Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Jul 1948

Vol. 35 No. 7

Appropriation Bill, 1948 (Certified Money Bill)—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Finance (Mr. McGilligan)

The Appropriation Bill, which is before the House, is in the form that is usual for an Appropriation Bill except only for one section— Section 2, sub-section (4). Section 2 is new and is put in to meet the situation likely to arise in connection with financing under the Marshall aid programme. Sub-section (4) of the section provides:—

The proceeds of any money borrowed from the Government of the United States of America or any agency thereof shall be placed to the credit of an account of the Minister for Finance with the Central Bank of Ireland.

It is thought better not to allow whatever proceeds may accrue from Marshall aid financing to go, in the ordinary course, through the banks. It is, therefore, proposed to set up this special account in the Central Bank so as to have the proceeds immobilised. The phrase "proceeds of any money borrowed" was questioned in Dáil Éireann, and I there promised to have the phrase considered to see if any change was necessary. It has been considered in the meantime, and I am advised that a change is not necessary. The phrase "proceeds of any money borrowed from the Government of the United States of America" is deliberately chosen to be very wide and almost unrestricted. The machinery, of course, will be that goods that are brought in here from America will be sold to Irish people. They will buy dollars which have previously been sold to the banks. They will buy them themselves, and in return give Irish currency. That is the money which will be put into the special account in the Central Bank. A question was raised also as to whether there was power to borrow. That is covered by a section which is usual in Appropriation Bills—that is, sub-section (1) of Section 2, which enables borrowing to be completed "from any person and the Bank of Ireland".

Mr. Hawkins

One would have expected to get from the Minister for Finance, when introducing a Bill of this nature, a complete and explicit statement both as to our financial and economic position and as to what Government policy for the future development of the country is to be. I am sure the House will agree with me that the statement just made by the Minister has been the shortest statement ever made here by a Minister for Finance in introducing a Bill which makes provision for the expenditure of such a huge sum of money. I quite agree that the Minister will probably come back and say that the Estimates for this sum were prepared under a different Government and that, therefore, he is not taking responsibility either for the appropriations or for the Estimates.

Five months have already passed since the change of Government came about. Whatever excuse there might have been on the introduction of the Central Fund Bill or on the Finance Bill, there surely can be no excuse to-day for not having from the Minister a clear and definite statement as to the position which the country now occupies, and as to what the Government's policy is for the future. We have in this Bill certain sums being allocated for various works. We were told when the Government were taking over office that they were doing so to implement a ten-point programme. One of the principal items in that programme was that they were going to create employment here and to stop emigration. Provision for the people who are registered to-day as unemployed would entail something in the nature of £10,000,000 or £15,000,000, in addition to what is being provided for public works. We find that, instead of these extra millions being made available, the Estimates for public works have been very drastically curtailed: that the moneys that were provided in the Estimates prepared by the Fianna Fáil Government, sums of money which were held then and previously as not being sufficient to give employment to our people, have been drastically cut. Appeals have been made by the Minister for Finance and by other members of the Government to our farmers to increase production. What help or inducement is being given to them in this Bill to increase production by the expenditure of additional moneys? Yet the demand is made on them for increased production.

In regard to increased production, one must feel sometimes, when hearing all the appeals that are made to our farmers for more production, that they had been idle during the past ten or 15 years and, above all, during the six or seven years of the war. Our farmers did a tremendous job during the emergency in providing food for our people, to maintain them during those six or seven years. There were many handicaps in that time, because of the policy operated in the early stages of the State and because of the hostility to the policy enunciated and made effective by the Fianna Fáil Government. The very people who now compose the present Government left no encouragement to our farmers to produce the food essential for the people. In spite of the lack of machinery and fertilisers, our farmers did a tremendous work for the State and we should acknowledge that and pay tribute to them. It is easy to understand that that appreciation is not coming forward now, as it is not the policy of the people now in control to encourage our farmers to produce food as they did during the war.

The present Minister for Agriculture, when in opposition, told us what he thought of growing wheat and beet. In recent months, in recent weeks, and even this morning, we read of the preparations being made to give effect to his policy. In this morning's papers, we see that the first step has been taken in that direction, where it is already proposed and suggested that the people in control of any organisations that direct such production should be people who hold similar views to those of the Minister for Agriculture. It is regrettable that that should occur and that a high official in our service should be put to perform that very unpleasant duty.

Regarding unemployment, during the election campaign charges were levied against the then Government that they were not doing all they could or should do. Various Parties put forward that they had a plan and that it was only a matter of putting the Government out and the scheme would be made effective in a short space of time. There were to be big schemes of drainage, afforestation and public works and a housing drive so great that our difficulty would be to find the people for the houses. What do we find? There are more people on the unemployment register to-day than there were this time 12 months. A meagre attempt has been made to provide for a small section of those who were deprived of employment due to the cessation of the turf scheme. The Minister informed me at our last meeting here that ample provision was being made to create employment for those who lost it through the cessation of the hand-won turf scheme. However, that statement is not correct. In County Galway, one of the largest turf-producing counties in Ireland, where £116,000 was paid out to farmers for winning that fuel, £20,000 has been made available to the Galway County Council to provide work for those particular unemployed. Instead of providing employment, the very conditions under which that money was made available have created unemployment. Certain works were allocated and approved of, but in order to obtain employment on them you had to be a person who was last year employed by the county council on turf production. People who were for the last five or six years employed ordinarily by the county council for road works were put on the unemployed list, in order that the money would be expended and the conditions complied with—so you were sacking Peter to make work for Paul. That is the contribution made by the present Government.

Not content with that, they have curtailed the Estimates—£10,000 has been knocked off the sum for employment schemes in urban areas, £10,000 off the rural employment scheme, £5,000 off the minor employment schemes, and £10,000 off the farm improvement scheme. One of the best schemes ever introduced, the farm buildings scheme, under which grants were made available for out-offices and cow-sheds, has been put in abeyance, just to save £250,000. If there is very much more of that policy, the pool containing the matters put into abeyance will soon be overflowing. During the election, the farmers were promised free fertilisers and money at cheap rates of interest. I was surprised to-day however, when the order of business was announced, that one of the most important motions on the Order Paper is to be left over until after the Recess—the motion in connection with the rate of interest on loans to farmers. I can understand the reason. Those who put down the motion honestly believed it was a good one, but they did not take cognisance of the fact that it was entirely opposed to Government policy, that it is not the policy of the present Government to make loans available at low rates of interest to farmers or anyone else.

On the last occasion, when I spoke on the rate of interest to local authorities for housing, the Minister frankly admitted it was not the Government's policy to lend money to any section of the people for any purpose at a lower rate than that at which it could be got elsewhere.

Mr. McGilligan

That is a scandalous perversion. I said there would be no change in the rate for housing.

Mr. Hawkins

But the Minister did not withdraw the statement that it is not the Government's policy to lend money to any section of the people at a lower rate than that at which they can get that money themselves.

Mr. McGilligan

That is not in regard to housing.

Mr. Hawkins

We will get the explanation later.

Mr. McGilligan

The Senator has got it already, but it does not seem to have made much difference.

Mr. Hawkins

If it is the Government's policy to make money available for either house building or agricultural production, the Minister should clearly state so and make arrangements to provide it forthwith. On the last occasion, I read portion of a motion under the Minister's own name on a former occasion in the Dáil, where he proposed that money should be made available at no greater rate than 1¼ per cent. Now he himself has raised the rate to local authorities from 2½ to 3¼ per cent.

Mr. McGilligan

In relation to housing?

Mr. Hawkins

In relation to works carried out by local authorities—and housing is one of those most urgent. I hope we will have another occasion before we adjourn of discussing the problem of the finance of house building and work in general. We were told that fertilisers would be made available free to the farmers, but we find the price has increased considerably in recent months and no attempt has been made to reduce it by subsidy or otherwise. On the contrary, the tendency is to reduce subsidies in many other cases.

We were told that it is very important to keep our people in rural Ireland, that we must give them those things the townspeople have. One of those most essential is a water supply, and here again the present Government has, in the interest of economy, scrapped the commission appointed to bring about a co-ordination in regard to the supply of water in rural areas. That has been put into abeyance also, and those living in the country must drudge the water in carts from wells and rivers.

There was a grand and glorious opening to our drainage scheme. There was a flourish of trumpets at the starting of the Brosna scheme. The Minister's Parliamentary Secretary suggested that the Constellations were sold in order to buy the machinery for this scheme, but I see that provision was made for this machinery long before there was any change in the intentions about the Constellations. That was not a true statement, and I am sure the country is not so bankrupt that we had to sell the Constellations in order to carry on a national project of this kind. Apart from that, I want to ask the Minister if the machinery now being used is of the type first specified and if it has worked successfully. I understand it is not the type specified for this particular work and that the work which could be carried on in one operation by the original machines will take two operations using this machine. I understand that, for political purposes, it was essential to make a start and that the start was made before one of the essentials for the success of the work was attended to.

The Parliamentary Secretary also said in the Dáil that he cannot get sufficient men to work on this scheme. Where does he intend to put the men.? Are they to live on the side of the river? Was any provision made for housing or for catering for the men to be employed? If the Government thought that they were going to remain in office for any short period surely in a few months they could have erected huts of some kind or made some provision for the accommodation of the men proposed to be employed, rather than merely go down, blow a whistle and say that the scheme had been started, a scheme which could not have been started were it not for Fianna Fáil.

Mr. McGilligan

Including the catering and the huts.

Mr. Hawkins

The huts and the catering were not attended to by these people before the scheme was started.

Mr. McGilligan

Or the other people.

Mr. Hawkins

The Minister will admit that the scheme could not have been undertaken, were it not that the survey was carried out, the Bill passed and the plans made by Fianna Fáil. I wish the scheme every success and all I regret is that the Taoiseach or some of the other Ministers did not blow a whistle to start all the other schemes which Fianna Fáil had in contemplation. They can be assured always of our wholehearted co-operation and assistance in carrying out any of these schemes which will give employment and benefit to our people. We would much prefer to see them carrying out these schemes and would get much more encouragement than to see them scrapping these schemes or leaving them in abeyance, as has been done.

Mr. Anthony

It is a pretty queer way of showing it.

Mr. Hawkins

We are showing it with much more appreciation than was shown to us in the past. Only one scheme has been introduced by this Government, that is, the scheme of land drainage. Some £60,000 have been provided for land drainage, but the scheme is to apply only to the farmers of Mayo and Galway. The contribution in respect of the carrying out of that scheme is £4 per acre and I am sure that Senator Ruane will agree with me that so far as the vast bulk of the land in County Galway is concerned, if you ask a farmer to contribute £4 an acre for draining it, he would imagine that you were buying it out. He would get £10 an acre from the Forestry Department for planting trees on it. With regard to this contribution of £4 per acre, what is the estimated cost of drainage per acre? Here again there is another very peculiar condition attached, that the persons employed must be those who were originally employed on turf production. Therefore, no farmer will be entitled to come under this land drainage scheme. I admit it is a good scheme if it can be worked, but there will be great difficulty in getting £4 an acre from the farmers, and there will be still greater difficulty in getting £4 an acre from the farmers adjacent to the bog areas where the people were working originally on the bogs. These people cannot afford to pay £4 an acre.

The position at the moment is that we have more unemployed and business all over the country is depressed and the Minister's statements have contributed in great measure to that position. The Minister, in this and in the other House and throughout the country, has appealed to the people not to purchase any goods and has said that, if they lay off purchases, at a later stage the cost of living and the cost of these goods will be reduced. That has been done not so much because of what the Minister has said but because of a reduction in the buying capacity of the people. Shops down the country are not buying from the manufacturers and the manufacturers have ceased production. When a manufacturer cannot sell his goods to the merchant, the merchant cannot sell to the consumer and in such circumstances the only result is the laying off of workers. That has happened in many a factory and industry up and down the country in the past few weeks. It will become more apparent as soon as the holiday season is over and when this mighty evil we have heard so much about in the past, the tourist trade, comes to an end.

We were told during the election that all the Parties who now comprise the Government had very definite schemes for the controlling of prices. If they have a system of price control, let them put it into operation, because any system would be better than this method which is causing such widespread unemployment, that is, the advice given by the Government to the people not to buy even the necessaries of life. We are told that this will bring down prices. I have information that within recent weeks the price of certain material has been increased by as much as 5/- and 6/- per yard and farmer's boots by 8/- per pair. Where is the Minister's price control in cases of that kind? I have inquired as to reasons for this and I have been told— and I accept it as true—that it is due to the recent increases given in wages.

Mr. McGilligan

That is where you are wrong—in accepting it as true.

Mr. Douglas

Did the Senator say 8/- per yard?

Mr. Hawkins

Five shillings per yard, and 8/- in respect of the pair of farmer's boots, the ones with the nails. We heard very much recently about an agreement made with France and I should like to ask one or two questions in relation to that agreement. I should like to know the amount of goods imported from France and the amount exported to France, since the agreement was made. In connection with the agreement, a special case was made that it was going to be of great advantage to the Gaeltacht areas. That is not true, and, as a matter of fact, under the provisions of the agreement, it is not possible to export to France hand-woven tweeds. This is the very industry which needs and should get whatever sympathy, protection and assistance it can get but, whether through an oversight or lack of knowledge on the part of those who made that agreement and informed the public afterwards that it was going to be of great benefit to the Gaeltacht areas, and particularly the hand-woven industry, that is not the position because it is not lawful to import into France the hand-woven tweeds. I should like the Minister to look into these matters and to give us in his reply a more definite and clear picture as to our present position and as to what is to be the Government's policy in the future.

Professor O'Brien

As this is the only opportunity on which the Seanad can debate the Estimates, I take the opportunity of raising some points on behalf of my own constituency. I make no apology for doing that, since my own constituency was abolished in the Dáil and transferred to the Seanad. Up to a certain point, the members of the university constituencies were able to discuss questions of university finance in the chamber in which those discussions most directly take place, but, since the change in our Constitution, the members for the universities have been transferred to this Chamber and I therefore make no apology for raising these matters very briefly here.

I refer to Vote 26—Universities and Colleges—for which the Estimate is £327,000 and I wish to suggest to the Minister that he might consider whether, on some near future occasion, this sum might not be substantially increased with advantage to the nation. Although I have the honour to represent one of the universities, I am not speaking specifically as a university representative on this occasion. I am not pleading for the interests of the people whom I represent, although, in passing, I might say that I might do so. I do not think it would be improper to say, by way of parenthesis, that University College, Dublin, with which I am particularly associated, has been generally admitted to suffer from inadequate financial accommodation. It started its career just before the first world war, and I need not tell the Minister, who has associations with it even longer than I have, that the buildings commenced in these years have never really been finished and that we are trying to do our work to the best of our ability under very great material disadvantages. We are under-staffed and under-housed and the great national work which we are capable of doing and which we are most anxious to do is being hampered by material handicaps which are really not our fault.

