sugar permits until an estimate of the crop had been obtained. I wrote back and said that the sugar would be of very little use to us if we did not get it in time, and that the crops of strawberries and raspberries would be lost. I asked him again to put his big shoulder to the wheel and see if he could not do something for agriculture. Within six days I got a further reply from him saying that he had impressed on the appropriate authority the desirability of sending out the permits, and then there was the usual "but"—the permits could only issue from the Department of Industry and Commerce. He hoped they would be out within a week. I hope so, too.
I would like to impress on the Minister for Finance the desirability of having these "buts" removed from agriculture. Heaven knows we have had enough of them. For five weeks I have been carting 35 workers from my native town to my own place to deal with the beet crop. Not one of them has been able to work three whole days in one week, due to the inclement weather. My entire staff of men and those workers were drowned by the showers. They had to be taken back which meant a loss of time to them. There is always a loss to myself and to any other producer in such circumstances. Beet-growing is an essential part of the agricultural industry. It can become a main promoter in the development of an independent Ireland, and be regarded as the foundation to keep the Irish soil right. That is my opinion after 15 years' experience as a grower. I want again to ask the Minister why these "buts" in agriculture? I know that the Government and the Ministers are in earnest. I would appeal to the Minister for Finance who is a political opponent of mine—both of us stand for the same county—to use whatever influence he has to have these "buts" removed in the case of beet-growing.
If I wanted a text for my speech it was to be found in this morning's issue of the Irish Press in which the Minister for Industry and Commerce is reported to have stated that the “wheat shortage is world-wide and that rationing must remain.” Last year I pleaded with the Minister for Finance, in the case of wheat-growing, that the latest impediment of moisture content should go. Why are these irritations brought into agriculture? I know that the Minister is enthusiastic and that our farmers are enthusiastic no matter what their political views may be. I suggest to the Minister that that is an irritation which should be removed. My own townland consists of about 500 acres. In the case of two producers there, their area under wheat this year will be down by about 45 statute acres. Neither myself nor my neighbour is prepared to take the risk of growing the complement of wheat we could grow and have grown to the Minister's knowledge whilst that impediment is in front of us. It was unfair for the Minister ever to have done that. In 1941 I was a member of a Committee which sat until 11 o'clock at night at which there were present the Taoiseach, Deputy Hughes, Deputy Corry, Deputy Dillon and the late Minister for Agriculture, and afterwards the price of wheat was raised to 50/- and subsequent increases ensued. No mention was ever made to any farmer or any county committee of agriculture about the moisture content. That was brought in without authority. It is an impediment which an enthusiastic Ministry would not have permitted against the farmers. We have been enthusiasts. Some of us have gone out to equip ourselves to grow wheat. It does not matter what price we get from the Minister; we are used to that. Whenever the Minister wants to abuse any part of the community he begins with the farmers. I believe we have Ministers that will protect us and acknowledge the justice of the demand we make.
As regards the price of wheat, it is very evident that the country will not get away with that as easily as it thinks. It is evident that the consumers are not going to be permitted to enjoy the privileges which this House and the other House seem to extend towards them at the cost of the farmers and chiefly at the cost of farmers who have put every 1/- practically which they had, and perhaps their fathers before them, into their business while other people can erect great factories and run the country at their expense. It is pretty evident that these crops which are so essential will not be grown in other countries either and that, therefore, the people must be prepared to pay for them. I think the Minister should take the bull by the horns and see that a decent price is paid to the farmers who are willing to grow wheat if fair treatment is given to them.
I am opposed to compulsory tillage. because you can bring a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink. The fact that we have a large number of people who are incompetent of growing a crop is no reason why the rest of us should be made to suffer. It was the produce of these incompetent growers who are forced to do something with land which they do not know how to do that made the wheat bad with the result that we are not able to make our living out of it. For that reason, I have not much hope that compulsory tillage will yield much fruit. I would prefer to see these people out of it. The growing of an equal percentage of crops is not possible everywhere. There is land unsuited to the growing of crops, just as there is land suited to it. Those who are willing to do it are entitled to a fair crack of the whip and to a livelihood as good as those in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland.
Why are we not in a position to pay the same wages here to our labourers as is being paid elsewhere? It is all very well to have English people coming over and buying land at good prices here, while small farmers and their children are in slavery sometimes and the labourers are the same. The contentment is not there and the rural population is decreasing. The tendency is to leave the land because the money is not coming back into it. Why? Because the system has been rudely upset. Manures are sold in one country at £6 per ton and in the other at £60. Can we produce these manures here? I hold that we can produce 75 per cent. of the manure we require, always provided that the Government gives for our output the same price as the other Government gives for what is produced there.
I may be wrong in my figures, but I have made the calculation that every beast born, fed and fattened in England for the last 12 or 14 years made £10 roughly more than it would make if it were fed and produced here. If that is so, the Government owes to the Irish producers an equivalent amount. If anything like that applied to the Irish consumers, they would be placed on an equal footing before 24 hours elapsed. The Dublin Press and the Dublin civil servants would see to it. But because it happens down the country there is not a word about it. The fact that a vast sum of money has been extracted from the cattle trade and particularly from the stall-feeding branch of it is one reason which prevents manure being made on the land that we were trained how to make.
It is all very well to permit store cattle to leave the country, but I am doubtful of the wisdom of that policy, because we can, and should, fatten our cattle. Now that feeding stuffs are again coming in that should be done. The basic consideration is that a foreign government with which we are in competition for our workers and everything else is treating its farmers in a fair way. Our Government should see to it that we are not prejudiced by that. When I see statements in the Press about giving guarantees that we will not produce things here in opposition to the North of Ireland, I should like to think that we who are engaged in agriculture would get similar treatment. Sometimes I wonder how enthusiastic the agriculturists in the North are about coming in here.
The idea is growing that rural Ireland is practically without hope. With intensive cultivation there is a living to be obtained from the land, but the hand of the Government is against it. When wild statements are made about certain branches of farming without due consideration, a damper is put on enthusiasm. If a member of your family were starting in life on the land and went into a bank for a loan and there were headlines in the papers about all kinds of wild threats against farmers, I wonder how the directors of the bank, who, in 99 cases out of a 100 are city residents, would feel about making an advance and what hope they would have for agriculture.
I am putting forward these views for the Minister's consideration. I am making no political propaganda out of this matter. I have asked for no favour for myself. A few weeks ago I seconded a motion by Senator Counihan asking for earnest consideration of the fact that 250,000 calves had been slaughtered. If you multiply that by 20, in two years it would amount to-one or two millions. It strikes me that it has not received the consideration which it ought to have got. I may be wrong in these things, but it is the duty of an Opposition Senator to state his. views for the consideration of the Government.
It is true that an effort is made in the distribution of rates. The first £20 of a man's valuation is subject to derating with an allowance of 2s. in the £ in respect of the rates on £12. That is not of very material benefit on a farm of, say, 500 acres, 300 acres being owned by the farmer and the balance taken in conacre, if something like 111 citizens derive their sole sustenance and support therefrom. If the first £20 of valuation of a small farm is derated, why should there not be an equal division according to the number of labourers employed? Is not the employer who employs a labourer with three, four, five, or six children and a half acre plot of ground on his farm of 300 or 500 acres just as much entitled to a reduction in proportion to the number of these labourers as the small farmer is, in view of the fact that the more extensive man cannot expect to get the same return? He has fixed hours, whereas the small man has none. The labourer is bound to have an hour at which he stops and why not a division in respect of each labourer employed? I cannot see why that should not be the case.