In the peculiar circumstances of this country, the only institution which can reasonably be expected to come to our rescue is the public Exchequer and, therefore, I take this occasion to remind the Minister in public of matters of which I know he has been frequently reminded in private, the growing and pressing needs of my own college. As I say, in this Assembly, I am treating this matter more from the national than from the academic point of view and I suggest that, in this year of grace, 1948, every enlightened country in the world has come to recognise that the most valuable investment which can be made is in the education of its people, that our material progress and the intelligent exploitation of our national resources, our agricultural industry and our non-agricultural industry and our professions, and the intelligent utilisation of these resources in this 20th century age depend on the application of a great deal of scientific knowledge to our land, our industries and our men, that every country which is in the forefront of the world to-day is scientifically-minded and that in the great competitive race in the post-war world, in both the military and industrial fields, those countries which have spent most on research and higher education in the past are in many cases in the van of progress to-day.

It seems to me that this is a country with a very narrow range of national resources and with a population which is generally agreed to be in great need of higher education and that, in view of the great historical tradition of education in the Irish people, even at times when they received that education in conditions of great hardship and great discouragement, and the record of Irish scientists and professional men in England, America and other countries, our people seem to be peculiarly adapted to benefit by higher education. I suggest that the investment of a greater sum in scientific education would yield an abundant dividend to the nation.

There are differences of opinion regarding the best method of conducting industrial research. I certainly have no hesitation in stating my opinion, that applied science and applied research is never really satisfactory, unless it rests on the basis of the greatest possible amount of free academic research, without any practical motive behind it.

It is not too much to say at the present moment that the world is divided into areas where the scientists are harnessed to ideological and practical results and other countries where the tradition of academic freedom still allows scientists to roam freely at their will over their own subject without any regard to any immediate practical material application. I think that the experience of the two great wars has shown that the countries with a tradition of free scientific research without any desire to obtain immediate material rewards have proved the more efficient when they tested themselves in the field of action against countries where research has been directed to mere practical and mere utilitarian ends. If that is so, it seems to me that the correct place for research to take place is in the universities. The universities are institutions that have a tradition of academic freedom. They house staffs who are not prepared simply to give their activities for any particular practical ideological or utilitarian end.

The essence of academic freedom is that knowledge must be pursued for its own sake and I certainly say that in all the Irish universities that tradition has been very well maintained. I do suggest that in our universities here we have staffs that are capable of doing a great deal to advance scientific research and that if that scientific research is allowed to be freely conducted in the universities, it is only a matter of time until its agricultural and industrial applications yield a great dividend to the nation. Therefore, putting it merely on the material plain, speaking simply on mere financial calculation of material gain and loss, leaving aside all considerations regarding the cultural advantages of the universities, I think there is to be made at the present time an unanswerable case for a greatly increased investment in university education.

I want to direct the Minister's attention to a comparison between the figures of the grants for university education in this country and in England and Wales in the last ten years. The figures in relation to England and Wales are taken from an article in The Economist of the week before last, but I have no doubt that they are fully reliable figures. The source of their origin is stated there. In the financial year 1938-39, the last pre-war year, the amount in the Irish Estimates for universities and colleges was £160,000. In the present Estimate it is £327,000, which is slightly more than double. When one makes allowance for the fact that the value of money has depreciated quite considerably in the interval, the real resources made available for the universities in the last ten years have not been increased by more, I should think, than about 30 or 40 per cent. and certainly, speaking in relation to my own university, the endowment of the universities per student has not increased, on a rough calculation by more than 10 or 20 per cent., when allowance is made for the growth of the student population and the depreciation in the value of money.

In England and Wales, countries that have been through the ravages of a great war, which we have largely escaped, the story is entirely different. The grants to English and Scottish universities, leaving out Northern Ireland, in the year 1938-39, through the University Grants Commission, were £2,500,000. In the present year, 1948-49, the grants to be made through the University Grants Commission are £11,888,000. That is to say, instead of being twice what they were, as in this country, they are nearly five times what they were. In addition to that sum of £11,888,000, the British Government this year is granting by way of State scholarships, mostly to ex-Servicemen, and therefore not to be regarded as more than temporary, but in fact a source of revenue for the present year, £11,960,000. So that in relation to the universities in England and Wales in the present year, the estimated revenue from State funds, over and above their own considerable resources, which are much greater than ours, and over and above their students' fees, which are also higher than ours, and over and above the grant received from the local authorities, which are also higher than ours, is in the neighbourhood of £24,000,000 as compared with, in this country, something in the neighbourhood of £327,000. When you take into account that the English population is about 16 times as great as ours, when you take into account that these grants are something like 70 times as great, you see that in relation to head of population, the endowment of university education in this country seems to lag seriously behind.

I am simply giving these figures, not because the Minister is not aware of them already, but because I feel it my duty to put on record, on the only occasion on which university representatives have, the inadequate support which the universities are receiving from the Government which I may say, in passing, I know is nothing but friendly to the universities but still seems to have rather old-fashioned views regarding the duty of Government to universities to-day.

I want now to refer to Vote 28. The grant to the Dublin Institute of Advanced Studies is £52,000. The Dublin Institute of Advanced Studies is, of course, a body for which everybody must have the greatest possible admiration. It is not for me, in view of what I have said earlier, to criticise the body because its researches are, not in the air, but in the cosmic space between the various galaxies in the heavens, but certainly very far detached from real life. Therefore, it may be that, in the long run, the research that is conducted in this admirable institution may yield some sort of dividend to the country apart altogether from the excellence of having higher research of this kind done here. At the same time, I cannot help thinking that the contrast between the £327,000 for the universities and the £52,000 for the Institute of Advanced Studies is scarcely great enough.

I would have thought, in relation to any possible dividend that could be yielded to the country on the expenditure of money on higher education, that, if the Institute of Advanced Studies is worth £52,000 a year, the two great universities in this country are worth more than £350,000. In other words, that in the light of the size of the staff, the number of students attending, the general body of duties, the expense of one sort or another, that if £52,000 is an appropriate sum for the Institute of Advanced Studies, something very much greater would be appropriate for the universities.

I am sorry for delaying the Seanad with these, I might say, domestic matters but, as I say, since the Constitution was altered, we have no opportunity of raising our voices in the Dáil.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Tá faitcíos orm go gcaithfidh mé an rud a dúairt mé an uair dheiridh a bhí mé ag caint a rá arís. 'Sé an rud é sin go bhfuil an-díomá orm faoin mbealach inar chuir an tAire an Seanad ar an eolas i dtaobh an bheartais atá aige agus ag an Rialtas faoi chúrsaí geileagracha na tíre. Dúairt mo chara anseo, an Seanadóir Hawkins, go mba é a thuairim gurab é óráid an Aire an óráid ba ghiorra dár tugadh ar a leithéid seo d'ócáid ariamh. Ní h-é amháin gurab é mo thuairim gurab é an óráid is giorra dár thug Aire Airgeadais don tSeanad ariamh í, ach is dóigh liom gur masla don tSeanad í.

Roimhe seo, do bhí sé de leathscéal ag an Aire nach raibh sé sáthach fada in oifig go mbeadh fhios aige seo agus siúd agus go bhféadfadh sé beartas cinnte a chur os ár gcomhair. Bhí mé sásta glacadh leis an leithscéal sin go dtí pointe, ach níl mé sásta glacadh leis go síoraí. An tAire agus a chomh-Airí agus a lucht leanúna, tamall gearr ó shin, bhíodar ag fógairt go raibh réiteach aca ar gach mí-ádh dá raibh ar an tír. Céard tá déanta acu ó tháinig siad isteach le faoiseamh a thabhairt don tír ar na mí-ádhanna sin? Más fíor nach raibh deis acu an faoiseamh sin do chur ar fáil, ar a laghad, ba cheart go mbeadh an tAire in ann insint dúinn cad tá beartaithe aige leis na mí-ádhanna a leigheas san am atá le teacht.

Rinne an Seanadóir Hawkins tagairt do scéal an cheal oibre ins an tír. Ní thógfaidh an tAire orm é má abraim gurab shin ceann de na ceisteanna ba mhó a bhí ag cur as dúinn le fada an lá. Ní thógfaidh sé orm má abraim gurab shin ceann de na ceisteanna is mó a pléadh ar fuaid na tíre agus gur cuireadh in iúl don tír go raibh leigheas ag an Aire agus ag a chomh-Airí dí. Céard tá déanta acu? Bhí an Rialtas cúpla mí in oifig. Bhí deis acu a gcuid pleanna, má bhíodar acu, a chur i dtoll a chéile, beartas a dhéanamh ina dtaobh, agus rud éigin a chur i bhfeidhm. Agus céard a rinne siad?— An rud ba ghráinne dár thuit amach i stair an Stáit. An fear ba mhó glór ag caint ar na pleananna agus na scéimeanna a bhí acu, b'éigean dó seasamh suas agus admháil nach raibh aon phlean acu, agus nach bhfuil aon phlean acu, agus mar chruthú air sin, céard do rinne se?—iarracht a dhéanamh ar Choimisiún de shaghas éigin a chur le chéile agus iarraidh orthu siúd iarracht a dhéanamh chun a fháil amach cad é an mí-ádh atá ar an tír agus cé an chaoi a mholfaidís é leigheas.

Masla don tSeanad, adeirim, óráid an Aire agus masla don tír go cinnte go siúlfadh sé isteach inniu, an uair dheiridh a bhfuil seans againn an rud seo a phlé, sa bhliain airgeadais seo, agus ar éigin, beannú don tSeanad agus an Bille do chaitheamh chugainn agus a rá: tógaigí é nó fágaigí. In ionad beartas cinnte a bheith acu le deireadh a chur le mí-ádh an cheal oibre, céard atá déanta acu?—Na mílte daoine do chur as obair. Dúairt sé an uair dheiridh nach gcuirfí daoine as obair nó go gcuirfí obair ar fáil dóibh. Ní haon mhaith don Aire é sin a rá liom. Tá fhios agam na mílte fear a briseadh as obair—na céadta acu ag teacht agus ag fágáil slán agam agus ag dul go Sasana.

Mr. McGilligan

I asked for lists long ago. I would like to get them from the Senator.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Do briseadh iad, mar gheall ar na scéimeanna bhí ag an Rialtas. D'ísleoidís sin an costas maireachtála. Ar ísligh siad é? D'fhógair siad, chomh maith agus is cuimhin liom, go n-ísleoidís an costas maireachtála 30 faoin gcéad. D'fhógair cuid dá pháirtí go n-ísleoidís an costas maireachtála 60 faoin gcéad. Dúairt mé leis an Aire go raibh an costas maireachtála ag dul suas. Ní dóigh liom gur chuir an tAire im choinne ach ba mhaith leis a chur in iúl don tSeanad nach bhfuil an scéal díreach chomh dona agus bhí mise a rá. Ní raibh ach seisiún ann nuair tháinig an fhigiúir amach a thaispeánas gur éirigh an costas maireachtála. Nuair d'fhiafruigh mé don Aire céard a mholfadh sé, dúirt sé, mar a dúairt sé sa Dáil, go molfadh sé do na daoine gan a gcuid airgid a chaitheamh. Mholfadh sé do na daoine éirí as bheith ag caitheamh a gcuid airgid. Cinnte, tá daoine ann agus déarfainn go n-éireoidís as a gcuid airgid a chaitheamh. An Rialtas a bhí ann, rinne siad iarracht maidir leis na daoine a bhí ag caitheamh airgid go flúirseach ar neithe nach raibh riachtanach—rinne siad a ndícheall é sin a shocrú. Níor mhisde liom dá n-éireoidís as. Ach, na daoine nach bhfuil a ndóthain le fáil acu, cad as go n-éireoigh siad? Dúairt an tAire an uair eile go n-iarrfadh sé ar na daoine éirí as bheith ag ceannach éadaigh go dtí go mbeadh na tourists imithe as an tír. Ba shuarach an leathscéal é. Má tá fhios aige gurab iad na tourists atá ag déanamh an dochair, tá cumhachta aige agus cén fáth ná stopann sé é má chreideann sé gurab shin é údar an uilc? Cad iad na slite go mba cheart do na daoine éirí as bheith ag ceannach? Táim ag cur na ceiste céanna ar an Aire inniu. Tá a dhóthain ama aige anois agus inseoidh sé dúinn cad iad na rudaí go mba cheart do na daoine éirí as bheith ag caitheamh a gcuid airgid orthu?

Cuimhneoidh sé ar an dochar a tharlós má éiríoann daoine as bheith ag caitheamh a gcuid airgid. Tá fhios ag an Aire go bhfuil na taistealaithe ar fuaid na tíre ag teacht abhaile folamh, go bhfuil na taistealaithe ag teacht abhaile agus gan orduithe acu. Tá fhios aige go bhfuil earraí ins na siopaí nach mbeidh siad ábalta ar iad a dhíol. Eireoidh daoine as an gceannach orthu. Ansin, céard a dhéanfaid an lucht oibre seo?

Is dócha go bhfuil a fhios ag an Aire go bhfuil níos mó ná monarcha amháin a bhí a tógáil agus go bhfuil an obair stoptha ar fad, mar gheall ar éigcinnteacht ar pholasaí an Rialtais. Ná tógfadh aoinne orm é má chuireann sé mí-fhoighid agus fearg orm an méid cainte a rinneadh i dtaobh stopadh imirce agus ceal oibre, agus ansin, mar thoradh ar pholasaí an Rialtais, go gcaithfidh na mílte duine imeacht as an tír, daoine a bhí ar obair thábhachtacht i monarchanna cheana nó a bheadh sna monarchanna a bhí á dtógáil.

Ní raibh mé i láthair anseo nuair a thug an tAire cuireadh dhom, roimhe seo, dul ag breathnú ar na trodáin a bhfuil cur síos ann i dtaobh tuairmí an Aire eile faoi na tithe gloine do thrátaí i gConamara. Tá me buíoch den Aire, ach níl mé ag glacadh leis an gcuireadh. Béidir, am éigin, go bhfeilfeadh sé dhom nó do dhuine eile na páipéirí a scrúdú, nuair a bheas léirmheas dá dhéanamh ar bhrainse éigin de ghnoithe éigin den tír. Ach ní bhaineann an stuidéar sin leis an gceist seo anois—beidh an Rialtas ag cabhrú leis an scéim, nó a mhalairt. Ní haon mhaith é bheith ag rá go raibh an tAire seo nó an duine siúd mí-shásta. Shocruigh an Rialtas go rachfaí ar aghaidh leis an scéim. Dob é Rialtas Fhianna Fáil a cheap an scéim, agus siné an t-aon locht amháin atá uirthi, is dócha. Go deimhin, tá spéis agam sa scéim seo, mar gheall ar mhuintir na Gaedhealtachta. Is fada atáimid ag iarraidh na daoine a mhealladh abhaile, iad a choinneál sa bhaile anseo agus oibreacha éagsúla a chur ar siúl dóibh.

Ba mhaith liom muintir na Gaeltachta a bheith chomh sásta agus is féidir, ach ní hé sin an t-aon chúis amháin atá agam. Léiríonn aigne an Aire agus aigne an Rialtias i dtaobh na scéime sin a n-aigne i dtaoibh mórchuid de na gnóithí atá ar bun sa tír. Ní fhéadfadh an tír seo gnóithí a choinneál siúl in aghaidh muintir Shasana agus muintir na Stát Aontaithe, mara mbeadh cúnamh éigin le fáil acu. Cé mhéid tionscail sa tír seo a bhféadfaimis iad a choinneál ar bun, mara mbeadh cúnamh le fáil ón Rialtas? Bheadh tionscail na déiríochta briste i bhfad ó shoin. Ar an gcaoi chéanna, ní mór dúinn fasadh agus faoiseamh agus cothú agus cabhair a thabhairt do thionscail na dtrátaí. Má déantear é sin, tiocfaidh sé go maith. Béidir nach mbeimid i ndon iad a sholáthair chomh saor le daoine eile. Tá súil agam nach é caighdeán an Aire agus caighdeán an Rialtais, iad fháil chomh saor agus is féidir iad do sholatháir ó thír eile—má sea, go bhfóiridh Dia orainn. Is ceist í, an bhfuilimíd sásta le tionscail ar mhaithe leis an tír, agus daoine a chosaint chun é a soláthar. Abair nach bhfuil an Rialtas chun an chabhair sin a thabhairt do thionscail na dtrátaí—agus caithfidh siad an chabhair atá ar fáil ag aon sórt eile tionscail do tharraingt siar.

Bhí, agus tá díomá orm nár innis an tAire Airgeadais rud éigin dúinn i dtaobh tuairmí an Rialtais faoin saol atá anois ann agus na riachtanaisí is mó atá romhainn. Níl aon aimhreas nach saol achrannach dainséarach an saol atá ann. Béidir go bhfuil a fhios ag an Aire nach bhfuil ann ach ráflaí, ach tá scéalta ann, agus tá comharthaí ar bun i dtíortha eile—béidir nach bhfuil baol ar bith ann. Tá mé sásta go bhfuil cuid mhaith bunúis ann agus imní a bheith orainn. Céard tá á dhéanamh ag an Rialtas le réiteach a dhéanamh in a chóir sin? Tá laincis curtha ar an Arm—an chabhair, an t-airgead, a bhí riachtanach le h-aghaidh an Airm, tá sé laghdaithe.

Is dóigh liom an chéad abairt adúirt mé ariamh sa Seanad gur leis an gceist chéanna a bhain sí. An tAire Airgeadais a bhí ann san am, d'iarr mé agus d'impigh mé air a bheith fial leis an airgead i gcóir an Airm. Bhí, agus tá, muinín agam as lucht ceannais an Airm agus ní mheasaim go n-iarrfaidís airgead gan údar, agus ní chreidim go gcuirfidís airgead amú. Sa saol atá ann, an chéad rud a nímid laghdaimid an deontas airgid a bhí le fáil ag an Arm agus—rud is measa ná sin—an campaign a bhí ar bun le fir óga intleachtúla a mhealladh isteach san Airm. Stopadh an campaign sin. Sin é an dara bealach a bhfuil an laincís á chur ar an Airm. Níl a fhios agam an bhfuil a fhios ag an Aire é seo: de bhárr an pholasaí sin, tá an croí agus an misneach bainte as lucht an Airm. Creideann siad nach bhfuil aon mheas orthu, nach bhfuil aon mhuinín astu. Is éard atá na daoine sin a fhiafraí anois an fearr dóibh fanacht san Arm nó dul ag lorg postanna eile in áit éigin eile.

Mícheál Ó hAodha

Cad é an chúis atá leis sin?

Liam Ó Buachalla

Tá mé tar éis dhá chúis a lua. Is é an chéad chúis, in am an dainséara, laghdaigh an Rialtais an deontas airgid a bhí ag dul dóibh. Is é an dara rud, gur chuireadar cosc leis an gcampaign a bhí ar bun ar fud na tíre le fir óga mheabhracha a tharraint isteach san Arm. Ní hé an laghdú ar uimhir na ndaoine atá ann atá tábhachtach, ach laghdú daoine meabhracha, agus de bharr an pholasaí ar fad, tá spirid an Airm lagaithe. Creideann na fir atá san Airm nach bhfuil aon mhuinín astu agus gur fearr dóibh glanadh amach as agus rud eile d'fháil mar shlí bheatha. Ba mhaith liom go dtiúrfadh an tAire léargas éigin ar an gccist sin, sul a gcuirimíd deireadh leis an díospóireacht seo.

Is cuimhin liom, tamall ó shoin, sa Dáil, chuir duine de na Teachtaí Dála ceist ar an Aire Tionscail agus Tráchtála i dtaobh scéal an phlúir, scéal na cruithneachtan. Bhí sé ag fiafraí den Aire an gceadódh sé roinnt éigin aráin sa mbreis le haghaidh oibrithe talmhaíochta. Is é an freagra a thug an tAire:

"Owing to the uncertainty of the wheat supply position, I am unable to extend the scheme of supplementary allowances to include other classes of agricultural workers at present."

Tugaim faoi deara go bhfuil sé soeruithe ag Rialtas Shasana deireadh a chur le ciondáil an aráin. An dóigh leis an Aire go bhfuil réiteach a dhóthain déanta aige agus ag an Rialtas go mbeidh an tír seo i ndon ár riar aráin d'fháil, chomh cinnte agus bhí sé le fáil againn le linn na héigeandála atá caite. Muna bhfuil, tá faillí mhór dá dhéanamh ag an Rialtas i gcúis na tíre. Deirtear go ndearnadh socrú éigin i Londain i dtaoibh dollaerí, a chuirfeadh ar ár gcumas sin a dhéanamh níos fearr a dhéanamh ná mar bhí dá dhéanamh againn go dtí seo. Ní dóigh liom go mbeidh an tAire sásta cur síos mion a dhéanamh dhúinn ar an socrú a rinneadh, ach ar a laghad, sílim gurb é is lú is gann dúinn a inseacht dúinn an bhfuil a leitheide de shocrú déanta le Sasana nó le tír ar bith eile agus go bhféadfhaimis a bheith cinnte go mbeidh riar ár gcáis againn maidir le ceist aráin agus plúir má tharlann aon rud contúirteach sna blianta atá le teacht. Muna bhfuil, agus is deacair dom a thuiscint cé'n chaoi a bhfuighmis geallúint den tsórt sin gan quid pro quo, céard é an quid pro quo? Má tá an tAire agus an Rialtas sásta go bhfuighimid riar át gcáis de phlúr agus de chruithneacht, an méid a theastódh le go mbeimid neamhspleách, agus má tá an socrú san déanta acu, ba cheart dó ar a laghad leide a thabhairt dúinn faoi ar socrú sin.

Is deacair a rá cén chaoi a bhfuil an scéal i dtaobh an radio. Bhí mórchuid cainte ar bun tamall ó shoin mar gheall ar an gcoigilteas, an tsábháil airgid, a bhí an tAire ag dul a dhéanamh ar an stáisiún le haghaidh na dtíortha i gcéin, an "short-wave station." Bhfuil athrú aigne tagaithe air i dtaoibh an stáisiúin sin? Tá rud éigin ráite ag an Aire Poist agus Telegrafa faoi, ach is deacair aon mheabhair a bhaint as. Tá a fhios againn gurb é an tAire Airgeadais, sa deireadh, an fear a shocrós an mbeidh sé ann nó nach mbeidh. Tá súil agam, agus an méid cainte a rinneadh i dtaobh an Stáisiúin sin, go bhfuil an tAire agus an Rialtas tagaithe ar mhalairt tuairme ina thaobh. Caithfimid cuimhniú air seo—le linn an chogaidh deireannach, ní raibh seans ar bith againn tuairimí na tíre seo agus polasaí na tíre seo a chur in iúl do thíortha iasachta mar ba cheart. Tá a fhios againn go bhfuil na seirbhísí nuaíochta smactaithe ag comhluchtaí nach bhfuil ceanúil ar an tír seo, agus nach rachaidh amach ach pé ar bith scéal is mian leis na comhluchtaí sin a chur amach. Caithfimid cuimhniú air seo, freisin, nach bhfuil aon tír sa domhan, atá i gcosúil linne sa méid go bhfuil an oiread sin dar muintir ina gcónaí thar sáile. Tá timpeall 2 nó 2½ milliún de dhaoine a rugadh in Éirinn ina geonaí thar sáile, agus tá na milliúin daoine ann de bhunadh Éireannach, agus an oiread spéise acu in imeachtaí na tíre seo. Is daoine iad atá, i gcónaí, ag iarraidh colas ar chúrsaí na tíre seo agus iad toilteannach cabhair agus cúnamh a thabhairt dúinn ach go bhfuighidís an t-eolas sin. Is cuimhin liom an tAire ag rá gur ar éigin a bheadh aon mhaith sa stáisiún i ngeall ar an saghas gléasanna atá á dhéanamh i Meiriocá nach mbeadh i ndon na gearr-thonnta a thabhairt isteach. Ní laghdódh sin tábhacht an stáisiúin. Mara bhfuil ann ach aon dúine amháin, mara bhfuil ann ach aon fhear páipéir amháin agus an gléas aige go bhfuigheadh sé an nuaíocht i dtaobh na hEireann, tá an seans ann chun an t-eolas sin a thabhairt do dhaoine thar lear, an teolas ba mhaith linn a thabhairt dóibh.

Ba mhaith liom go ndéarfadh an tAire linn an bhfuil an scéal scrúdaithe as an nua aige agus an dóigh leis gur féidir dul ar aghaidh leis an stáisiún sin. Béidir go mbeadh fiontair ann, mar bhaineas le go leor rudaí eile; ach náisiún atá suite mar atá sinne caithfimid dul i bhfiontar má táimid le seasamh.

Maidir leis an méid adúirt an Seanadóir Ó Briain i dtaobh cúrsaí oideachais, ar ndóigh táimid ar fad ar aonintinn leis faoin iarratas atá déanta aige chun breis cabhrach d'fháil le haghaidh na n-ollscoil agus oideachas i gcoitinne. Fuair lucht an oideachais anuraidh—agus, sílim, an bliain roimhe sin—deontas éigin sa mbreis. Ní raibh mise sásta leis sin, agus nílim sásta leis anois. Le linn an chogaidh, b'éigean dúinn a bheith cúramach, agus ba deacair a fhios a bheith ag duine céard ba cheart a dhéanamh; ach, do réir tuairimí an Aire féin, agus iomarca airgid a bheith sa tír, dar leis, táimid tagaithe go dtí an pointe go bhféadfamid ár n-aigne a dhéanamh suas faoi cheisteanna den tsórt seo. B'fhearr, cinnte, go mbaileomis beagán airgid ón tír le haghaidh oideachais ná bheith á chaitheamh ar chuid de na rudaí a gcaithtear airgead chomh fial san orthu.

Tá ceist speisialta agam le cur ar an Aire agus baineann sí leis na gairmscoltacha. Bhí sé ag rá, nuair a chuir an Seanadóir Hawkins ceist air, an raibh sé chun stop a chur le tógáil scoile gairm-oideachais, agus dúirt sé nach raibh. Chomh fada agus a theigheas sé sin, tá mé lán-tsásta, ach d'fhéadfadh an tAire a rá nach bhfuil sé chun stop a chur le obair den tsórt sin, agus ag an am chéanna, tig leis moill mhór a chur ar an obair. Tá iarratas curtha isteach le blianta fada ó Choiste Gairm-Oideachais Chontae na Gaillimhe ar scoltacha gairmoideachais—péire a bhaineas leis an nGaeltacht, ceann acu ar an gCnoc i gCois Fhairrge agus ceann in Arainn. Tá an Chomhairle Chontae sásta tuille airgid a chur ar fáil am ar bith a bheas muid réidh lena iarraidh. Tá an scéim agus na figiúirí ullamh agus curtha isteach go dtí an Roinn mar gheall ar tuairim is sé nó seacht de scoltacha. Bíodh go bhfuil an scéim curtha isteach go dtí an Roinn, agus bíodh go bhfuil na figiúirí acu le blianta agus geallúint againn go mbeidh an cead againn dul ar aghaidh, agus an réiteach ceart déanta ag an gComhairlo Contae, ní féidir linn freagra d'fháil ón Roinn i dtaobh na scoltacha seo. D'fhéadfadh an tAire a rá liom nach bhfuil sé ag cur stop le tógáil na scol, agus a rá go ndéanfar iad am éigin, ar nós "beidh laoigh ag bó éicín lá éicín." I sí an cheist í an bhfuil sé sásta cead a thabhairt dúinn dul ar aghaidh leis an obair sin gan aon mhoill. Tá, mar a deirim, an Coiste ullamh, an Chomhairle Chontae ullamh, ag teastáil ach aontú nó cead an Rialtais: cead an Aire Airgeadais chun dul ar aghaidh leis.

Tá díomá orm nár cheap an tAire go mbeadh an dualgas air, agus an Bille seo á chur aige os ár gcomhair, go dtiúrfadh sé léargas dúinn ar a chuid scéimeanna, a chuid pleananna le haghaidh cúrsaí geilleagair na tíre, chomh fada agus a théas cúrsaí airgid i gcionn orthu. Is dóigh liom go mba cheart go bhfuighmís sin, go mhór mhór, agus Rialtas nua ag teacht isteach. Dá mbeadh an Rialtas ar bun le blianta, agus gur tháinig an tAire isteach, agus mion-léargas a thabhairt dúinn, déarfaimis go raibh a fios againn i dtaobh polasaí an Rialtais, mar bheadh a fhios againn céard é an polasaí a bhí i bhfeidhm aige na blíanta roimhe sin. Ach anois, i gcás Rialtais nua, agus an saol atá ann, agus go mór mhór mar gheall ar an imní atá ar dhaoine ó cheann ceann na tíre, is dóigh liom go mba cheart don Aire an léargas sin a thabhairt dúinn ar pholasaí an Rialtais chomh fada agus rachfas cúrsaí airgeadais i gcionn air agus an smacht atá acu air.

Mr. McGilligan

Policy, on an Appropriation Bill?

Mr. S.T. Ruane

This Bill gives members of the House an opportunity for dealing with the multitude of services for which the people have to provide the money. I propose to content myself by referring to a few matters which arise under different Votes, some of which I referred to in previous years on the Appropriation Bill. I should also like to say at the outset that my remarks will of necessity be laudatory rather than condemnatory because since I had an opportunity of speaking on the Appropriation Bill of 1947 big changes have taken place in the country. I should like at the outset to compliment the Minister for Health on the energy that he has displayed in his Department since he accepted office, especially in so far as the provision of accommodation for people suffering from tuberculosis is concerned. I had the experience within the past few weeks of knowing a case—that of a young patient—that was brought under the notice of the Department of Health. In that case bed accommodation was found in a sanatorium within the space of three weeks.

There is another matter which comes within this particular service—I have referred to it before and I make no apology for coming back to it again— and that is the medical inspection of school children. I have an intimate knowledge of the manner in which that particular service is carried out in my own county, and while I could not give adequate praise to our medical officer of health for the manner in which he carries out his work, I am afraid that a great amount of the energy that he and his assistants expend on that particular service goes for nothing, owing to the fact that the service is completely understaffed. When on that point, may I point out to members of the House that while the medical officer of health in the County Mayo can make only one inspection in five years in the different schools, the position in England is that the medical officers in charge of that service there make inspections twice annually. In view of that it is hard to expect results in this country under the scheme as at present administered. I trust that, before we get the Appropriation Bill for 1949, I will be able to compliment the Minister for Health in respect of that service as I sincerely do to-day because of the manner in which he has made extra provision for sanatoria in the country.