I read the encouraging statements made at a meeting of the Federation of Rural Workers last Sunday. Deputy Larkin and others said they had no antagonism against the farmers, but that they would have to push the farmers when the labourers were not getting sufficient. When economic measures completely opposed to the economic interests of the country were introduced, I wonder was the Labour Party against their adoption, or if they deliberately and definitely, in the past 10 or 15 years, allied themselves with them; but, whether they did or not, there is no use weeping over it. The proper course to adopt is to examine the position in the full light of to-day's necessities and see if a remedy can be found, whether by the Opposition, of which I am a member, the Government, or the Labour Party. The Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Agriculture have returned from the conference in Paris. It was no petty conference they attended. There is a world-wide scarcity of most essential foods and there is here a people willing, anxious and eager to put their shoulders to the wheel. It rests with the Government to decide which course will be taken.
As I have a great respect for Senator Fearon, I would nate to incur his censure for making 100 words do the work of 10. My intervention, therefore, will be very brief, but I should like my 10 words to do the work of 100 in enlisting the sympathy of the Minister with regard to certain matters arising out of various Votes in this Bill which I desire to put before him. It would he impossible for me, as one having my roots deeply set in the Six Counties, not to say something with regard to the interesting contributions by Senator Douglas and Senator Johnston, last night. I should like to remind Senator Douglas that what he desires—Northern representation in the Houses of the Oireachtas—is already, to a certain extent, effective. It is a very interesting fact when one thinks of it that, of the personnel of this Chamber, 60 members, one-tenth have been elected on a franchise which covers all Ireland. I am one of these six University representatives, and when I speak with the Doric accents of the North, perhaps it may not be a surprise for anybody to know that I have a large vote in the lost province, but the same thing, I think, is true of all the University representatives. For us, thanks be to God, the Border has been abolished and we hope that, with that auspicious beginning, it will be abolished in our time, a short time, for the whole representation of the Oireachtas.
I thought that Senator Johnston had a more realistic approach and realised better the real difficulty in the Northern question. Some people place great hopes in fraternisation. I do not know that I have great hopes in that respect. I think that perhaps we shall have to leave time and education to soften the differences and it will be a good many years before that can take place. I was reminded when the Senator was speaking of an incident which occurred to a very distinguished Northern patriotic woman of the same liberal stock to which Senator Johnston is proud to belong, Miss Alice Milligan. Many years ago, when she was lecturing for the Gaelic League, she happened to be in a train on 12th July which was bringing some excursionists of the Orange persuasion from Belfast to Ballycastle. One lady was particularly vociferous and was consigning His Holiness the Pope to a place which 18th century clergymen did not mention to ears polite. She, however, had no inhibitions at all about it. Miss Milligan thought it did not matter very much, as the Pope was in Rome and could not hear her, and, even if he did, would not understand a word of what she said; but she began to talk about the Catholics, and then Miss Milligan said mildly: "I do not think they are as bad as you think." This lady evidently belonged to the school of thought about whom Senator Johnston told us, who believe that the northern Catholics are one of the most regrettable mistakes of the Almighty. She held that view strongly, and Miss Milligan remonstrated and said that she knew Catholics and they were not so bad as she suggested. Said the woman: "Tell me about Catholics? I know. I was married to one and I reared seven"—so she knew all about them.
To pass from these high matters to the Bill, I am particularly interested in the Vote for the Universities, Vote 26. When the Finance Bill was going through we congratulated and thanked the Minister for what he had done in making more adequate financial provision for the universities, but, at the same time, I should have liked to have got an assurance from him that the students would benefit more directly. The matter of living accommodation for students is a very urgent one. The conditions under which students live in Galway, Dublin, and Cork, are very trying, and I think the Government and the university authorities ought to come together and find some solution of these difficulties.
Last year, when speaking on the Vote, I made a suggestion which the Minister was kind enough to receive with some sympathy, that, in our effort to spread Gaelic culture, we ought to try to aim at having in one of the university towns—I naturally thought of Galway—a hostel for Irish speakers, run by Irish speakers. Perhaps we might get some understanding with the students that they would carry on their ordinary conversations in the Irish language. I think that could aid a great deal in advancing the language and I commend the suggestion for the Minister's consideration.
Last night, reference was made to the Vote for the Department of Agriculture, and there was a good deal of talk about dower houses. I am naturally very interested in that matter. Dower houses seem to me to be an excellent suggestion. I would like some consideration given to the kind of women the young men will be inviting to help them to occupy these dower houses and the sort of education we will give to future farmers' wives. In no department of the national economy is the help of women so important as in farming. My experience has been that if the farmer has not a good, practical wife, it will be very difficult for him to make a success of his holding. Therefore, we should aim at giving practical education to future farmers' wives.
To do that we have, through the country, in many counties, very excellent schools of rural domestic economy. I here make a plea to the Minister on behalf of the ladies who, for many years, have been instructresses in these schools of domestic economy. They are usually in schools run by nuns, they are not given a very big salary, and they will have no pensions. A good many of them, after years of very important national service, are seeking retirement. Some consideration should be given to the question of adequate pensions for these people, because it will be difficult for them to live.
It would be a good idea if we were to give these ladies adequate pensions and enlist young women in the Irish-speaking districts who will be able to give instruction through Irish. That would do great work for rural economy and for the Irish language. It would help very much the schemes which the Minister has in mind.
Last night reference was made to greenhouses and tomato raising. If you want to make a success of that, you must have the co-operation and the interest of women. Women are much better at this type of work. It requires great care and attention. Usually countrymen like to do things in a broad kind of way and they would find it difficult to devote their time to this type of occupation. I know people in the Aran Islands who make a success of tomato growing. The girls of the family usually do the work. That is the reason I am anxious that we should have in these Gaelic colonies schools for rural domestic economy run by Irish-speaking instructresses who will be competent to interest the girls in this branch of horticulture. There has been one instructress in the Gaeltacht for many years who has done heroic work. She has earned her retirement and I hope she will get a pension.
Talking about pensions, I will draw the Minister's attention to Vote 49— Primary Education. Once again I make a plea on behalf of the old pensioned teachers. Some of them are in a deplorable condition. Their pensions were based on miserable salaries and now the cost of living has gone up. We have been making a case for the more favoured classes and if these old pensioned teachers are to be left unconsidered, it may mean starvation for many of them. The Minister's figures indicated 104 points for 1939 and the cost of living now has risen to 207 points, an increase of practically 100 per cent. Something should be done as soon as possible for these old pensioned teachers and I appeal to the Minister in a generous mood to take cognisance of their needs.
Another matter to which I wish to refer is the housing of officials. This is a matter in which I am very interested. It has come to my knowledge that there are a great many officials who are changed frequently from one district to another, such as school inspectors and people employed by the Revenue Commissioners. When they are moved like that it is very difficult for them to get houses. I know cases in Galway where the wife and family remain in the house while the husband is employed in Dundalk, Limerick or somewhere else. In such circumstances family life is impossible. Arrangements should be made so that houses will be provided for officials such as these. The houses should be sufficient to accommodate an ordinary family and the rent should be reasonable. I lay these few points before the Minister in the hope that he will give them sympathetic consideration.
Though this Bill offers an opportunity of having attention directed to various services, I do not propose to avail of that opportunity, beyond referring to a few matters of particular interest to County Mayo and a few more of general interest.
The first matter to which I wish to refer would, I think, arise regularly on Vote 29, concerned with salaries and expenses of the Department of Agriculture. Some months ago an Order issued from that Department forbidding the sale of the commodity known as country butter to any concern other than a creamery or to anybody other than an accredited agent acting for a creamery. I have no doubt that the Order may operate successfully and to the mutual benefit of all concerned in districts where country butter is produced in large quantities, but in a county like Mayo, in which there are no creameries and in which this butter is produced only in small lots, the total production would not justify an agency. The result will be that, if the Minister insists on enforcing the Order, there will be a drastic cut in the production of that very useful article of food.
Where country butter is produced, after the home requirements are provided for, the residue is generally sold in the shops in which the butter producer gets his or her supply of groceries. Those shops in return retail that butter to customers who prefer it to the produce of the creameries. If the Order is enforced little or no country butter will be produced and the demands for creamery butter, already in very short supply, will be considerably increased. For that reason I respectfully ask the Minister to draw the attention of his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, to the desirability of having that particular Order revoked so far as Mayo is concerned, and also any other county that may be similarly circumstanced to Mayo.
The second matter to which I wish to refer, also arises on this Vote. Some time ago a number of individuals in Ballina invested a considerable amount of capital in the purchase of up-to-date motor trucks and lorries. They were duly licensed as hauliers and as such carried on a lucrative business, providing very necessary and regular employment for a considerable staff. Some short time ago one of these hauliers was commissioned by a potato factor to remove a quantity of potatoes. He was preparing to do so when the merchant who commissioned him was notified by an inspector of the Department of Agriculture that the potatoes would have to be removed by rail. Any Senator knows that the less handling potatoes get in transit, the better it is for their condition and if this Order was intended to preserve the quality of the food it is going to defeat its purpose because if the potatoes have to be transported by rail, they will first have to be taken from the merchants' stores to the railway station in lorries, there dumped into railway wagons and, when they reach the end of the rail journey, they will again have to be removed by some other form of transport to their ultimate destination. The deterioration in the quality of the food consequent on this repeated handling would be entirely obviated if the hauliers were allowed to complete their contracts and transport the potatoes by lorry for the full distance.
I may say that this interference with the rights of these licensed hauliers is very much resented and is regarded as something in the nature of a conspiracy between Córas lompair Éireann and a State Department to give a monopoly of transport to Córas lompair Éireann and to cut out these people who, as I said at the outset, invested a considerable amount of capital in providing that particular form of transport and, by doing so, gave much employment in that particular area, employment which will cease if this drastic Order is persisted with. In this matter I would also ask the Minister for Finance to impress on his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, the desirability of having the Order cancelled. If persisted in, it will certainly interfere with the constitutional rights of citizens whose property rights are guaranteed by the Constitution. As I have said, it also makes for giving a monopoly to a large concern and for cutting out the private individual who through his initiative has invested capital in an industry that is of benefit not alone to himself but to a very considerable number of his neighbours for whom it provides employment.
The next matter to which I wish to refer concerns the service provided by Córas lompair Éireann. Since extra supplies of coal allowed additional trains to be run, a second train has been run to Mayo from Westland Row.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I do not think the Senator would be in order in referring to that matter.
With all due respect, I imagine that I am not out of order in referring to it since Córas lompair Éireann is, I think, more or less subsidised. The train stops at Castlebar with the result that people travelling to Ballina, 25 miles further north in the county, and to intermediate stations have to depend for further transport on buses, if accommodation is available. I think, since Córas lompair Éireann is so anxious to monopolise transport, so far as merchandise is concerned, it should show some consideration for the travelling public and in particular for the citizens of County Mayo who have occasion to use their services from time to time. That train, I suggest, should complete its journey to Ballina. It is a matter that is regarded in a very serious light by the people of the county because we know that when some years ago considerable stretches of railway running from Westport to Achill and from Ballina to Killala, were torn up, the people were guaranteed that they would be provided with an alternative service, at least as satisfactory and as cheap as that provided by these railways. We know that these guarantees have not been honoured. These are the matters of particular interest to County Mayo to which I wish to draw attention.
There is one other matter of general interest, and though I have referred to it on a few occasions here before, I make no apology for returning to it to-day. Since the removal of the Standstill Order, various bodies of public servants have been provided for in the matter of additions to their salaries to enable them to meet the increased cost of living. Other services not controlled by the Government have also provided increases in emoluments for their employees.
There is, however, one particular body in this country, a body which rendered very considerable service to the State, all the members of whom served under one or other of the two Governments we have had since we secured national independence and who have received no consideration, notwithstanding the fact that the purchasing value of the pound has fallen as much for them as for any other body in the community. I refer to the pensioned national teachers. These people gave very faithful service in essential work. They never spared themselves in the extra efforts they were called upon to make for the restoration of a language that was practically dead in many of the areas in which they functioned. The State has certainly shown scant consideration for the representations which they have themselves made to the Government as well as for the representations made on their behalf by other bodies since the end of the emergency.
I would make a last appeal to the Minister for Finance, who is directly concerned with this, that even now something might be done to redress the grievances of these people. The number involved is not very large. Several of them have been retired on a very low scale of pension and the amount of money necessary to provide them with an extra allowance with which they would be satisfied would not be very considerable. It looks very bad at the present time, now that we have been so generous to everybody, not forgetting ourselves, that we should be unmindful of the needs of these people who, as I say, gave good service to the cause of Irish nationality when it was neither as safe nor as fashionable to do so as it now is.
Sitting suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.
Mr. Hawkins
The discussion on this Bill has ranged over a very wide field. Listening to Senator Baxter last night, one would think that one was listening to a weather forecast from some station in the west advising us that there was a terrible wave of depression moving from there. No matter what the subject, Senator Baxter's speeches in this House are the same. That might be no harm if the Senator's statements were confined to the House but statements of this kind go out over the country and have a very bad effect on the farming community. We should realise that the farmers did a magnificent job during the years of the emergency, that they did wonderful work during last harvest and that, after accomplishing that, they were faced with what one might describe as disaster this spring. All the farmer could do for months, owing to the weather, was look out. Despite all those difficulties and despite the discouragement resulting from the spring and summer of last year, the farmers faced their work with enthusiasm and interest as soon as they got the opportunity, with the result that, when one moved through the country in recent weeks, one hardly believed that the spring was as late as it was. We must admit that, despite the depression which Senator Baxter seems to see, the crops are just as promising as if we had a normal spring.
The Senator made reference to our fuel supply. Here, I agree with what he said. The amount of turf produced last year in the west has not been produced this year. That is not due to any lack of interest in the production of turf. It is due to weather conditions over which the Ministers have no control. Senator Baxter and other Senators who took part in the debate requested that the Government should do all sorts of things. Last night, a Senator asked that something be done to make animal feeding-stuffs available. We all must appreciate that the Ministers of the various Departments are doing all that can humanly be done to keep our people supplied with food and fuel. No matter what effort be made, particularly with regard to fuel, I believe the position will be difficult next winter.
In a number of turf-producing areas, I have been told by the people that, according to a statement in some of the papers, coal will be available next winter and that, if they produce turf, no market will be available for it. It is not too late to kill that idea. I know that it has been stated officially by the Department concerned that this will not be the case, but I think it cannot be overstressed, even now, that all the turf which will be produced will be taken off the producers' hands.
Senator Ruane also complained about the regulations in regard to the sale of country butter. If I am not very much mistaken the same Senator complained here some months ago about the ration of butter. It was pointed out then by those who took part in the debate and by the Minister, that the only butter rationed at the time was creamery butter and that of the total amount of butter produced in the country—farmer's butter and creamery butter—farmer's butter formed the greater part. He said that the people in County Mayo like country butter. I am sure, however, that those people whom, he stated, like country butter also go to the shops to draw their rations of creamery butter. If this regulation is not enforced—and it is very hard to enforce a regulation of this kind except with the goodwill of the producers—it will mean that those who need the butter most will not have it and that those who can afford it and who are convenient to where it is produced will have their ration of creamery butter as well as whatever they may be able to purchase from the farmers. I think it is a bad thing for a public representative to take up an attitude of this kind because, by making a complaint in this House or in any other place of a regulation that is made in the interests of the people as a whole, he is encouraging and leading the producers to think that they are labouring under a disadvantage and that they should not produce the butter.