The next matter that I desire to draw attention to is the big change that has taken place so far as the claims of the national school teachers are concerned. Since we met to discuss the Appropriation Bill of last year, I am glad to be able to state that a big number of the outstanding grievances of the national school teachers have been liquidated by the present Minister for Education. I can only hope that, having attended to those on active service in the primary schools, the promise that he made some time ago to have the question of the pensioned teachers considered will soon be implemented. In all there are about 3,000 of this very deserving class. I sincerely hope that, within a short time, the miserable pittances paid to many of these people—at present they are barely able to exist on them—will be substantially increased. As a class, they deserve well of the country. It is no credit to the country that people who did such excellent work in the past, who rendered such service at a time when it was neither safe nor fashionable to do it, should be allowed to exist on the miserable superannuation that is at present being paid to them.

Now, while I am on the question of education, I was glad to see that at the Congress of Vocational Teachers held last week the president, I think, of that organisation referred to the desirability of extending the benefits of vocational training for the rural areas. I am afraid that, so far, the benefits of that particular training go entirely to the people living in the towns, or to those living adjacent to urban areas. A speaker at that congress suggested the desirability of utilising the existing accommodation in national schools I think in the rural areas, or the provision of annexes in which training could be given to people in those areas, to people who certainly would avail of it. I know that when carpentry and farrier classes have been provided in the rural districts, they have been very well attended. I would go so far as to say that the attendance at these part-time classes was far more creditable than the attendance at many classes in some of the palatial buildings which have been provided under the vocational system in many of our towns.

The next matter that I desire to refer to comes within the province of the Department of Justice. I had occasion to refer to this when the Minister for Justice in the last Government was in the Seanad with one of his Bills. I refer to the treatment of Circuit Court clerks. I know at least one Circuit Court clerk in my own county who has given 40 years of very faithful service, and who is now faced on retirement without any assurance that he will enjoy a pension. When this matter was mentioned before in the Seanad, the then Minister stated that the provision of pensions for Circuit Court officers was not altogether a matter for him and referred to the fact that it was more a matter for the Minister for Finance. I am glad that the Minister for Finance is here to-day to hear the appeal that I make for this very deserving class because I know that when the transition took place—when the British left this country—the Circuit Court clerks contributed very effectively to the building up of the courts that now function normally throughout the country. I trust that something may be done in the very near future for this very deserving class. They are at present, I am informed, faced with a future in which no provision is being made for them in the matter of pensions.

I was considerably interested in some of the remarks which Senator Hawkins made to-day in regard to the number of people who, he said, had been thrown out of employment in the West of Ireland because of the change in fuel production. I must say that in my locality I have not noticed any big number of people unemployed as a result of the cessation of that particular activity. I do know, so far as land drainage is concerned, that where in an area there were about 35 people registered as unemployed that, when 15 of these were detailed for work on a land drainage scheme, only one and the supervisor turned out. As a matter of fact, it took some trouble to get the people in that area to accept employment under that particular scheme, a scheme that is very much appreciated by the people of the country.

Mr. McGilligan

Senator Ó Buachalla says there are thousands unemployed.

Mr. S.T. Ruane

The people, as I say, appreciate that scheme very much under which they provide a contribution of £4 an acre for the drainage of their land.

Liam Ó Buachalla

May I say——

Mr. S.T. Ruane

I sincerely hope that in the immediate future the schemes which have already been pigeon-holed in so far as main drainage in the West of Ireland is concerned, will be undertaken.

Liam Ó Buachalla

The point that I want to draw attention to is that Senator Hawkins mentioned that there were other people involved in this matter of employment besides those who are entitled to get employment on the new schemes. What Senator Ruane is overlooking is the fact that men who worked on their own bogs are not entitled to employment on these schemes.

Mr. McGilligan

There is work on the roads.

Mr. S.T. Ruane

I would like to say in conclusion that notwithstanding the amount of oratory that has been expended in a campaign of fault finding, gloomy predictions of pending disaster consequent on the change of Government, that the present Administration is adding to its prestige daily. I have an opportunity of knowing that because I am in a position to make several contacts not only in my own county but outside it.

I may say that the recent trade agreement with England has been very favourably received, and I am satisfied that the consequences to the people most interested will be manifested by a wholehearted response to the appeal made by the Taoiseach and his Ministers for increased production. In that matter, however, I should like to endorse, to a certain extent, some of the remarks that were made by Senator Hawkins in so far as the provision of facilities for credit is concerned. I know that in many areas, due to the effects of the blizzard that we experienced in the early part of 1947, stocks of sheep and cattle have been depleted on many farms. I also know that farm equipment is obsolete in many areas and that housing accommodation for farmers in many places is in need of attention. These are matters that cannot be done without the provision of credit. It is unreasonable to expect an expansion in the agricultural industry in the absence of adequate credit. It would be as unreasonable to expect that as to expect an expansion in the case of any other industry without credit facilities.

When I heard Senator Hawkins referring to the various promises made during the recent election campaign and to plans for a reduction of taxation, my mind went back to another period when the taxation of this country was about £23,000,000, when promises were made that a plan would be brought forward by which taxation would be reduced by £2,000,000 while the services rendered would be improved. While I admit that certain people have lost owing to a change on turf policy, everybody interested in the solvency of the State will agree that there are huge dumps of turf in the park that can be disposed of only at a loss of £5,000,000 that the country can ill afford. While some may regard the change in fuel production policy as lamentable, the £5,000,000 loss that the country has to pay as a result of the disposal of stocks now in the park and which could be usefully employed in other directions, makes the picture less appalling.

I trust that my request regarding pensions of ex-national teachers and Circuit Court clerks who are faced with a future in which there is no provision for pensions for them will not be forgotten.

Mr. R.M. Burke

Senator Hawkins referred to a motion in my name, and also in that of Senator McCrea, in connection with loans to farmers at a low rate of interest, and certain suggestions were made regarding the reason for postponing the motion. I should like to make it clear that the reasons suggested for postponement were not correct. It was suggested to me that that motion might be postponed for three reasons, firstly, that there was a large amount of urgent work to be dealt with by the Seanad, secondly, that there were two motions in my name and that in view of that position I could not reasonably complain if one was postponed. The third reason was that the matter is not one of great urgency. I assure all who are interested that I am as anxious as ever to have the proposals set out in the motion put into operation because the matter is of importance but I realise that there are more urgent matters to be dealt with.

With regard to loans to farmers for improving buildings, most people recognise that during August and September the majority of farmers would be too busy to erect buildings. Harvest and other urgent work of that nature will occupy farmers for the next two or three months. In addition to that, the unemployment position during the next two months will not be as serious as it would be about November and December. In most rural areas the vast majority of men will be needed for harvest work during August and September. There may be a few unemployed in certain areas, and if that occurs everything possible should be done to give useful employment to every available man. Far larger numbers of men are available for work during the winter months, so that farm improvements could reasonably wait until then. In addition to harvest work a large amount of road work is being done at present. I understand that a good deal of it will be finished by the end of September or October, so that plans should be made to provide work during the winter months. It is desirable that plans of this nature should be made in good time.

Regarding loans for buildings we all realise that materials are still scarce and that it is only reasonable that materials needed for dwelling houses should get reasonable preference. There is however a great need for the improvement of farm buildings and I hope materials will be made available during the winter months for that purpose. I do not propose to go into details regarding loans to farmers, because that will be dealt with in the autumn when my motion comes on. My only reason for referring to the matter now is because certain other speakers suggested that the motion was postponed for some other reasons. That is not so.

Mr. Honan

I come from an area which unfortunately has suffered more than other areas owing to the policy of the new Government. I refer particularly to Aer Lingus, the Shannon Airport and other services of that kind owing to curtailment of expenditure.

Mr. McGilligan

Not in Aer Lingus.

Mr. Honan

Aer Lingus has approximately dismissed 200.

Mr. McGilligan

That is not the Government, that is the board. We have nothing to do with it.

Mr. Honan

Nothing at all?

Mr. McGilligan

I hope the Senator will now deny the report. It has nothing to do with anything touching Aer Lingus. That was previously decided upon before we came into office.

Mr. Honan

I was not clear about it but I accept the Minister's word.

Mr. McGilligan

I give the Senator that assurance.

Mr. Honan

A considerable number of people have lost their employment, some 200 at Shannon Airport. Turf production has been referred to, and as Clare was one of the biggest turf-producing counties I should mention that there was a very considerable loss over the six years that the county council operated the scheme. An average sum of £62,000 was expended annually on turf production. The amount is down to nil now. In addition about 50,000 tons of turf were exported from the county on which producers, hauliers, loaders and others found employment. The turf was produced almost entirely by small farmers who had bogland and who are now unemployed and not registered for unemployment benefit. All that income has been lost to the county. In addition many lorry-owners find themselves in a bad plight. They purchased new lorries for turf haulage but now that production has ceased, a considerable sum of money is owing on some lorries and the people to whom money is owing are foreclosing. All that occurred during the war. The war is over now. It should have taken a more gradual course. This was slapped down on the people before they were prepared. They should have been given some chance of disposing of the lorries, or of employing them elsewhere. As far as County Clare is concerned, most of the men have gone to England for employment.

I have no complaint to make otherwise. I hope there will not be any further curtailment of services as far as Aer Lingus is concerned. There was a time when we had three services each way—Collinstown to Shannon. We have only one service each way now. The same applies to London. The service has dwindled to such an extent that people have the impression that it is being allowed to die out. I hope that is not so because it brought a considerable number of people and a very considerable amount of money into the country. I hope the policy of the Government will not mean any reduction in that business.

Mr. Colgan

The Appropriation Bill supplies Senators with their only opportunity of raising points on the various Estimates introduced in the Dáil. The question of interest on loans for housing and the question of loans for farm building improvements have been raised. The position of housing in the City of Dublin and in other cities and towns approaches the nature of a national scandal and ought to be treated as a national emergency. For five years I was a member of the Dublin Corporation and I saw people living in premises in the City of Dublin that were not suitable for pigs. That is not an exaggeration. The position has not improved materially since. I want to make a suggestion that possibly may be considered revolutionary. I suggest that the housing of the working classes should be treated as a national emergency and that, if necessary, a loan should be floated by the Government to finance loans free of interest to local authorities for the building of houses. Anyone who has any connection with local authorities will appreciate that the interest on the loans that have to be raised to build houses in many cases militates against getting a sufficient number of houses built and against the fixing of an economic rent.

In regard to the Vote for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, I would say that the position of sub-post offices in the city is extraordinary. It is a legacy from the old British days. Somebody selects a shop. Usually it is not big enough for the business carried on. The post office is put into it. That may have been all very well 40 years ago but, with the increase in business, in practically all cases the sub-post offices are too small. The system is that the sub-post master is paid a certain amount. There is a salary fixed for the girl behind the counter. I do not know how she works in the circumstances. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs should scrap the whole system and evolve something that will help the general public in transacting their business and give them a more efficient service.

In regard to the telephone service and the position of telephonists, I understand that the girls particularly have very difficult hours. The nature of their business entails that they are on duty and off duty and on again for a number of hours. They are allowed only 40 minutes for lunch. They should get at least an hour for lunch so that they could get home. That could be easily remedied without any great hardship to anybody.

In regard to the Vote for the Department of Justice, the question of the policing of the City of Dublin has been raised. It is questionable whether there is a sufficient number of police in Dublin. I know nothing about that but I would suggest that the policy now seems to be to have more police in civilian clothes. I used to think that policemen walking out on their beat in uniform were very impressive and I would suggest that a policeman in uniform is more effective in making citizens obey the law than a policeman in civilian clothes. A policeman in uniform is a deterrent to crime. There should be more police. While I do not want to cast any aspersion on the police force—I think we should be proud of it—I do feel that on occasions there is more attention paid to catching the criminal than to preventing crime. We have had a spate of crime as a result of the emergency. That was a natural result but I feel it would be better if more attention were paid to the prevention of crime.

There is another matter that I am very much interested in, namely, the tariff policy of this Government. Under the last Government, certain tariffs were imposed. There was one tariff imposed which concerned an industry with which I have close connection, that is, the paper industry.

An Leas-Cathaoirleach

I am afraid tariffs do not arise in this debate.

Mr. Colgan

It comes under the Vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

They are generally discussed on the Finance Bill, not on the Appropriation Bill.

Mr. Colgan

I am sorry for that because it was my star argument. I thought that the policy of the Minister for Industry and Commerce could be discussed here.

An Leas-Chathoirleach

Tariffs are a different question.

Mr. Colgan

I bow to your ruling. I hope I am in order in raising the question of jury service. While it has been argued that juries ought to be paid, it has also been argued, with a certain amount of logic, that citizens should be prepared to give their services free on juries. But juries have a grievance. I do not know whether it is deliberate or otherwise, but on more than one occasion I have attended at court where a full jury was to be called. The jury was called. There were three or four cases listed and they had already been settled between the lawyers. The suggestion was made, I do not know how true it was, that the lawyers were making sure of getting their fees by appearing in court. The jury were dismissed. Jury service is difficult enough and men giving their time and leaving their businesses should get better consideration than that. If there is no business for the jury, they could be informed by a notice in the Press that they need not attend. The Minister is honourably connected with the legal profession and he might look into that.

The setting up of the Tourist Board was very fine, but there is a feeling abroad that it did one thing, it ensured that all the fees in the hotels were increased. I was going to a particular hotel year after year, and when I remarked, as a matter of interest, that the tariff had gone up, I was told that that was done on the instructions of the tourist board. Whether that is true or not, I am told there is a grading system and that if you want to get graded as a grade A hotel the obvious thing is to increase your tariffs. That may be very well, to fleece the people who come into the country for a fortnight, but it is not fair to the people here at home. It appeared to me that there was an amount of truth in that statement, because from what I knew of the cost of living I knew there was no justification for the steep increase in the tariff. There was a general understanding that the setting up of the tourist board has resulted possibly in better services, but certainly in a higher tariff.

Mrs. Concannon

No matter on which side of the House we sit, as responsible Senators—even the etymology of our name suggests it—we should show sympathy for the Minister for Finance, faced with the raising and supplying of such a huge sum as is mentioned in the Appropriation Bill, £72,000,000. We may find cold comfort in the fact that pounds in Appropriation Bills and Finance Bills to-day do not mean what they used to mean— that they were good for 20 silver shillings which could buy a fair amount of goods. Another bit of comfort might be that most of this money is sent circulating amongst our own people and only a little over £500,000 goes out for relief of distress in European countries.

I am not enough of a financier to know whether the size of the figure in the Appropriation Bill and the effect of this money circulating around may or may not raise the cost of living. One of the most tragic things we have to face to-day is the rising cost of living—that and the fear of war. I do not suppose that any of us can do much more than say our prayers in that respect, but if there is a danger of war it might be a good idea if the Minister and his colleagues would read those chapters of the Bible which deal with the time when Joseph was Minister for Finance or Minister for Supplies in Egypt. That is to say, it would be a good idea to fill our granaries and our fuel stores. It was brought home to us in the two admirable speeches given yesterday in the report of the sugar company that if we do this from our own resources it not only provides employment but saves our precious dollars. I hope the Minister will get those who live in turf areas to use turf instead of coal. That, of course, means that the producers must give good turf at a moderate price. If such encouragement can be given, it will save a lot of money that goes out on foreign fuel. What was said about producing beet was an admirable lesson in economics, which applies also to turf. I am sure I have only to mention this to the Minister to get him to see its importance.