Last night Senator Douglas put forward some views and recommendations in regard to the attitude that is taken up officially here to our people in the North. He made a suggestion that the doors of the Parliament here should be open to the representatives elected in the Northern areas. I think that that is a most dangerous idea. It is a suggestion that this question of Partition is merely a question between the people in the North and the people in the South. We know perfectly well that Partition was not brought about by the will of the people in the North or of the people in the South, or by any Act of theirs. Partition was enforced in this country by a foreign Parliament and in a foreign Parliament without the voice or the vote or the approval of any single representative of Ireland—either that of a Unionist or that of a Nationalist. Senator Douglas also suggested that we should not stress the fact that this question of Partition is a question primarily for the British Government—that we should not say that the good relations essential to the well-being of both countries cannot exist nor continue to exist until this question is solved-Good relations can exist and do exist and will, I hope, continue to exist, but there cannot be that co-operation of a free people, one with the other, while one party holds or helps to hold in subjection the inhabitants of a part of our country. The mere admission of these elected representatives from the northern area or from that portion of the northern area which is-represented in the Parliament there would only mean that they would have-no functions in this Parliament and that they would be taking part in the-Legislature here for an area over which this Parliament has no jurisdiction. The question is would they be allowed to take part and to vote in the House; would they be just spectators; would they be allowed to take part in the debates and, if so, what effect would it have on the question of the removal of Partition? Senator Douglas also seemed to suggest, I think, that the statement recently made in the Dáil by the Taoiseach was some new departure-by Fianna Fáil and that it was something that was welcomed by the Senator.
On a point of correction. I do not think my suggestion was actually that. I remember distinctly the very words. I said that I was very glad that the Taoiseach had once again repeated his statement.
Mr. Hawkins
The impression I got from the Senator's statement was that he was glad the statement had been made again, if you like. I feel that in saying that he felt that prior to this statement or to its first being made some other policy was encouraged by the Government or by this Party. It has never been the policy of this Party to encourage that any actions but those of persuasion and co-operation should be undertaken in attempting to solve the problem of Partition. It is also our policy, and the policy of this Party, I think, to make it quite clear to our people here and to the people across the way that this question of Partition does not concern the Irish people alone. It is not a question that the Irish people, by themselves, can solve. As I said, Partition was first put through by an Act of the British Parliament. By their goodwill and approval and with that co-operation of our people in the North this question of Partition can be settled.
Even at the time when that Parliament was established in the North, Lord Craigavon, who was then the Prime Minister, made the statement—"We have here a Parliament that we do not want"—that is, that that Parliament was forced on them not by their wish but by the wish of some other power. I think if we realise that and bear that in mind we will be very careful before we make a suggestion that something that will not be of any practical use towards the removal of Partition should be adopted. To my mind, the suggestion made by Senator Douglas last night for the adoption of a policy, which, incidentally, has already been put forward by another group outside, would not help to remove Partition.
Another point which was referred to by other speakers and which I think it is right that I should mention, concerns the scheme for the erection of glass-houses in the Gaeltacht. I should like to make public how very much we, in the West, appreciate this scheme which was recently introduced by the Department of Agriculture. We hope it will meet with every success and that it is only the forerunner of other schemes to be undertaken in Gaeltacht areas. As has already been said by other speakers, if we are going to solve the problem in the Gaeltacht we must find employment and, as far as possible, establish industries there in order to keep the people there. This question of the Gaeltacht and of the congested areas cannot be solved, no-matter how much we may try, by land division. We must realise that we have not enough land to give each of those people an economic holding. We must face up to the fact that the only long-term view to take is to keep the people in these areas by providing a means of livelihood for them.
In regard to housing, we must appreciate what has been done. Every facility is being made available to local authorities and I am not satisfied they are availing of them. Some months ago, the rate of interest on local loans was reduced from 4½ per cent. to 2½ per cent. A fund was set up by the Minister from which additional grants to the ordinary grants could be made available to the local authorities to build houses for letting at reasonable rents, but from my experience in going through the country I feel that the local authorities are not fully availing of these facilities. I know that materials are not in sufficient supply to permit of the vast housing scheme which is essential, but much more could be done in the way of site development and the laying of foundations so that the work could go ahead as soon as materials become available.
There has been an Estimate in the Dáil dealing with cultural relations and some allusion was made to it in this debate. It is an old point of mine that we are spending a considerable amount of money on the teaching of Irish and a great many people are labouring hard, but the results are disappointing and an inquiry is needed; but the official attitude is that what was done before they came in is sufficient and we are not to learn from our experience.
For the money that is being spent for cultural purposes on the Irish language or kindred subjects, there is one organisation which gives excellent value—the Folklore Commission. It deals, not with the history of kings and queens but with the history of the common man in Ireland and, more particularly, the common country man. As well as doing that important work, it publishes a treasure of living Irish, accurately recorded, which is of immense value.
That is done by the Folklore Society.
Yes, it is the Folklore Society of Ireland which publishes it, but I think it is largely part of the work of the Folklore Commission. This folklore work gives us very valuable international contacts and international standing with Scotland, Walea and the smaller Scandinavian countries that resemble us in more ways than one. The commission is fortunate in having a director who has a rare combination of qualities. Not only is he a scholar but he has a quality which, unfortunately, is very lacking in a great many of our people, in that he can organise and agree with his helpers and subordinates. He has an excellent staff. I think the Minister himself has taken a, personal interest recently in the matter, and I take it he knows that the money available for the work, which is urgent, is very small and that the staff is in danger of being completely dissipated unless better salary conditions can be achieved.
In the nature of their work, the members of the staff have to do field work and need expenses for that. Since they are very badly paid, their expenses are correspondingly low. The archivist, who is the principal assistant in the Folklore Commission, was a national teacher and is now receiving a lower salary than a first-class national teacher or a secondary teacher, whose qualifications he has, and lower than any assistant in University College, Dublin. He is a man of particular good qualities and has done very remarkable work.
The Folklore Commission deals, not only with the language and traditions but also with music and they have been fortunate in getting the kind of person required for this work, one with certain Qualifications and a particular interest in the work, having a knowledge of the Irish language and a knowledge of music. That particular man is leaving to go to Radio Éireann. I do not begrudge Radio Éireann the best staff it can get, but it is lamentable that a person peculiarly qualified for this folklore work, which is very difficult, should not get sufficient salary to keep him in the post. In my opinion, this work is very important and, indeed, more important than that of Radio Éireann. It requires not only qualifications but enthusiasm and the staff should be placed upon a better salary basis than it is on at present.
Of all the organisations and agencies we have, this one certainly is giving the State and the ordinary citizen extraordinarily good value. There is considerable urgency in the work they want to do, as they are collecting from sources which are naturally tending to disappear. They are interested in the scientific handling of material from an international point of view and also in oral material, instruments and implements, the collection of photographs and records. Last September, in a very small part of Cork where the Irish language survives, I met one of the finest speakers of Irish I ever heard. He was an oldish man then and has since died and a record of his speech, which would have been desirable, was never obtained. Therefore, there is urgency in this work and it is well worth doing.
If we are to get the people to understand the principles underlying the revival of the language and if we desire to understand what the ordinary man in Ireland, the ancestor of the great majority of us was like, this work should be done and the facilities should be made available to do it rapidly and properly. The amount of money required to put it on a proper foundation would be small. There is a good deal of talk about aggression and imperialism. It has been suggested we should get in touch with Irishmen all over the world, but that is a rather difficult problem. It is very difficult to distinguish between propaganda for Ireland and propaganda for a Government or a Party. There is a spiritual empire at our doors and, for a comparatively small expenditure, we could take possession of it. A beginning has been made in the collection of folklore in Scotland, by an officer of the Irish Folklore Commission who is a native speaker of Scotch Gaelic. This work could be extended. This is the only part of the world speaking a Celtic language, where there is a national institution, a national Government and a national Parliament. I think we should undertake the collection of folklore outside our own realm, particularly in Scotland. It would give us cultural relations with people with whom our ancestors have been in contact. It would give us an international standing and it would help us in our own movement and help us to understand ourselves and to understand what is behind the Irish language movement. I would like to put that point, Sir, and particularly to people who think that there is what is called a city mind and a country mind. The understanding of the country mind depends to a very great extent upon how a commission like the Folklore Commission is enabled to work.