It may be that the Government, with the best intentions in the world, cannot do a lot about the cost of living. I agree that it is a good old plan to work hard and save money, and I do not think any better plan has been discovered yet; but I would like to draw the Minister's attention to an instance where Government action has raised the cost of living terrifically. There has been a new valuation in Galway. I live in a house built about 40 years ago. Its valuation was £24 and nothing has been added to it ever since, but now we have got notice that 32 per cent. of valuation has been added. In addition, the rates in Galway have risen to an alarming extent and are now 34/3 in the £. We used to have to pay rates of about £18 or £26 a year, but this year our demand note is for £53. I know of a case of a person living in a house like mine whose sole income is a pension. She bought her house when she was employed, and now has a demand note for about £50 rates, which is about one-third of her pension. It is hard to know what criteria were adopted by the valuation people when they raised the valuation. In some cases it was raised about 90 per cent., so we thought we got off well with about 32 per cent. Taken with the high rates in Galway, it is a staggering thing for people with static incomes.

Mr. McGilligan

Does the Senator realise that it has nothing to do with the Government? The valuation has been carried out by the Valuation Office at the request of the local authority and the rates, of course, are struck by the local authority.

Mrs. Concannon

I am drawing the Minister's attention to it, with regard to the cost of living. With feminine inconsistency, having pleaded for economy and a reduction in the cost of living, I am going to ask the Minister to spend a little more, and I join with Senator Ruane in making an appeal on behalf of the old pensioned teachers. Their pensions were fixed on salaries that were a disgrace and it was not possible for them to save anything. They have remained at the one figure and some of them are in a bad way. I would like to join also with Senator George O'Brien regarding the university. Everything he said is perfectly justified. The whole good of the university would be dwarfed if the students must continue to live under the present conditions. The most important thing to the universities is the students, but in order to get value from their education they must have proper accommodation. We cannot get the best or the full value from it unless the students are properly housed. It is a matter for the Government and I am sure that if the university authorities approached the people who could help, the religious bodies, they could give a helping hand in providing hostels. If they succeeded in doing that it would be a good day's work.

Mr. Duffy

Senator Mrs. Concannon has been a realist when speaking on this debate which most Senators are not when talking about a subject of this kind. She has recognised that there is some difficulty in criticising the size of the Bill while at the same time one is asking for fresh expenditure in new quarters. And I think that is a difficulty which confronts us all. That thought occurred to me when I listened to Senator Hawkins and some other Senators making claims for various sections of the community, all of them, of course, very deserving sections, for additional incomes. The teachers, the pensioned teachers, the old people, the widows and orphans, the sick and infirm, all require larger incomes than they have now. I think in most cases the incomes of these sections are totally inadequate for present day needs. But side by side with these demands you have, as Senator Mrs. Concannon has said, a bill for £72,000,000 before the House. This Bill is for the appropriation of £72,000,000 without any reference whatever to the substantial sums that will be collected from the taxpayers in the form of rates, and, of course, there will be other charges as well. But these two items, the taxes levied by the State and the rates levied by the local authorities, will tot up to something in the neighbourhood of £85,000,000.

I am not ignoring the fact that so long as this money is expended within the State and that so long as it is circulating from one section of the people to another the burden is not as great as it might otherwise appear. But there is this to be said: you cannot collect £85,000,000 without incurring substantial expense in its collection and you cannot spend £85,000,000 without incurring substantial expenditure in the process of spending it. Therefore, apart from any other consideration, it seems to me that we should aim as far as we can at curtailing expenditure which is avoidable. I am not suggesting that it is wise or that it is a desirable policy for the Government to curtail expenditure merely for the sake of saving money. In fact, that would be an unwise habit and one which I think would not appeal to the Minister himself.

Apart from these sums that we have all been asking for, additional money for old age pensions, widows and orphans, pensioned teachers, and so on, there is a vast amount required for industrial development and for agricultural development. What that sum may be eventually I do not know, but I have heard estimates being discussed which contemplate a total expenditure on capital account of something between £250,000,000 and £500,000,000. If this money can be made available and if it can be expended intelligently and judiciously, obviously it would be a good investment. It would be a good investment if it enabled the community to produce more and to increase the size of the pool out of which all taxes must be taken. The real trouble to-day is, I think, that the pool is unduly limited and this considerable sum, the sum with which we are dealing with here and the sum which the local authorities will be dealing with, is being drawn out of that limited pool. I imagine that altogether the State and the local authorities are probably spending between them one quarter of the total national income, and that in a time of peace, at a time when the emergency has passed and when we are back more or less to normal.

Of course, there is no use in thinking that normality in the future is going to mean something like what "normal" was in 1930, still less what "normal" was in 1913. The national economy is not likely to go back to what it was in 1913, the normal on which we based our cost of living index and various other yardsticks. We are going to have grave difficulties in the future, even in a period of peace, difficulties about supplies, difficulties about exchanges and bottlenecks in transport and so on. All these problems are going to make the normal state of the future "abnormal" from the point of view of the things we were accustomed to and the way of life that prevailed before the First World War.

I was sorry, therefore, to hear Senator Hawkins spend so much of his energy and eloquence in deploring the disappearance of the Constellations and the shortwave station and various things of that kind. What is the case for the shortwave station or the Constellations? There may be a case on national grounds for the shortwave station. I think it was said in the Dáil that it helped to build up the prestige of the country. That is possible and I consider that a praiseworthy motive, but, still, the Senator who spoke here, Senator Hawkins I think it was, complained about the discontinuance of these services because unemployment was created thereby. Surely that is a plea of defeat. Why should we maintain services like the Constellations or even industrial research and exploration merely to provide employment? That is not a desirable policy to pursue. If these services are to be maintained, the decision must rest on firmer ground.

I should prefer to hear Senators who criticise the Minister making a plea for some big national projects, projects that will increase the fertility of the land, that will enable the agricultural community to produce four and five times the quantity of food they have been producing in the past. Similarly with industry, I would hope that instead of trying to get a job here and a job there for a couple of people who unfortunately are out of work, we would try to create enterprise on a large scale, enterprise which in itself is worth while and desirable. This in itself would be a solution for this problem of unemployment and a solution for the problem of poverty.

We all have grievances of a special kind applicable to ourselves or to those with whom we are closely associated. Senator Mrs. Concannon referred to the effect which the revaluation of some property in Galway has on the cost of living in that city, but surely the remedy for that is not to hold up the particular revaluation but to revalue the country as a whole. It seems to me that if we are to have equity as the basis of our policy the country as a whole, all its property, its land and its houses, all its wealth-producing effects, should be revalued on some acceptable basis. I think the basis in the past, or at least the principle underlying it, has been generally fair, that is to say the net annual value of the thing being valued. This is something which requires immediate attention, though it cannot be done immediately because there are a thousand other things requiring immediate attention and some day the Government will have to sit down and decide on a list of priorities, will have to decide what is first in the matter of urgency, what has to be tackled at once.

If I may respectfully offer a word of advice it is that the subject of greatest urgency which should be tackled now is the agricultural industry. Approximately 50 per cent. of our people live on the land, and live out of agriculture. If, therefore, we can so develop agriculture as to enable it to stand up against the competition of the world without subsidies, without bribes of any kind, and without compulsion, if we can enable our agriculture to take its place in the competitive field, we will have done something immediately for the 50 per cent. of our people who derive their livelihood from the land; more than that, we will have removed the burden from other sections of the community who have to pay those taxes in order to give subsidies to a depressed agricultural economy. In the main, the subsidies and the levies —we have had them in the past—are all applied for the purpose of enabling the agricultural community to live on the land—not to live well but to live in poverty—and what I fear about the case being made by Senator Hawkins and Senator Honan was that they were seeking privileges merely for a particularly small minority of the agricultural community.

The claim they are making is that the man who was able to, some years ago, get a lorry and carry turf from Galway to Dublin, from Kerry to Dublin or from Donegal to Dublin, and make a good thing out of it should be maintained for the future on the privileged standard he attained during the emergency. The same case is made for the small group of people who were able to produce turf and sell it at exorbitant prices. This ignores entirely the great mass of farmers. In the West of Ireland there is a good deal of turf being produced now and the people producing it are selling turf for approximately one-third of the price they were able to get during the emergency. Before 1939 you could have bought turf for 30/- a ton in Dublin. Before the emergency was over it was costing 64/- per ton, plus a subsidy of 25/- or so. It was actually costing the community £5 a ton.

Senator Hawkins seems to me to be either deliberately or innocently—I give him credit for being a very innocent man——

Mr. Douglas

Not innocent.

Mr. Duffy

I said I gave him credit for being innocent. He seems to me to be suggesting that the people who had these privileges, the individual producer here and there and the individual haulier here and there, should be maintained in the position of privilege for all time, in contrast with the large sector of poverty all around him. I do not think that that is a good case or one which Senator Hawkins will make seriously, because he knows as well as I do that there is very little sympathy for that kind of case in the greater part of the West of Ireland.

One of the subjects which this House should concern itself at the moment is the question of transport, because it seems to me that this will be the most important subject with which we shall have to deal in the immediate future. Transport is the key to many things, including agricultural prosperity. I mentioned before in this House the cost of transporting goods from one point to another. These costs seem to me to be fantastic, and, notwithstanding that, the main transport undertaking of the country, Córas Iompair Eireann, is losing money at a surprising rate. Their losses last year amounted to £1,000,000. The Great Northern Railway Company is also losing money, and the position generally is going to be very serious for the country if the transport system is to collapse, and so far as I can appraise the situation it is likely to collapse unless the matter is dealt with promptly and vigorously by the Government. I know that Sir James Milne, an authority on transport—both road and rail—and also an Irishman with considerable contacts in this country, has been invited to advise the Government in relation to the reorganisation of our transport system, but I should like to think that before Sir James Milne starts on this job he would be told by the Government that they intended either to maintain the railway system at all costs or alternatively to abandon the railway system in favour of road transport. That is a question about which there can be a good deal of debate, but it is a question which must receive the immediate attention of the Government. What is at stake is whether or not we are to have a railway system. If you abandon the railway system you are up against a serious problem, the problem of building roads and making these roads safe for motor transport. The magnitude of that task was referred to very recently by Lord Glenavy when he addressed an extraordinary meeting of the Great Northern Railway Company in the Gresham Hotel. What he said on that occasion was this:—

"If the tons of millions of passengers and the millions of tons of goods now carried by the railways were dumped on to the existing highways, a huge programme of road construction and of reconstruction would be imperative to enable the resulting convoys of vehicles to proceed any faster than a crawl. At £80,000 per mile construction and £20,000 per mile reconstruction, the 500 miles of Great Northern Railway rails could not be substituted for less than £25,000,000."

Therefore, Lord Glenavy, the chairman of the company, considers that you must spend £25,000,000 on highways.

Mr. McGilligan

The Great Northern Railway.

Mr. Duffy

I am coming to that point—that portion of the Great Northern Railway in the Twenty-Six Counties. If that is the figure for the Great Northern Railway, the figure for the Córas Iompair Eireann system must be at least four times as great.

Mr. McGilligan

They have over 3,000 miles of rail.

Mr. Duffy

Therefore, the figure would be six times as great. In other words, it would take £150,000,000 for highways to replace the Córas Iompair Eireann system if it were abandoned, and £25,000,000 to replace that portion of the Great Northern Railway system which is in the Twenty-Six Counties. That is a total of almost £200,000,000; you must make allowances for alterations in estimates and plans as you proceed. It would take £200,000,000 to provide a highway system which will act as an alternative to the present railway system. Is not that a matter about which there should be immediate discussion? I am not thinking of discussing this from the political angle, whether in support of the Government or in opposition to the Government. This is a problem for the Irish people.

Mr. Hawkins

You are in the Government.

Mr. Duffy

I say it is not a matter for a political discussion. Whether it is Senator Hawkins or myself who is discussing this, we have got to face the fact that we are here, for the time being, speaking on behalf of the Irish people. It is our job to do our utmost to see that the Irish people get an effective transport system, that they get the transport system that is best suited to the country, and that it is provided under the best and most economical conditions. I am not arguing that you must maintain the railways or that you should substitute some other service for them. I am merely claiming that this is a matter to which every member of the House should address himself. Public bodies should be invited to express their opinions, not biased political opinions, but the expert opinion of the man who knows his job locally, and knows whether it is essential to the community in Connemara to have a rail system or whether something else could be done to give him transport which will be as effective and more economical. These are matters for discussion. They require attention now.

That brings me to one other point which has escaped notice for some considerable time. In all the discussions that we have—apart from passing events like relief schemes—regarding capital investment, we are always confronted with the means of getting money and the cost of money. We have been repeatedly told in this House by Ministers for Finance that there is plenty of money. I have no doubt that anybody who has good security and is prepared to pay the current rate of interest will get all the cash he wants, whether the project he has in mind is a good one or a bad one. I think we have got to look at it from another angle, from the angle of the community that must pay the interest and repay the loan. There is a very good illustration for us of what is involved in this problem in the report of the Electricity Supply Board for the last financial year.

The report was published two or three days ago and a copy sent to every member of this House. I draw attention to this fact: that the gross income of the Electricity Supply Board, that is, the total sum earned by the undertaking in the last financial year, was £3,886,000. I am giving round figures for convenience sake. How is that money spent or what is done with it? What did the Electricity Supply Board do with this £3,886,000? Let me state very briefly what they did with it. The operating expenses accounted for £468,311; maintenance and repairs absorbed £373,888; fuel, one of the most substantial items in the account, cost £863,028; supervision and local administration cost £414,579. the general administration of the concern cost £386,562, and there is the small sum of £8,766 for electricity purchased from Northern Ireland. Therefore, on raw materials, on labour, supervision and everything concerned with the running of the Electricity Supply Board there was an expenditure of £2,447,144. Interest on loans and the repayment of advances to the Minister and to local authorities involved an expenditure of £1,086,517, so that out of every pound earned by the Electricity Supply Board in 1947-48, 6/2 went for the service of debt.

Must we always go to the banks and to the stock exchange and ask them to lend us the credit of the State at whatever price that they like to charge? Governments in other countries have discovered that to be a very old and a very bad system, as old as Queen Victoria whose figure has been removed from the grounds of Leinster House in the last week. In New Zealand a Government does not go to the stock exchange or to the banks for the loan of credit. They create credit and charge for it such a rate of interest as they think fit. For housing, they charge 1¼ per cent., not, as their Finance Minister, Mr. Nash, has said, because they need to charge that precise sum, but because they want to use the interest derived from the new loans made to local authorities for the purpose of reducing the cost of houses built under the old regime.

I want to put this to the Minister for Finance, who is the keystone of the present Government. Whether this Government can do the things its constituent Parties believed it could do, and the things they promised to do, will depend entirely on the extent to which he is prepared and is able to break with the old tradition in finance. If he has got to be tied up with the financial system that has rocked other governments in this and other countries, these promises cannot and will not be fulfilled. If, on the other hand, the Minister is able to overcome the difficulties which confront him, and to introduce into his budgetary system a financial method which will leave the State master of the financial situation and rescue it from the shackles of the moneylenders, then I have no doubt that this can become a prosperous country, that there can be employment at good wages and under good conditions for all its people. I would like to think that the present Minister for Finance, who on a number of occasions made very courageous statements on this subject, will be the first person to show us that a monetary system can operate here which will make this country prosperous.

Mr. S. O'Farrell

Any Minister for Finance bringing in an Appropriation Bill will have to listen to exactly the same sort of talk that the present Minister for Finance has so patiently listened to; the only difference would be, that if the Government changed, the criticism would change from one side to the other, and those who approved one year would condemn next year and there would never be any change whatever in the type of criticism and type of approval. I listened as patiently as I could to all the old platitudes being uttered here time after time, and also in other places.

I heard Senators talking about certain systems and of certain people creating unemployment, as if it were possible to create unemployment. You cannot create unemployment. Unemployment is a negative thing. You can cause unemployment. You can create employment. If there is unemployment, as we know there is, it is of man's making. It is man's choosing that there should be unemployment. God himself put the penalty on mankind that they should work. He made it a rule of life that men should work, but we are living under a system which makes it impossible for a considerable number of people to find work. Our problem then is the same as that facing most countries of Western Europe, where some people have to be maintained at the lowest possible cost to the rest of the community. We are trying to decide how we will give the dog a bone so that the dog will not bite us. That is what it amounts to.

No matter what Government we have, I am convinced, until there is a change of plan and a change of system, there will be no change in the condition of some of our people. My generation was a generation that thought it had achieved freedom for this country. In effect, it achieved political freedom, but the outcome of that freedom was that we imposed upon ourselves shackles that we had endeavoured to break from our limbs when imposed by others. We accepted the British system in every detail, its legal system, its economic system, its social system and its pagan outlook. We are trying to work a pagan system in a Christian country and we complain when we suffer the consequences. I have never heard in any of the speeches that I have listened to during the past few years anybody talking of the rights of the people. All they tell us is about the law. The law of God gave us the right to live in our own country by our own work. It was man prevented men getting work. I am not criticising this Government. I am not criticising the Minister for Finance who is here to-day, because we are still trying to do the impossible, to bolster up an obsolete system, which has broken down in every country, has caused two wars in our time and may cause a third one.

We are trying to model our system on that of Britain, Germany and other countries that have facilities that we have not got. Up to this I have always voted with the Government, but I am not tied to the Government. When I came into this House I was not asked for any pledge. I gave no pledge. I think we are all free to criticise any Government and any policy, but when we criticise them it is not from the point of view of how we will benefit our Party, but how we will benefit the country.

Senator Mrs. Concannon talked about the rising cost of living. Everybody is aware of the rising cost of living. It keeps rising. From the cradle to the grave everything is costing more, and yet year after year we make plans or pretend to make plans of life along the same old lines. In view of Senator O'Brien's remarks, I made a calculation from the Estimates, and I find that crime is costing this country at least £19,000,000 a year. In the main, that crime is due either to poverty or avarice. If you lump together the various Votes, starting with Secret Service, costing £15,000 to keep some people from doing something the State thinks they should not do, the Garda, the prisons, the High Courts, the Supreme and other court systems, reformatories, industrial schools and then come to children's allowances, unemployment assistance, grants for the relief of distress, old age pensions, widows' and orphans' allowances, and other items, you find that £20,000,000 yearly is being paid by the people of this State because considerable numbers of the population have no employment, no property, and are depending on the State to keep them alive because the law of God that they should work for a living cannot be carried out.

I am not tied to this Government. I thought at first that the Government would not succeed so well as it has succeeded, because things were too hastily done. It is not that I am opposed to coalition or co-operation between different groups of Irishmen. I have always done what I could to advance it, but I felt that a little more time should be given to planning a policy that the Coalition Government would adopt, and that an approach might be made to the other Party that represents almost half the electorate to come in and plan with the smaller Parties the future of this country on lines in accordance with Christian policy. That was not done. Nevertheless, we have got this far, that instead of seven or eight rival groups, at least you have for the time being netted into one group many of the smaller Parties.

If we could get the co-operation of Fianna Fáil, and plan the future in accordance with national ideals and Christian principles, then we would be at the end of the Party system here, which is one of the inheritances we took over from the British Government. We accepted everything bad that the British Government ever imposed on us and imposed it on ourselves, including the Party system. We all know that there is no man in this House, any more than in the other House, who wants to see the Appropriation Bill rejected. Nobody here intends that it should be. Everybody knows that while the system, such as it is, continues, we must work within it and the State must get the funds and the Departments must get the money they require to carry on their activities. Therefore, it is nonsense to criticise the Government and to pretend that the Bill will be voted against when we all know that if there is a vote against it it is a mere gesture made in the knowledge that it will be ineffective.

If you did succeed to-morrow in throwing out the present Government, it would not concern me personally one atom. If I thought the present Government deserved to be thrown out, I would help in it, but I have not come to that conviction yet—I have come to that stage of cynical political belief that it would not matter a snap of the fingers who came in because the same old system, the same old policy would go on. Destitution would still be the lot of a great many of our people. Hardship, suffering and the lack of homes, and the lack of adequate food and clothing would still be the destiny of the children growing up and of the children yet to be born.

Look for one moment at our position. There are people who do not know where their food is to come from unless it comes through some charitable agency set up by the State, people who have no homes of their own, who will never have a home, who have not even the rent of a home unless it is given to them by a charitable organisation, people who are working and maintaining the State, who are willing to work and willing to live as decent Christian Irishmen and who cannot afford to pay the rent of a house that public bodies build for them out of the rates, that have to be subsidised.

Senator Duffy referred to the fact that we are paying interest on money. I wonder why we pay the interest. I do not pretend to be a financial expert. I never had more money than I could count in a very few minutes and carry in one pocket. I wonder why it is that the State has almost to go on its knees and beg money for national purposes from people whose money and property and very lives would be worthless if they had not the security of the State behind them. The very money that they lend to the Government has a value, because the Government and the people are behind it. The Government that gives that value to that money has to beg and borrow that money at excessive rates of interest.

If we would forget all the old arguments that we have been listening to and using in the past, if we would try to take a new view of life and say we are not going to continue, just because we are in the rut, along the lines we have followed, we might get somewhere and the fight for Irish freedom would be more fully justified than it has been so far. If I need one last argument in favour of changing our outlook and changing our policy, it would be this. I ask Senators to look anywhere they like in Europe to-day and to see where the policy that we are trying to bolster up and patch up and to maintain has led stronger and greater nations than we.

Mr. Summerfield

I am one of those who occupy very little of the time of the House, and I am somewhat diffident in following the two gloomy speeches to which we have just listened. I hope the state of the country is not as Senator O'Farrell has painted it. I leave his speech at that. I would not like it to be accepted that we take the fantastic figures that Senator Duffy quoted in relation to the railways as something that must inevitably happen. He spoke as though it is inevitable that the railway system, North and South, must be scrapped.

Mr. Duffy

I did not. I said the matter was one deserving consideration from all sides of the House, without any pre-judgment.

Mr. Summerfield

The Senator quoted a figure of £200,000,000. It was thrown out as an alternative to the retention of the railways. I do not like these fantastic figures. We remember the day we had "cabbage at 1d. retailed at 8d." These are the things that get the headlines. This £200,000,000 should not be quoted.

Mr. Duffy

I wonder did the Senator hear what I said.

Mr. Summerfield

That is what the Senator said.

Mr. Duffy

I say it is not.

Mr. Summerfield

I think the Senator will find it in the record. We all agree on the importance of transport. That would mean a separate debate, and, at this late hour, I do not intend to dwell at length on it. I think we should try to put before the Minister some questions appropriate to the appropriation account itself. We have got so used to this figure that we have accepted it. It is seventy odd million pounds in the whole community of 3,000,000. What every Senator ought to concentrate on is trying to help the Minister to see how we can get the best value out of that expenditure, if it is inevitable. I will be brief in my criticisms, but I would urge on the Minister that if the Government's mind on the much discussed short-wave station is not finally made up, that, from the point of view of national safety alone, that expenditure ought to be reconsidered. Even if the station is not put into use as was originally intended by its planners, if it was just got ready for use, even if it was leased to some commercial interest in the meantime, with the right of the nation to take it over in an emergency, I think a good case can be made for the expenditure on a short-wave station from a purely national point of view.

Mr. McGilligan

Why not make the case for it now?

Mr. Summerfield

I can make it at length, if you like.

Mr. McGilligan

Please. What is the case?

Mr. Summerfield

I am surprised that the Minister asks that at this late stage. It has been made and I will recapitulate some of the points. Surely the Minister does not seriously state that there is no case to be made, that if we were suddenly cut off from the rest of the world, as we were during the last war, we should not have some means of getting our viewpoint across to the outside nations?

Mr. McGilligan

To where?

Mr. Summerfield

The rest of the world takes us at our own valuation.

Mr. McGilligan

Where would you get your views across to?

Mr. Summerfield

If we had a short-wave station, and if it was open to the world——

Mr. McGilligan

Those are two big "ifs".

Mr. Summerfield

The Minister does not take cognisance of the millions of the Irish race abroad who would like that contact.

Mr. McGilligan

How can you get contact with them?

Mr. Summerfield

Is this to be a cross talk between the Minister and myself or am I to be permitted to make the remarks I intended to make?

Mr. McGilligan

I thought you were going to make the case for the short-wave station.

Mr. Summerfield

I have got it on record that I feel the expenditure that would be involved on the short-wave station would be well worth while. The Minister can get arguments for that from the debates in the Dáil and if he wants to continue the matter, on another occasion I will give him some, but I will leave the short-wave station at that for the moment.

Mr. McGilligan

With the case made?

Mr. Summerfield

That is, in your opinion. I want to make some points before we adjourn, in reference to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. We have a very desirable expansion of our telephone facilities but I seriously suggest that one of the first things that the Department should do is to give a better service to the existing telephone subscribers. It is a disgraceful thing, to get ten or 15 minutes delay trying to get the supervisor if you get no contact with 0. While I was in America, I wanted a long distance trunk call. I got it quicker than I could get a connection from here to my office. If it is possible to get these trunk connections over a long distance elsewhere, is it impossible for our subscribers to get a much better service than they are getting at present? I consider that criticism is justified when we are dealing with the appropriation account. I move the Adjournment of the debate.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

Mr. Summerfield

During my few remarks before tea, the Minister interrupted me so frequently, and, I feel, in so ill-tempered a manner, that he only added conviction to my previous belief that there was a very substantial case to be made for the retention and development of our short-wave radio station. The debates in the other House contained all the arguments, reasoned and carefully thought out, in favour of the project, but I want to protest against the frequency of the interruptions from the Minister. I think that the records of this House of what I said will show that, up to the point at which he interrupted me, I had made quite a reasoned and certainly a courteous suggestion that there was something for him and his Government to consider.

It is well to focus some attention on something that is disturbing because of its magnitude and which has happened in the last year or two, that is, the acquisition of real property in this country by non-nationals. Not only is that a danger from the national point of view, in that large numbers of people are coming in who might not be readily absorbed into our national comity, but the operations of these people in the open market are having their effect on the cost of living. The Irish national seeking to acquire a site or a building of any kind is up against the competition of people who have made money far more easily than he has. As a result, he has to pay a price which is out of all proportion to the value of the property. This has attained to such dimensions that it calls for the attention of the Minister and his Government.

Regarding social services, we are fairly united, thank God, on this point. To the degree that the country can afford it, our social services should be a model to the rest of the world. They are not that now. We are expending considerable sums of money, but I wonder whether the cost of administration is not out of proportion to the benefits received by those who need them. Could the whole of the social services not be co-ordinated to reduce the cost of administration? I also wonder whether we must accept the unemployment of physically fit people as something that must continue. Can we really afford unemployed physically fit people—and when I say "afford" I do not mean it in the monetary sense alone? There is nothing more terrible than to see a physically fit man idle. If his hands are idle, his thoughts are not—and it is the thoughts of such men that are causing the troubles of the world to-day, the thoughts of the unemployed man who feels he has a grievance against society. I am not suggesting that the Minister should provide more money for social services, but I wonder if, within the limits allowed, it would not be possible to plan works of national importance to which automatically a physically fit man, displaced from his ordinary avocation, might turn to find work at a decent wage and without any stigma of charity. That is well worth exploring and if, in the course of planning, it was found that some extra cost would have to be shouldered by the community the Minister would have the sympathy and support of all sections in finding the necessary finance.

Mr. Counihan

There are some small matters which I have advocated before without any success and which will not cost the Minister any money. One proposal will cost the ratepayers something, which we are prepared to pay; while another may put some useful money into the Minister's own pocket. I have advocated previously that in every village in Ireland where there is a chapel and school there should be a parish hall. I have put this forward time and time again. If we want to improve the amenities of rural Ireland this is one of the essentials we must look for. In the village near where I live there is no place where we can have a lecture or any sort of entertainment, meeting or discussion. I have been asked to establish a branch of Muintir na Tíre. We are quite satisfied to do so but we have no place to meet. We have a young farmers' club and the members have to go five miles to a Carnegie Hall to hold their meetings. We have a branch of the Red Cross Society and it has no place to meet except in the school. Whenever an inspector from the Department of Agriculture comes out to give a talk we have no place except the school and the manager and the teacher object to giving the school because the meetings are held late at night and they have no one to clean the place out. They also object to the school not being properly ventilated after meeting: there is usually a lot of smoking and a certain amount of dirt and dust created by the people who come in from the farms and from the country generally.

The farmers themselves are prepared to pay for these halls out of the rates but they can never succeed in getting anyone to move in this matter. If the Minister would be kind enough to put it up to his colleague in the Department of Local Government the county managers might be asked to take up the matter. Not only in County Dublin but in every county in Ireland there should be parish halls. The people have no place to go except to stand on the side of the road or up against the publichouse wall. There is another matter to which I wish to refer and which I have spoken about before on a few occasions. I think that every person handling public moneys in this country should have a fidelity bond. Looking at the papers occasionally I must admit that the number of people who go down and defraud is limited but unfortunately when any of these people do go down they create a great deal of hardship on others. In some cases people lose their whole life's savings. If it was insisted on that everyone handling public money should take out a fidelity bond it would mean very little to the individuals concerned. With everyone of them having to pay it would only cost a 1/- or 2/- or 2/6 per cent. and after the few years the charge could be suspended in the same way as we suspend our payments for insurance in connection with the export of cattle when we have a certain amount in the pool. If the Minister would be kind enough to put up these two proposals to the Ministers for Justice and Local Government, I am sure that something will be done about them. They are very essential. I am sure he can always be sympathetic when we are not asking for money from his Department.

Mr. O'Callaghan

Senator Counihan is always very practical. On this question of dance halls, or is it dance halls he referred to?

Mr. Counihan

Parish halls.

Mr. O'Callaghan

Well I hope the Senator will eliminate dancing, because I believe the people have gone dance mad. If Senator Counihan would be in charge of this hall himself everything would be all right but in a great many cases dancing goes on until the small hours of the morning and it is not the best thing in the world. Playing fields are also very desirable and I think that they are more important than dance halls. Most people in this country agree that agriculture is our main industry. Ninety per cent. of the wealth of the country is produced on the land by the people on the land and so I make no apology for saying a few words in connection with the development of agriculture. Agriculture is suffering from the accumulated wrongs of centuries. It has been bled white and if we are going to bring it back into its own money will have to be spent lavishly on it. People have been flying from the land because they find other places more productive and more to their liking. I had the opportunity of contrasting agriculture in some European countries with agriculture in this country and I regret to say that here in this country we are at least a century behind. I have no intention of blaming one Government here or another Government here. The wrongs that have been done to agriculture have been done, as I said before, over centuries.