I think, as I have said, the Minister himself since he became Minister for Finance has been induced to take a personal interest in it and an improvement may be on the way but I would like to urge upon the Minister that an improvement is urgent and that there is no other branch of State activity connected with the revival of what is called Irish native culture from which better results have been obtained for a small expenditure of money. I would urge him that he should expend a little more money and that he would get from that extremely good results. There are plenty of other things one might say on this Bill but I would like to confine myself to that particular point.
Last evening I indicated that I desired to discuss on this Bill one item, that is, the failure of the Government to take effective steps to control prices. As I have said, considerable sums of money are being expended by the Government in relation to price-fixing machinery of one kind or another, including the payment of subsidies, but, for some strange reason, the effect of that expenditure is not apparent to the man in the street. A very strange statement appears in this morning's papers arising out of some dispute with the fishermen at Howth. According to the newspaper reports, the fishermen who take whatever risk there is and perform the arduous task of ploughing the seas to bring fish to our shores were getting £2 2s. 0d. a cran for the catch. They were demanding £3 a cran for some and £4 a cran for other portions of the catch. The top figure was £4. A fair amount of the take would have been bought for £3 but the retail price in Dublin, seven miles from Howth, is £12 10s., more than three times the cost to the distributors of the catch. Does not this illustrate what is happening? Here in the City of Dublin an ordinary popular commodity like herrings showed that between the producer, if we can call the fisherman the producer, and the consumer there is that wide gap, the difference between £3 and £12, that £9 or £8 10s., or whatever it is, being the reward which the distributor gets for his services.
That picture is true of almost all distribution in this country. Go out to the country and ask the farmer what price his cabbages, turnips or vegetables generally realise and he will tell you that he is getting some reasonably small price which often is inadequate reward for his work; but go into the cities of Dublin, Cork or Limerick and you will find that that commodity is either unobtainable or selling in the shops at prohibitive prices.
Senator Sir John Keane made the point here on another occasion that that element in the community that is engaged in protected industries and in distribution netted during the war £40,000,000 in excess profits. I do not think there is much question about that. Nobody has questioned that figure as far as I am aware. That sum has been paid by the Irish people and has been paid, to a very large extent, by people whose wages were pegged down, who could not get an increase in wages to compensate for the fantastic increases which took place in the cost of commodities.
One instance of the extraordinary profits which are being made in the drapery trade was brought to my notice this week. A lady showed me a dress, the costings of which were worked out from the moment the cloth was bought until the garment was completed. The actual cost of the garment, everything included, and allowing a very substantial figure for overheads, was slightly over £7—£7 2s. 0d. or £7 3s. 0d.—but a similar garment was selling in a retail shop in Grafton Street for 20 guineas.
We are told that margins of profit are controlled by the prices fixed by the Minister. What that means to me I dislike to say. It is very hard to characterise a statement of that kind when we know that in fact there is no control at all and that shopkeepers who find themselves caught with goods which have an uncertain life can reduce the price by 50 per cent. Garments selling at £1 to-day can be sold at 10/- to-morrow and there is no evidence that any of the firms who are making these substantial reductions have sought the protection of the Bankruptcy Court.
What affects us primarily by this price level is the extraordinary fact that the vast majority of our people have very low incomes. It is very easy, I suppose, for people to become complacent about the fact that the large majority of the people have low incomes, but what is going to be the ultimate economic effect of that situation? It was calculated recently that more than 80 per cent. of the people in this country in receipt of incomes whether from wages, from interest, or from State or local authority benefits have less than £3 a week. That is not 80 per cent. of the people, but 80 per cent. of people with incomes, and in many cases that would refer to two, three, four or five people who are members of a family. On the other hand, one-half of 1 per cent. of the community are receiving, by way of income, one-sixth of the national income of the country. The matter might be expressed like this. If we take the class of the community described as the higher income group, and in that group I would, for this country, classify those with £1,000 a year or more—it represents roughly one-half of 1 per cent. of the community—they have between them one-sixth of the national income. It works out in this way, that those in the higher income group receive on the average £17 out of £100 of national income. Those in the lower income group—that is the 80 per cent. to whom I have referred—receive 16/- on the average out of £100 of national income. These are the extremes—80 per cent, in the lower income group, and one-half of 1 per cent in the higher income group. In between these, there is the remainder of the population with incomes of between £150 a year and £1,000 a year. Their income, as compared with the two I have mentioned, would represent about 21/- on the average out of £100 of national income.
The question might reasonably be put, what can the Government do more than they are doing to-day? I would not like to say what they could do that they are not doing because, as far as I see, they are doing nothing. In most other countries Governments have succeeded in controlling and regulating prices. I mentioned the result of Government intervention and activity in relation to price fixing on a former occasion. I pointed out that in Britain to-day a wage earner's real wages are 40 per cent. higher than they were in 1939, so that by allowing increases in wages and by controlling prices and profits, the British Government have so altered the economic relations between the classes that real wages— that is wages in relation to purchasing power—are 40 per cent. higher than they were in 1939. In the United States real wages are 30 per cent. higher than in 1939, in New Zealand they are 19 per cent. higher, in Canada 9 per cent. higher and in Sweden 4 per cent. higher. In this country they are 14 per cent. lower than they were in 1939. If you take the whole wage-earning community here, their wage rates, on the average, are 14 per cent. lower than they were in 1939. As we know from the discussions we had on the Finance Bill some weeKs ago, they have been cut still further by the inroads made by the State and by the local authorities in the levying of taxation and rates.
Now, if a remedy is to be found for that situation, it seems to me that the Government must either secure machinery which will effectively prevent extortionate overcharging or else set up machinery for the distribution of certain essential goods. In other countries it is quite a common thing to find the municipal authority authorised to set up depôts, for instance, for the distribution of fuel, milk, vegetables, fish and commodities of that kind which enter into the every-day life of the community. That must be done here if there is no other method open to the Government for controlling prices and preventing profiteering because the figures of taxation show that profiteering has been carried on as one gigantic racket.
I am very much afraid that the Government are not serious in this matter, and that they have abdicated to a body of manufacturers who describe themselves as the Federation of Irish Manufacturers, Limited. I have here the annual report of the secretary of that organisation which was presented to the members at their annual meeting held in the Gresham Hotel—as it might well be—on the 11th February last. Before drawing the attention of the House to that statement, I should perhaps point out that the secretary recounts a number of visits which his executive paid to Government Departments in connection with the system of price control imposed by the Government. In the first instance, there was a deputation to the Government in January, 1945, when the federation, apparently, asked the Government to clarify the innovation of gross profit directions. Later, in October, 1945, there was another deputation to discuss what the federation called a further innovation by the introduction of a net profit basis for calculating profits. Now the upshot of these discussions appears in this very interesting summary contained in the secretary's report. Referring to the date, 1st May, 1946, when three members of the council and the secretary visited Ballsbridge, the report says:
"By this time, the suggestion of a net profit control appeared to have been dropped by the Department."
In other words, the federation had beaten the Department. The report goes on:
"And in only one case did it come to the notice of the council that a member had acquiesced in an alter— ation of his gross profit rate to a limitation of net profit on his working capital."
That is to say, the Federation Council found one black-leg in the organisation who obeyed the Government's order. The report goes on:—
"It would seem that most members who had been asked by the Department to change over to net profit control had declined to do so in consonance with the council's resolution and with the advice which would have been given them at group and regional meetings and when they called individually on the secretary. By direction of the council, its correspondence with the Minister was circulated to a number of trade associations, the majority of which expressed themselves as being in support of the council's attitude. It may therefore be assumed that there was an extensively united front..."
What a famous phrase!
"... on the part of manufacturers against the proposed system of net profit control."
Now I think that is a most illuminating document. The Government gave directions to the manufacturers in relation to the fixation of profits; but the manufacturers said: "No. We are not complying with your instructions or directions." The manufacturers got away with it. One unfortunate man seems to have obeyed the law. I do not know whether or not—the report does not say—he was expelled from the association. The others towed the line. It means that the Government's efforts to control profits in such a manner as to prevent excessive profit-taking, in other words, to prevent highway robbery, failed utterly and completely.
At the moment there is an agitation being carried on, in Dublin at any rate, and probably in other parts of the country, against profiteering and the excess profit margins charged by the distributors. Where that may lead I do not know. But it can have very dangerous consequences, not merely for the traders but for the whole economy of the country. The purpose, so far as I can judge, of the organisation dealing with the matter is the organisation of a consumers' boycott. It may be that, if the Government fail or refuse to take action, nothing else is left except a consumers' boycott. But, when a consumers' boycott commenced in the United States of America, it was discovered that it had rather unexpected reactions, as all such unregulated, uncontrolled agitatations of that kind must have; because in the case of a consumers' boycott every individual is a judge of his own conduct. He decides what to buy and what not to buy. Some people may decide that they will not buy clothes; others that they will not buy boots, and so on. It may happen that actually the commodities affected most are those in which there is the least profiteering. I think, therefore, that the Government should give some indication that they have effective control or, if they have not effective control, that they intend to have it.
Here is a most extraordinary thing in relation to the Government's attitude. This profiteering has been going on openly, avowedly to the knowledge of every person in this community for seven years and just a month ago the Government introduced a Bill for the purpose of creating some machinery like a price control council, or a prices commission or some other machinery, and, having introduced the Bill, the Government then adjourned the Dáil for three months. One would imagine that, having waited seven years to produce the Bill, they would be at least as anxious to have it enacted as they are to have enacted the two Bills which we discussed earlier this evening, one of them increasing the allowances for members of the Oireachtas and the other increasing the salaries of the Ministers. These Bills were not left over; these Bills were not put on the shelf until next October; they became a first priority claim on the time of both Houses. The Bill which was introduced for the purpose of creating machinery for the regulation of prices has got tenth priority.
There is another matter occurs to my mind and that is how far we should go, in all our generosity and in all our Christian charity, with the sending of food from this country to certain European countries which are reputed to have an exportable surplus of their own. I would draw the Minister's attention to a leading article which appeared in the Evening Herald on the 10th July and, in order that he may have an opportunity of adverting to the tone and purpose of that article, I shall quote one short extract:—
"What puzzles the Irish public at the moment is Mr. Aiken's statement in the Dáil last Friday that, in addition to millions of pounds of meat and herds of cattle, we sent 285 tons of bacon to Poland, Hungary and Yugoslavia. This revelation came strangely upon the heels of the announcement a few days earlier by the British Minister for Food, Mr. Strachey: ‘We are getting supplies of eggs, sugar and poultry from Poland, and soon Hungary, under a three years' agreement, will be sending us supplies of bacon, eggs, poultry, lard and vegetable oils, and I hope soon to negotiate a similar agreement with Yugoslavia.'"
That is a quotation from the British Minister of Food, who evidently is speaking of something in regard to which he has first-hand knowledge. Nobody can doubt the statement that he has made these agreements and is getting these foodstuffs from countries to which we are sending bacon and butter which are in short supply at home. That is something which requires explanation. I do not think there is one person in the House who will object to the giving of relief, of food, to people who need it. Whatever else may be said about the people of this country, nobody denies their charitable instincts, but it is a totally different matter if we are sending out to European countries food which is in short supply at home, while, at the same time, these countries seem to have an exportable surplus which they are selling against our products on the British market. There is hardly any wonder that, in its front page article last Saturday, The Economist, a British paper, should make this comment:—
"Propping up the bastion of democracy is one thing; propping up an elderly and impecunious European aunt is another thing."
On the last occasion, I drew attention to a matter which I thought might have been dealt with by the Minister, but which was ignored. It seems to me to be a matter of great importance— the question of the use which can be made of our external balances, moneys held outside this country. I pointed out that, in 1946, for every pound's worth of goods we sold in the dollar area, we bought £23 worth. In other words, every time we spend £23 on the purchase of goods in the dollar area, we spend £22 out of the pool, apart from the value of our export trade. It seems to me that that can be done only within limits and for a short time. Last year, the total volume of our imports exceeded the total volume of our exports by £33,000,000. I think the Minister said in the Dáil that that gap was closed by our invisible exports, but let us bear in mind what our invisible exports are. Remittances from people who have gone to Britain looking for work represent £13,000,000. That will scarcely continue indefinitely. If the men and women who have taken up employment in Britain remain there permanently—they are likely to marry, to settle down and make their homes in Britain—they will cease sending remittances to Ireland. Therefore, we cannot go on expecting to have this sum of £13,000,000 a year by way of remittances from exiles in Britain.
I should imagine that a further £13,000,000 came our way from investments, but, if we are called upon to eat into our capital resources abroad, this income from investments will also shrink, and, in any event, if the British pursue over a long period their policy of cheap money, it must react on the income we will derive as the years go by from our foreign investments, so that one can see that the £33,000,000 representing the value of our invisible exports may shrink very substantially in the next few years. Should that happen, we can only buy goods up to our full requirements by utilising existing capital balances abroad. To what extent can these balances be utilised to buy goods outside the sterling area?
I should imagine that many sections in this House would be interested to know what plans the Government have, what policy they intend to pursue, in relation to the convertibility of our external balance into currencies other than sterling. It is a matter which affects the whole economy of the country. It affects the farmer, the townsman, the manufacturer and the worker because it affects the importation of fuel, farm machinery, petrol, tobacco and even films, the great bulk of which are imported into this country from the non-sterling area. A brief reference was made by two or three Senators who spoke to the presence at the conference in Paris last week of representatives of our Government, but I notice in this morning's paper that the Minister for Industry and Commerce did not seem anxious to discuss with the newspapermen who met him at the airport what his hopes were in relation to the Paris Economic Conference. He did make one very significant statement when he said that the prosperity of neighbouring countries must at all times have great significance for us. "If they sink, we sink," he said. "If they rise, we rise." That is a statement which is probably very obvious, but what appears to be significant to me is that that statement should be made at the airport when the Minister returned rather than that he should speak with some confidence of the proceedings at the conference which he had just left. I imagine there is a little more involved in the conference than appears on the surface, and I think it would be desirable for the Government to make a full statement to the Oireachtas at the earliest opportunity as to what are the implications of the conference, because one can easily have the suspicion that if our intervention there means the end of our isolation, it may also mean the end of our policy of neutrality.
When it comes to mentioning the subject of Partition in conjunction with this Bill, I am afraid that I am not in a position to compete with the excellent anecdote told by Senator Mrs. Concannon, as, I regret to say, the only anecdotes that I know about the North are neither drawing-room nor Parliamentary.
Last night we all listened with deep attention and a great deal of sympathy to the interesting, if somewhat unique, suggestions dealing with the Partition problem which were made by our colleague, Senator Douglas. Listening to the Senator, nobody could doubt the sincerity that lay behind his speech, and those of us who have been privileged to know the Senator for a period of years have no doubt whatever that he gave long and careful consideration to these suggestions before making them here.
This problem of Partition is one which, over a period of 25 years, has been of the gravest concern to everybody in the Twenty-Six Counties, no matter to what political Party, group or creed one might belong. In this House, as in the lower House, and, in fact, in all Parliaments, members have their differences. They differ on internal policies, on economic policies and on agricultural policies, but we have one thing in common in both our Houses and that is an ardent desire on the part of each and every one of us to see our island united and we are all anxiously awaiting the day when our fellow-countrymen in the north-eastern counties will join with us in making this country a happy, prosperous and united State.