Money should be spent lavishly on agriculture and money spent on agriculture would be reproductive. Although the Bill presented to us is big, I would not hesitate to advocate the spending of money on agriculture in one way and another. We have had some very good schemes—the farm improvements scheme, the rural improvements scheme and, lately, the farm buildings scheme. I do not know what the position with regard to these schemes at the moment is, but I would suggest to the Government that these schemes should be brought into operation immediately and that they should not hesitate to spend money in these directions, because, as I say, money spent in these directions will be reproductive.

Dairying is the cornerstone of agriculture and dairying is in a very bad way. I do not know how we are to resuscitate it, but I suggested to the Minister for Agriculture the introduction of good dual purpose dairy bulls— to import them, if necessary. He has done so in a small way, having imported, I think, about four, and I am sorry he has stopped there because we could do with 44. Dairying is becoming more difficult every day. People, for various reasons which are well known to everybody connected with agriculture, are getting out of dairying. One of the big snags is the difficulty of getting milking done. It is difficult to get the right type of cow, but, if we had the right type of bull, there would be no difficulty in getting the right type of cow. The first essential of successful dairying is a good type of cow and we cannot get that good type of cow, unless we have the proper type of bull.

Recently we had a great drive in connection with the provision of sanatoria, a very worthy and deserving drive, but it has often occurred to me that we should also do something to prevent the incidence of the terrible disease for the treatment of which these sanatoria are provided. In other countries, milk supplied in urban centres is always pasteurised, or the milk is taken from tuberculin-tested herds and the Government perhaps could do something along these lines. If it is so desirable to provide for the treatment of the disease, it is also desirable to prevent it, and the pasteurisation of milk would certainly prevent the spread of bovine tuberculosis and the tuberculin testing of dairy cows would eliminate animals with tuberculosis in their systems. The Government could perhaps do something practical in the matter by giving free veterinary services to those people who would be inclined to establish tuberculin-tested herds.

Another thing which is lacking, on dairy farms particularly, is a supply of water. There is a great need for water in rural Ireland and the people are crying out for water nearly everywhere. I am a member of the North Cork Board of Health and the board has received 50 or 60 applications for water supplies from all over the district. The providing of these supplies ought to be more a State charge than a board of health charge. If it remains a board of health charge, I think the finances of the board would be swamped, assuming that all the supplies demanded were provided. The Government could help at least in a small way, and, I think, an effective way, by giving a partial grant under the rural improvements scheme, as is given in other cases, for the development of these supplies, and a condition could be attached that the water so provided would be for the use of all the people in the area. That would be a means of helping those who help themselves and, in my opinion, is worthy of the serious consideration of the Government.

Seventy per cent.—I might almost say 90 per cent.—of the land of this country is hungry for phosphates. During the war, all manures were scarce and this was particularly so in the case of phosphatic manures. The war is over now and it should be possible to provide a sufficiency of these manures. I should think that 90 per cent. of the land should be deluged with phosphates. I had a field of wheat some time ago and I knew there was something wrong with it. It was apparent to everybody that there was something wrong, but I did not know what it was. Eventually, I decided to get the soil tested. It was tested at the local sugar factory where facilities for this purpose are provided for all the farmers, and, to my amazement, the field was found to be deficient in phosphates. When that field was deficient in phosphates, with the crop suffering rather badly, the condition must be very general and very serious.

I should like to see a little more being done in the matter of forestry. We had extensive floodings during the harvest of 1946 which did a considerable amount of damage to the harvest and to the towns along our rivers. If we had a sufficiency of growing timber, it would have held up the rainfall and lessened the flooding considerably. There is not much inducement to any land owner to plant trees because the price he can get for the growing tree is very little—something like 7/6 per ton. If we are to encourage forestry, if we are to encourage land owners to take an interest in forestry, that state of affairs will have to be altered and education in forestry will have to be provided.

Senator Duffy suggested that we should make some contribution towards the transport problem. That is an awful problem. I have heard it suggested that the railways should be scrapped and the whole business of transport carried on by motor services. That seems to me to be a very farfetched idea, but I have heard it expressed, and the man who gave expression to it believed it was a good idea. Some time ago, a deputation came to me from a district in which there is a light railway which has been closed for some time. They put their case before me and asked if I could help to get the railway reopened. I put it to them that it lay with themselves to do that and I suggested that, if they went for large scale beet growing and provided beet traffic for the railway, the railway would reopen automatically. I do not think I convinced those people who came to me, but, if people want a service of that kind, they must provide the materials for that service. I conclude by saying that the nearer the people keep to the land and the more people we can keep on the land, the better it will be for the State.

Captain Orpen

I want to confine my remarks to Vote 29—agriculture. I do this for two reasons, one the importance of agriculture to us in this country, and, secondly, because, in a time of world scarcity of food, questions of food scarcity are exercising most of our attention. The Minister for Agriculture, when introducing his Estimate in the Dáil, rather based his ideas of production on the high productivity of grass land. He pointed out that, in a climate like ours, high productivity of grass land would seem to suit conditions here, but if we are to judge from some of the speeches that followed it seems to me that grass, as a crop, was not fully understood by some of the speakers. Some seemed to think that what the Minister had in mind was a return to ranching, and that his proposal was nothing more than going back 25 or, possibly, 100 years. Now, grass as a crop is something very different from the way grass is looked on in this country on most farms. Grass, as a crop, entails a great deal of tillage, a sufficiency of plant nutrients and a host of other things with which I am not going to trouble the House, except to say that the management of the grazing animal, in relation to the grass crop, is of vital importance.

Let me here interpolate what I mean by ranching, because I fear there are a lot of mistaken ideas about what it means. Ranching, as I see it, means using, as best you can, the vegetation that survives from the management that it receives. One of the first things you learn when you are trying to improve grass is that what you put into the field does not necessarily appear five years afterwards in the field. In other words, the grass sward is the survival, and what survives depends on how you manage it. Perhaps I might give a short definition of this ranching. It is a system of grass management, where the naturally surviving vegetation is made use of to feed, as best it can, the grazing animal during the summer.

That is not what the Minister was talking about. He talked about highly nutritious grass—grass as a crop where the ley is a factor in the rotation—and is of prime importance. It entails a very considerable amount of tillage though the emphasis has altered from the corn crop to the ley. The grass sward is also a survival of vegetation resulting from a combination of factors, the chief ones being the environment, the nutritious status of the soil and the management of the grazing animal.

Now, it is very unfortunuate that in this country we have not progressed of late years in agricultural matters quite as rapidly as one would have hoped. While it is true that, in some countries, the technique of grass land management has made rapid strides, in this country it is in its infancy, and it is unfortunately true that we do not know for certain to what extent conditions here may modify a technique found satisfactory in other countries. I urge most strongly on the Minister that we should find an answer to that problem. It would take some time, but it is worth the doing, and, if it costs money, I hope the Minister for Finance will provide the necessary assistance.

Recently, I was fortunate enough to be able to join the British Grassland Association in their summer tour of Northern Ireland. I went over a farm there which had some of these modern grasses, a pretty large farm of bad land, on which were carried out controlled experiments which may be of interest to Senators. There was a bunch of 100 cattle put on this land on the 15th March last year. They were fed to the 15th September. In the first two months, these cattle gained just a fraction under 4 lbs. per head per day live weight, and the total live weight gained over the six months was a fraction over 4 cwt. weight.

In order to try and get an idea of the grass growth on the land that was feeding these cattle, each plot was grazed, the bunch of cattle was weighed weekly, and a dry matter check was estimated from cages randomised in the plots. An experiment on that scale is very interesting.

An Cathaoirleach

It is very interesting, but I would like to have it related to the Appropriation Bill.

Captain Orpen

I am doing so, if I may say so.

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair does not think so.

Captain Orpen

I am asking the Minister for Finance to make available facilities in order to see to what extent our grass can be improved. I think there can be a great improvement in it. I understand, the Minister for Agriculture contemplates making better use of grass. Can we do so until we find out exactly how to do it? That is my contention. I also urge the Minister for Agriculture, if he is permitted to carry out any of these experiments, that he should have special regard to the economic aspects. I do not like always to trust to visual measurements. You want something very much more convincing than merely to say that one thing is better than another. We must measure it. The consumer is always asking for cheap food, but it is being left to the farmer to try to find out how to make food cheap. I say that we should have, possibly in our agricultural colleges or on special farms, places where we could investigate impartially which measure was doing a certain job and producing results that were most economical. As I see it, the farmer's job is to produce food. How best to do so should be the function of specialist investigators.

The Estimates for the Department of Agriculture seem to show that the cost of administration rather overshadowed the cost of maintaining technicians. It is undesirable that we should go all out to administer something that technical people are not quite convinced is being done in the best way. I suggest that we want very much more research into agriculture and very much more accuurate technical knowledge. Agricultural problems to-day are totally different from what they were 20 years ago. The farmer can only learn in the costly manner of trial and error, and mostly by error. I suggest that there is a cheaper way of doing so. Set apart qualified people who will try to determine how best a thing can be done and leave out a lot of the guesswork.

Now that we have achieved a certain amount of agricultural security for the next four years is not this the time to devote attention towards solving some of our technical problems? Having done all that, there is the immense job of putting new ideas across to the farmer. We have an advisory system but, as worked to-day, unfortunately, it usually reaches the man who least requires advice, while the man who should ask for assistance seldom does so. I suggest that we should go several steps further. We know the Minister's ideas about the administration of farms, but we want to test out any new idea before we start to administer it. The testing out of a new idea might form part of the work of agricultural colleges. The testing out of some new method might take ten years, but it would add interest to the work of an agricultural college if the students there knew they were taking part in something that might ultimately prove of immense value to the nation.

Before we can test anything we want to find out what we are going to test. It is on experimental work which shows promise that we must make tests. Unfortunately, our experimental work is extremely limited. Senator O'Brien asked for more fundamental research. I say that we are too small a country to afford much fundamental research, but money spent on applied research in agriculture—and I do not speak for anything else—would be well spent and would earn good dividends. I suggest that we must face the fact that accurate knowledge of how best to do things on our farms is insufficient. If we are to achieve the hoped for substantial fourfold increase that some Senator expected—which I thought was a very optimistic figure— and got instead a 10 per cent. increase in the next ten or 25 years, that would be worth talking about. Production has steadily gone down or has remained static over a long period.

What I feel is hampering our agriculture is an insufficiency of accurate knowledge. We have generalised knowledge and a sort of generalised leaflet, that travels wherever the post goes. That is a very dangerous thing, because farmers are apt to think that what is said in a leaflet applies everywhere. What he should know is the facts concerning his own farm. That knowledge cannot be put into a leaflet because every farmer differs, the soil differs and environment conditions differ. Hence, we have not enough peripatetic advisers. I wonder if it is always noted that if you want to reach a farmer to-day on matters affecting agricultural work in rural Ireland there is very little use in writing articles in the newspapers. I have done that myself but no farmer reads the daily Press. He listens to the radio. I do not think we use the radio sufficiently. Admittedly, if you want to speak to farmers in the summer, you may have to use the radio rather late at night but still I feel that we are not making sufficient use of it.

May I give one illustration of something we can all see in our new research station and that the Minister referred to in his opening speech in the other House? Some 25 years ago in Australia, the farmers asked for a corn drill with which they could sow fertiliser along with the corn in order to save going over the land twice. The manufacturers complied and such an instrument was made. Quite accidentally, however, it was observed that when you put phosphatic fertilisers in with the seed there was an enormous saving in the quantity of fertiliser used. It took a world war and an acute shortage of phosphates for that accidental discovery in Australia to be availed of outside that country. In our research station you will observe the economy consequent on putting phosphates close to the seed and, no doubt, you will also notice that the people who sell phosphates still say "broadcast it and put in double the quantity." It reminds me of Mr. Colman who made his money out of the mustard left on the plate.

Senators know that potash is useful to the farmer and that it is becoming a very scarce commodity. An experiment was carried out with raspberries. Half a dozen closely related raspberries were in a row. A manurial experiment was carried out in the usual way. Some show a marked deficiency consequent on having no potash, while others in the same row seem unaffected, showing, as we think, that the demand for this particular fertiliser varies in one species. Suppose that happens in an important crop, which also demands potash, such as potatoes. Suppose we can breed a potato that demands less potash than the ordinary ones we use to-day.

This whole question of fertility is bound up with our ability to buy fertiliser. The quantity that we require to restore this country to anything like high productivity is so immense that it would take years to do it. Therefore, any discovery that reduces the amount necessary to get crops growing properly is something gained. It now appears possible that, with this combined drill, we can put in a little and put it in often, and can achieve crops to-day and need not wait until such time as we can bring up the nutritional status of the land to its proper content.

It may be said that I am outside the scope of the Appropriation Bill. I do not think so. I think it is a most important matter. If we can achieve increased production within our national resources and get our agricultural requirements, not in one great quantity, but a certain amount each year, we will have achieved something that ten years ago was not thought to be possible.

I am suggesting that we want more research, more experiments and tests. I am suggesting that State funds are essential for this purpose. There is no short road. Epoch making advances occur very seldom. Mendel's paper on plant breeding was buried for 50 years. We must face the fact that we are years behind the times. From an agricultural point of view, almost any western European country is ahead of us and yet we, as a nation, depend on agriculture. What has happened is that, mistakenly, far too much has been left to the farmer to do. His job is to produce the goods, not to find out how to do something new. That is up to others. It is interesting to make a calculation. The Estimate under Research is £10,000. This includes only the seed testing and Ballinacurry. A simple calculation will show that we are spending £10,000, which represents only .25d. per acre, in research. In veterinary research we spend a matter of £21,000, under 1d. per annum. That does not seem extravagant. Admittedly, certain research has been carried on under grants to various colleges and universities. These figures show that not enough attention is paid to research.

Regarding agricultural subsidies, I would suggest that they are really consumer subsidies. Surely an agricultural subsidy is money paid to the farmers for a commodity over and above that which they can obtain from elsewhere. I do not think there are any agricultural subsidies to-day, but rather consumers' subsidies. I think it was Senator Hawkins who said that the price of fertilisers had gone up in the last 12 months. He evidently does not buy much fertilisers, as the price has gone down—or else I have paid less for them.

In a time of difficulty like this, we have to take risks. Advances are made only by the adventurous. If we are to achieve a substantially augmented output, for which we all hope, we must increase our technical knowledge and then put it across to the farmer. He will do the rest if he is guided and helped in the right manner. I have not asked for a subsidy and I do not believe in trying to subsidise agriculture, but I believe in giving it all the technical advice that can be given. I add the rider that the technical advice must have been proved to be accurate under the conditions that obtain in this country.

Mr. J.T. O'Farrell

For some months past an abnormal amount of discussion has taken place on the vexed question of Partition, and I certainly do not want to add just one more to the spate of speeches on the subject, except briefly to note one peculiar omission from the flood-tide of oratory which has been let loose on this and on other lands; that is, any direct appeal of a friendly character to the majority in Northern Ireland who stand for the maintenance of the Border.