It is not difficult to find flaws and to criticise Senator Douglas's suggestions. They have, however, the advantage that they were made in good faith, that they are free from prejudice or hatred, and that they contain nothing that can be interpreted in any way expect as a gesture of goodwill and anxiety to co-operate with our brethren in the North. It strikes one that the first objection which might be raised is that this proposed invitation to take part in the work of our Parliament could only be issued after a change in our Constitution. This, surely, is not an insuperable difficulty. There is machinery in existence which provides for the changing of our Constitution. It could, for instance, be done by way of referendum at the next general election. I suggest that between now and the next general election, whenever it may be held, the Government should give very serious consideration to the holding of such a referendum.
A reference by Senator Hawkins to Senator Douglas's speech gives me an extra reason for making that suggestion. Senator Hawkins quite rightly pointed out the historical fact that there are more than two parties to Partition. There are three. It is an historical fact that this island was originally partitioned by an outside Government, by an Act of the British Parliament in which neither ourselves nor our brethren in the North had any hand, act or part. I make this suggesttion about a referendum because I believe that it is necessary, while the British Government are responsible, that at the same time we should adopt a policy of self-help.
There is also this other reason. Charges have been made by people, outside the State particularly, that we are not sincere in our desire to end Partition. The arguments put forward in that respect are that, over a period of 25 years, we have given much lip service to the Partition problem but that so far we have failed to take any initiative or any practical steps towards a solution. The other charge that is made is again made by people who are not citizens of this State. It is that there has grown up in the course of these years, on this side of the Border, vested interests that do not desire to see the Border abolished.
I think that most of us will agree that all these charges are without foundation. Nevertheless, they have been made and I can see no more clear-cut answer to those charges than the holding of such a referendum which, I am quite convinced, would return at least a 99 per cent. majority in favour. I have no doubt that some of the legal Senators— though I think I am rather lucky that most of them are absent at the moment —while giving a sympathetic hearing to Senator Douglas's suggestions, would make the objection that they entail a course of constitutional action and practice which would be unprecedented in the annals of constitutional law. If that be so, then in all good faith let us in this matter be unprecedented and make the first practical move in solving this problem.
I think that where Partition is concerned it might pay us veiy well in this part of the country to adopt the motto that was adopted by a famous army during the recent war. It was: "The difficult we do immediately; the impossible will take a little longer." That is, I think, the optimistic spirit in which we ought to tackle this problem.
I have always admired—and I do not always admire very much about the Government—the fact that when our responsible Ministers, headed by the Taoiseach, speak on this subject of Partition, they have always been at great pains to treat the matter with understanding, with sympathy and, above all, to avoid any phrases that might be interpreted as being coercive or bombastic. For this careful and sympathetic attitude they deserve the highest credit from our people and I think it is regrettable that anyone, even the Head of the State, should speak with a different voice from theirs. I appeal therefore that, for the future, we in this part of the island should leave the bombast to our erring countrymen who are vainly endeavouring to maintain the unnatural state in the north-east and who succeed only in making themselves appear ridiculous by their bombastic explosions.
It has been the policy of the Department of External Affairs, since the cessation of world hostilities, to increase our representation in the United States of America by the appointment of additional consuls and consuls-general to certain centres. That is a policy with which I find no fault. I think it is a very praiseworthy effort. I should like, however, to ask the Minister on this occasion to draw the attention of the appropriate people in our Department of External Affairs to an article to which my attention has been drawn and which appeared in the Saturday Evening Post of the 7th June, 1947. The Saturday Evening Post, I understand, has the reputation of being quite a reputable American magazine, containing fiction and articles of general interest and is, I understand, supposed to have one of the largest circulations of any such publication in the United States of America. It is getting rather late in the day that a journal of this standing bhould produce this kind of ill-informed, pig-in-the-parlour article about this country.
The article in question appears under the heading, "Report to the Editors". The next heading is: "Dublin's Different." The author is somebody called Stuart Rose. I do not propose to read all the article. Although it is quite short, I will not waste the time of the House. It starts rather deceptively by describing the arrival of this person in Dublin by air. It says:
"After the rather squalid hodgepodge of one-storey, temporary shacks that serve as administration buildings at the great British airports, like Heathrow and Northolt, it was pleasurably shocking to see, as our transport winged into the Dublin field, a handsome modernistic structure rising out of the incredible green sward. Here, I thought, was a splendid monument to the young Irish Republic."
That was a very deceptive start. The article goes on:
"Somewhat less pleasurable was my discovery, as we neared the ground that no concrete or tarmac runway had as yet been built to mar the sodden emerald turf. It was as if the Government of Éire had sagely deliberated to impress the airborne traveller at all costs, even if it killed him a minute or two later. It is no less than fair to add that a single airstrip seems now to be under somewhat desultory hand construction.
The thing that most impresses the traveller on first visiting Éire is the enormous amount of handpower that appears to be needed to keep that country creaking along. Jolting cityward in an ancient and filthy taxi, I observed on every side men, and women, too, engaged at purely manual tasks, cutting turf in the fields ...."
So far as my geographical knowledge of County Dublin goes—of course coming from Cork I admit that I do not know everything about Dublin—I do not think any turf is cut within 20 miles of Collinstown.
"Twilight had commenced to settle in as my driver tooled tortuously through the narrow streets."
This is on the way from Collinstown, mark you.
"We debouched presently into one of the city's great squares and came to an abrupt stop while all about us swelled a plaintive bawling reminiscent of Chicago's stockyards."
I think he must have meant Senator Counihan's cattle trade. At any rate, he gives a graphic description of being held up in one of the city's squares, apparently pursued by millions of Senator Counihan's cattle.
"The next day, a Wednesday, I had business in a nearby city."
He does not name the city and again he gives a description of being held up along the Dublin streets by cattle. He finally arrives at this city, which he does not name, and he says, although it is supposed to be only a short distance, that the trip took three hoars.
"When we arrived at the city of our destination, beef on the hoof jammed the streets. We made our laborious way to the Munster and Leinster Bank. When I entered to cash a traveller's cheque I found the marble floor knee-deep in straw. I inquired the significance of this, guessing it to be some rite from an ancient harvest festival. ‘Oh, no, sir,' answered a bank attendant. ‘You see, we're very busy of a market day and with the doors openin' and shuttin', some of the beasts are bound to get in. Sure and we can't have the poor creatures slippin' and breakin' their legs on the stone floor.'"
I think it would be no harm if the Minister drew the attention of our representatives in America to articles of this kind for appropriate action. I am not casting any blame on our representatives in America for not having already spotted this because I do not think they could possibly be expected to read every magazine published in America where, I think, there are more magazines and papers published than in any other part of the world. I do think, however, that it would not be outside the bounds of possibility—and I think, financially, this State could afford it—to provide that all our legations and consulates should subscribe to a Press-cutting agency. Then anything connected with Ireland would be supplied to them by that Press-cutting agency and they would be able to deal with what is best described as stupid, ignorant stories like this as quickly as possible.
In the time spent during the last two days discussing this Bill we travelled pretty widely. I do not propose, in reply, to cover the whole field of Government activities to which Senators adverted in their speeches. It would simply be impossible to do so. All I can do is to promise to call the attention of the various Ministers concerned to the points made by Senators during the course of the debate. There are just one or two matters that come within the purview of my own Department to which I should like to refer. First of all, immediately after I had announced that the Government were going to make an amending agreement with the British Government on income-tax, Senator Sweetman spoke. He had not much time to study my statement and it would have been just as well if he had taken time to study the statement and consulted with others about the matters contained in it. Three or four of the statements he made were inaccurate. Lest they mislead anybody, I want to make quite clear that the British legislation does not affect dividends paid before February, 1946. That is in accordance with Section 52 of the British Finance Act, 1945. Normally, therefore, the first year specifically affected, for Irish tax parposes, is 1947-8, not the beginning of 1945, as Senator Sweetman stated.
The Irish assessment will be confined to the amount of the net dividend received from the company, together with the amount of the British repayment. This applies to both preference and ordinary dividends. Further, the repayment of the British tax at the full rate deducted will, it is understood, be made up to and including 1947-48 in respect of ordinary as well as preference dividends and will not be confined, as Senator Sweetman seemed to think, to preference dividends.
Senator Duffy referred to a leading article which appeared in the Evening Herald and which seemed to have been based on a letter which appeared in the Irish Times that morning, or the day before, dealing with relief supplies for Poland. If Senator Duffy asked me for some bread and I were to say: “Wait until next September and you will get bread”, the Senator would not be very grateful. He would point out that there was a difference between giving bread now and giving it next September. The relation between our supplies to Poland and that statement by the British Minister for Food, that he is arranging to receive supplies of food from Poland, should be obvious to anybody who can read. I referred to the supplies sent to Poland last year, not the supplies which we are sending this year. The supplies of beef were sent in December, 1946. The bacon supply was shipped in August, 1946. Any other goods sent to Poland had been sent prior to that.
The British Minister for Food recently announced that they are to make arrangemens to get food from Poland in the future. All I can say about that is that I hope it is true and that the Polish people will be able to spare food for export in order to buy things which they badly need. This story is the same as I had to deal with last year—the canard by the Sunday Independent that the chocolates we got from Holland were made from Irish sugar. Of course the facts were that, immediately after the liberation of Holland, we made an allocation of sugar to the Dutch people. They were grateful for it and we were very glad to be able to give it to them. A couple of years afterwards, the Dutch got into a situation in which they were able to make chocolate from their own sugar, or sugar made elsewhere, and sell it to us. We were very glad to get it.
They could not buy it in their own country—even at present.
The Polish position is much on the same lines. I hope the Polish people will get on their feet as the people of Holland did and be able to re-establish the traditional export trade in food which they had prior to the war. I got notice that one question would be raised in this debate. If, instead of ranging over very wide ground. Senators would give me notice of a few subjects which could be debated and replied to in a reasonable way, it would be more satisfactory. I received notice from Senator Hayes that he proposed to raise the question of the Folklore Commission and ask what generally we proposed to do about it. The Folklore Commission has been in operation since about 1931. It is not the responsibility of my Department but I have to deal with it when propositions come up respecting it from time to time from the Department of Education. It first received a Government grant, amounting to £500, about 1930-31. For the following three-years it received £500 per year. Then I notice that the amount went down to £300 and came up to £800. In 1935-36, it went up to £3,250 and remained about that level until 1945-46, with the exception of a couple of years. In 1945-46, the grant was increased to £6,250. That sum is again made available for the commission this year.
May I make a slight correction? My recollection is that what existed in 1931 was the Folklore Institute, which ceased operations about 1936.
That is true; it was transformed into the Folklore Commission. The figures are as I have given them. Senator Hayes suggested that the Folklore Commission should do certain work in Scotland and Wales. As a matter of fact, a representative of the Folklore Commission has been doing collection work in the western islands of Scotland during the past 12 months or thereabouts. I think that everybody is interested in getting oral traditions collected before they are in danger of disappearing. I am sure that the Department of Education will give favourable consideration to any propositions which the Folklore Commission may put forward.
Before he sat down, Senator Duffy asked what was the purpose of the Government in sending representatives to the Paris Conference. The purpose of the Government in sending representatives to the conference was to do what we could to promote a plan for the economic recovery and development of Europe. Everybody at that conference, from the chairman, the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, down, agreed that that was the purpose of the conference and that no political objectives were to be achieved in Paris. All the time was spent in discussing how best the economic recovery of Europe could be achieved.
One rather large question referred to by a number of Deputies is the question of pensions for ex-national teachers. The Senators who referred to the matter spoke as if that were the only pension problem involved. As a matter of fact the ex-national teacher pensioners are only a small fraction of the total number of pensioners who are pensioned as a reward for service, that is, as against the ordinary social security pensioners. What I call social security pensioners—old age pensioners, blind pensioners, widows and orphans, and so forth—have already been dealt with. They have got various additions since the beginning of the war. The lowest any of them got is about 50 per cent. and they range from that up to several hundred per cent. Apart from that security group of pensioners, we have the various classes of State servants—of people who rendered service to the State for which there was a contract to give them a pension. There are two groups of civil servants. One group is not pensionable and the members of it are supposed to make their own savings to take care, in full, of their old age. Another group pays a portion of its salaries in order to provide a pension upon retirement. Even that group is again split into two. There are pensioners whose pension had some relation to the cost of living at the time of retiral and pensions which had no relation at all to the cost of living but were merely fixed sums to be paid upon retiral no matter what way the cost of living stood.
Recently, I introduced into the Dáil a Bill which will provide that, in the type of pension case which was related to a cost of living at retiral, pensions which were held down in amount owing to the operation of the Standstill Order will be increased to the standard rate of 270 which, as Senators will remember, was the figure, upon which the salaries of civil servants were recently consolidated. Apart from that group of pensioners the Government have not done, nor have they undertaken to do, anything for any other group which are paid not a social security pension but a pension which was a portion of deferred pay or which was a reward for service. Senators, I am sure, will agree that if we depart from that particular type of pensioner and if we are to guarantee to other classes of pensioners that their pensions will, in all cases, have the same purchasing power as at the time in which the service was rendered we are taking a line of action that may have very big consequences in the future. There is no pension awarded for service which was at any time, or under any circumstances, guaranteed to give any stated standard of living. The pension was contracted to be paid in terms of pounds—not in terms of wheat, butter, eggs or gold. If we are to depart from that particular system of rewarding for service we will be undertaking something which, under present circumstances, I do not know where it would lead. We have, during these last, six months, and we have been discussing, here for the last few days legislation to increase the awards for service to existing State servants. That was done not merely for the purpose of compensating for the increase in the cost of living but to ensure that the civil servants we have, the Police officers, the Army officers, and all the other officers of State we have been dealing with recently, would continue to give the people the service they undertook to give and that they would be enabled to carry out their duties. The other type of pensioners, Ministerial pensioners, and any other type of pensioners, granted sums for reward for service have not been dealt with.
Senators Baxter, Counihan and McGee referred to agricultural and industrial production. I wish Senator Baxter would spend half the energy on encouraging the farmers to carry out the ordinary advice of the Department of Agriculture that he spends on calling upon the Government to produce what he calls "a long-term policy". The only long-term policy for agriculture is the policy that has been there since the time of Adam and Eve, that is, if we want food from the land we must till the land, and if our population is increasing we must get more from the land. Everything the Department of Agriculture can do in the line of giving advice to the farmers and amending that advice as farming technique improves has been done, but the pity of it is—perhaps, with our history, it is inevitable—that the advice that is given and that should be taken is not accepted and is not put into operation with the promptitude that it should. There are some things which should be obvious to our farmers. One of the things most apparent to strangers coming in here is that we should cut the weeds and cut them early. It would add considerably to our output if we did that, but even the best farmers seem to slip up in some years. I only mention that as a small point, as I do not intend to go into the whole question of agricultural or industrial production, or the wider aspects of our national economy, at this stage. All I can promise to do, in relation to the various matters mentioned, is to bring them to the attention of the Ministers concerned.
Has the Minister any statement to make with regard to the query I put to him, as to our position after the 15th July, on account of the Washington agreement?
The Senator knows that after the 15th July the British have undertaken to make current balances available. Our current balance on last year's trading, taking visible and invisible trade into account, was a favourable one. I do not know what will happen this year but I would say that, if we export reasonably well and do not go on a spending spree, if we conserve our foreign exchange reasonably, in all probability we will be able to manage very well and meet our commitments.
Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take the remaining stages now.
Bill passed through Committee without recommendation, received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.