It seems to me that in cave-men style, most of the speakers have proceeded to woo the Northern maiden with a cudgel. A song popular at the present time says: "Try a little tenderness," a form of advice that might not be out of place in the approach to this difficult problem. The problem is not made easier by a certain type of oratory with which, unfortunately, we are only too familiar, and which is calculated to embitter relationships and make unity impossible except on the basis of force. All the people of Northern Ireland are our people, regardless of their religious beliefs or political convictions. We want to win them, if we can, by persuasion rather than take them by force or coercive methods of any kind, whether by Britain or elsewhere. Hence, I feel that we should address ourselves more to them and less to the world at large, a world which has troubles enough of its own without being burdened by ours, too.

We should, I suggest, try and forget as much history in this respect as possible, and induce them to do likewise, concentrating on the fact that there is here a problem for statesmanship which can only be satisfactorily or permanently solved on the basis of mutual agreement and in an atmosphere of goodwill. I know there is a temptation to go into the circumstances in which the border came about and the abuses which have developed as a result of its creation, but merely telling this story a thousand times over until our audiences have become sick and tired of hearing it, does not seem to be getting us very far. However it came, the border is there.

Let us not misdirect ourselves into the belief that we are the only people with a problem of this kind. Minority problems have been and are the bane of many countries. Quite recently the United States, acting in close association with Russia, played a predominant part in enforcing partition on Palestine, a little country about the size of Wales. Every Indian patriot must have regretted the partition of that country. In each case expediency and not principle was pleaded in justification. Even the example of the evils of Partition in Ireland was not sufficient to prevent either Palestine or India from being divided up. It must be obvious to any student of history that the hoped-for unity of both Palestine and India will ultimately come by agreement from within rather than by political, economic or other pressure from without. So-called unity brought about by force is not unity but conquest of one side by the other, and the wounds it inflicts take generations to heal. The fact that we have an unanswerable case should not cause us to lose our tempers or our patience just because its strength is not admitted by the other side to the controversy. They may believe as firmly in their case as we in ours, and men do not necessarily fight for a good cause but rather because they think it is good.

The recital of fundamental principles is a pleasing form of oratory, but we know that, in practice, fundamental principles do not always prevail, even in the best regulated societies. The American Declaration of Independence says that "All men are born free and equal and entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Ask the coloured folk of the Southern States how this high-sounding declaration of fundamental principle operates in practice. The Indian people demand freedom for India, but have not yet conceded it in practice to the 80,000,000 Untouchables. We had President Wilson's 14 points and in later years the Atlantic Charter, but everywhere men have interpreted these documents to suit themselves. To-day, the world has probably more problems unsolved than ever before in history.

Now, have we done all we might have done by way of direct approach to the leaders of the majority in the Six Counties? I would like to think that we have; and if we have I think that the appropriate Minister at least should say so, because I think it would strengthen our case. If we have not there are many matters of mutual interest that might usefully be the subject of conference and discussion between Ministers on both sides of the border, such as hydro-electric development, transport, and so on. I feel that we might even go so far as to give tariff preference to manufacturers in the North able to give us goods that we require. You would create there a number of vested interests for unity and eventually when unity does come their goods will be placed on the market here without tariffs. The more contacts we have and the more matters on which we can get agreement the more closely we draw together and the more favourable will become the atmosphere for discussing partition itself between the two parties most vitally concerned. In view of the very considerable exchange of goods between North and South it seems strange that there should be no trade or consular representative from Eire in Belfast or from Northern Ireland in Dublin.

We certainly have representatives in countries where our interests are not 1 per cent. of what they are in Northern Ireland. I know it will be said that this argument would mean giving recognition to Northern Ireland as a separate State, but surely that is rather a childish type of argument and one in keeping with the idea that by calling it "the Six Counties" we are serving the cause of unity. The sad fact remains that the Border is there and it does not matter a traneen what we call the territory north of the Border. Generally speaking, I believe the cause of unity would be enormously served if we talked less about it and worked more for it in a practical way. Many of those doing the speech-making on the subject constitute one of the biggest obstacles to the elimination of the Border. Their threats and their truculence merely stiffen the opposition to unity and give arguments of a valuable nature to its opponents. It is only the utterly defeated in war or poltroons in peace who submit to threats.

Neither of these considerations applies in the case of the Border. There have entered into the campaign on the side of unity many whose sincerity is deeply suspect, the type that always tries to fish in troubled waters wherever they may be found. Whatever their motives, they have left the position worse than they found it. I wonder how much is gained by emissaries, whether self-appointed or otherwise, going abroad to other countries to speak to the people there on this subject. How many countries give "two hoots" about it in the present state of the world? Judging by reports in certain newspapers, we were given to understand that Mr. de Valera swept the United States from coast to coast. Yet at the Democratic convention in Philadelphia a few days ago a very modest declaration on the problem, a very mild plank in the democratic programme, was turned down by an overwhelming majority. At the same time the Jews were able to snaffle both the Republican and Democratic conventions for their cause.

How much do we advance or retard the ideal of unity by indulging in statements such as made by Mr. de Valera when Taoiseach, speaking in Limerick on March 5th, 1944, when he declared: "We will have to get rid of the English language", regardless of the fact that by so doing he would deprive the majority of his own Party of any medium of expression? The present Ministers are certainly making a more realistic approach to the problem and they should be left to carry on the work without interference from self-constituted leaders, no matter how important these may consider themselves. It is a difficult and dangerous task and at any time might engender conflict if persons without authority persisted in seeking to do what Ministers alone should be entrusted with. There is one direction in which the present Government seems to be following the lead of their predecessors and in connection with which it is difficult to be happy. It is the declaration to the effect that we must concentrate almost entirely on rights with little regard for international responsibilities until such time as this, the last of our international grievances, is adjusted to our satisfaction.

That sounds a bit petulant and undignified. If each nation refused to accept any international responsibilities until the last of its grievances, vis-a-vis other nations, or the last dispute it had with any other nations, was settled we would have little or no inter-state or international relationships at all. The whole thing sounds like a specious excuse for running away from responsibility whilst claiming all our rights. I do not think we are advancing our cause by that line of action. I take it we all desire to bring unity about in a manner that will leave no aftermath of bitterness calculated to poison the wells of political thought and opinion for a generation or more. That being so, I would suggest that our Government look more North and less East or West for the ultimate solution. It may take a long time, longer than we like to wait, and it may require statesmanlike patience in order to achieve success, but if and when success comes it will be much more satisfying and more lasting than anything achieved by coercion. The present position brought about by force has failed, and any attempt to remedy it by force is equally doomed to failure.

Mr. Denis Burke

Reference was made to-day to unemployment and I think some answer should be made to the criticism in that respect. I believe the system of registration has changed somewhat during the last 12 months. I understand that the valuation rate was increased by about 100 per cent., with the result that the number of people who can register for unemployment assistance is very much greater. I think the Minister might be in a position to give us some accurate figures in regard to the number of employable people who are unemployed. I was a member of a court of referees for many years, and most of the people who came before us hardly ever got a job. It is unfortunate that in every country you will have a certain number of people who are unemployable either because they are invalids or for some other reason. At any rate they cannot be made useful citizens. There is another aspect of this matter. Girls leaving their employment to be married are entitled to register and are classified as unemployed.

I think the country would be well served if we could get the total number of the really employable people registered in the exchanges, and also if we could have the number of people who hold property and who are entitled to claim unemployment assistance set out separately. We would then have truer picture of the problem we have to deal with, because unemployment is an evil in any civilised society. We must have some in a free society, but we ought to try to keep the evil as small as possible. The Opposition people and others are inclined from time to time to make capital out of these figures, no matter what Government is in, and for that reason if the method of compiling the figures could be made more realistic, it would be for the benefit of everybody and help us to grapple with the problem.

Senator Duffy referred to transport. That is an important matter from the point of view of agriculture, because if we have not got a cheap and efficient system of transport for the carriage of manures and the many other products of the land, such as cattle, wheat, beet and so on, we are not going to progress, either agriculturally or industrially. The present stock market value of every £100 invested in the railways, when they were established, is only £3 6s. 8d. I know many people who, having put £100 into the railways, now have £3 6s. 8d. worth of value. Most of them are not sorry they lost it, because they feel that they invested in what at the time was a great Irish industry, an industry which everybody said would make this country a great country. Railway building was of as much importance in its day as electrical development is in this day, and everyone who invested in the railways felt they were doing something patriotic.

Many people in the past said—and I commend this to Senator Duffy and his friends—that the people who had their capital in the railways were getting too much out of it. That capital is now gone. I lost something in it and I say, thank God it has gone, because the bogey about capital has now gone for all time. The main people with an interest in the railways now are the labour people who will have to set themselves to making a good job of it, to some extent, for themselves. We know that there are many other problems and it is for all of us to get together and solve this particular problem in a realistic spirit.

Any amount of schemes have been suggested for the farmers, but the scheme the farmer wants more than anything else is a scheme under which he will be allowed to get on with his business without too much interference from anybody. With regard to education generally, I believe the Minister for Education should bend his efforts towards educating farmers' sons and daughters into a liking for their own avocation rather than to give them an industrial or commercial bias in their education. It would be a good thing for the country, if that were done. It is a better avocation than any other, but many of the teachers and people connected with the vocational schools have suggested that other occupations are nobler and more to be sought after than that of having to work late hours, six or seven days a week, in wet and fine weather. Without the people who are prepared to be self-sacrificing enough to do that sort of work, and who believe that, in doing it, they are doing more for the nation than they would be doing in other avocations, I do not think we will have a return to the land. We may not be called on in this generation to be soldiers, but the people with an agricultural education, the people who are prepared to milk the cows on seven days a week, are the real heroes and we ought to pay them a tribute as such.

There has also been reference to valuations and I have often wondered if Government Departments are not to some extent trying to force a revaluation on the country, because it seems to me, in urban areas at any rate, that when places are revalued the valuations bear no relation whatever to the valuations of other hereditaments which seem to have exactly the same type of accommodation. It appears that so many anomalies are created that at some time a revaluation of the whole country will be forced upon us. I do not know whether that is good, because if one valuation in a town bore a proper relation to another valuation, and if the rates went up very high, it would be the same for everybody, but at the moment some instruction appears to be sent from the Valuation Office that valuations may be fixed without any relation whatever to the valuations of other hereditaments, which creates in the minds of some people a feeling of inequitable treatment. People expect from Governments just and fair treatment, so that if the Minister has any powers in this respect, I ask him to instruct the Valuation Office to see to it that one valuation bears a true relation to others in similar areas. If the Minister can meet the points I have put up, it will be to the advantage of most of the people in the State.

Mr. O'Dwyer

When we discussed the Finance Bill some weeks ago, I took the opportunity to point out the seriousness of several economies that were being proposed by the Government which I thought were very dangerous in view of the present situation. I referred particularly to the Army Estimates and the reduction carried out in them. The past few weeks have shown what a mistake it was to cut down the Army Estimates, in view of the present situation and the darkening clouds over Europe. In this connection, I was surprised and pained to read that the Taoiseach, in the Dáil the other day, said that all the Government's plans were based on a continuation of peace. That was very startling in view of the fact that every Government in Europe to-day is basing its plans on the inevitability of war. If we are right, they must all be wrong, but the startling thing is that, supposing they are all right and we are wrong, the time is rapidly passing. If the Government are basing their plans on the continuance of peace, at a time when the Minister for Defence should be preparing the Army and preparing a scheme of defence, at a time when the Minister for Industry and Commerce should be laying in stocks of raw materials and at a time when the Minister for Agriculture should be endeavouring to lay in stocks of food, I say that it is a very dangerous situation for the country.

Several speakers have referred to the necessity for additional subsidies and improvement in agriculture. There is one branch of agriculture which is indeed in need of very serious attention as the House will readily acknowledge, that is, dairying. It is the branch of agriculture on which our whole prosperity depends more than any other, and it is the branch which seems most likely to be almost totally eliminated within a short time. Unlike tillage and other branches of agriculture, there are in respect of the dairying industry influences at work which will be very difficult to overcome, and which, if not overcome, must eventually result in the almost total elimination of the industry.

It is too late now to go into the matter fully, but the Government would be very well advised to look seriously into the position of that industry. The previous Government did a great deal for it, but the situation has rapidly grown worse. It is a matter chiefly of labour, the difficulty of getting people to milk cows—much the same difficulty as was experienced in the coalmines of England. It is hard and badly-paid work and, naturally, people wish to get away from it.

Nevertheless, the situation is that the dairying industry is dying out year by year. It is decaying rapidly. Drastic steps will have to be taken to arrest its decay. However much we may declare against subsidies, everyone I think must admit that Irish agriculture is suffering from a deficiency of capital. How could anybody expect a businessman to carry on if he had not sufficient capital? It is foolish to think that agriculture can ever be in a prosperous state until capital is made available for it. If the dairying industry is to be revised steps will have to be taken to make capital available for it. Otherwise there can be no progress. The price which the dairy farmer gets for his produce is not at all comparable to that which people in other branches of agriculture get for their commodities. There is also the question, so far as dairying is concerned, that labour can never be enticed back to this work. It will have to be replaced by machinery. The Government should see that the provision of milking machines is subsidised. Help should also be given for their installation and management. Unless something is done along these lines the dairying industry cannot carry on.

For example, in the creameries we have every kind of machinery. Men have been highly trained to operate these machines. If dairying is to be restored advances of money will have to be made available to enable people to buy dairy cattle. It is the shortage of capital that is responsible for the fact that we have thousands of small farms on which there is family labour but no milch cows. The owners of farms have not the money to buy the cows. An advance of money to those people would enable them to get into production. There may not be the same difficulty in the case of the larger farms. The only solution for the labour problem on farms is the provision of machinery, which will have to be heavily subsidised. Machines purchased by some of the creameries in my area about two years ago have proved highly satisfactory. I hope that the Minister will look into these matters before the end of the year, so that the necessary steps may be taken to put the dairying industry on a sound footing.

Mr. McGee

I would be strongly opposed to saying a word of encouragement on behalf of many of the schemes that have been advocated by Senators, except perhaps the one that was put forward by Senator O'Callaghan. I endorse what he said. It is not the first time in the last ten or 15 years that both of us, sitting on opposite sides of the House, have made our contribution to debates here. It is strange that, even though we differ politically, we should advocate the same thing, or, as they say in the army: "Stand back as you were before you enlisted". I am afraid that in the last ten or 15 years we have not made that progress that either Senator O'Callaghan or myself would desire. I find here a sum of £370,000 to be devoted to university education, and £52,000 for the Academy of Higher Studies. There was more money to be spent on a shortwave station and on Constellations. With all these big sums of money before me, I think of the parish area in which I have lived all my life. We have there about 105 houses, and despite the Constellations and all the rest, in only seven of them is there any sanitary accommodation. A new university is to be erected, so that if some of the inhabitants in the homes of my parish area come to the university they will find there every amenity that modern science can provide.

Professor Stanford

What new university is the Senator referring to?

Mr. McGee

There is to be an additional building to the new university. Did the Senator not see what Professor Tierney advocated last week, and the necessity there was for it?

Professor Stanford

That is a very different thing from what the Senator said—a new university.

Mr. McGee

There is to be an addition to the university building.

Professor Stanford

I am glad to have that clarification from the Senator.

Mr. McGee

I do not think the country ever sanctioned expenditure for an Academy of Higher Studies. I never heard a case made for it on any political platform, or that the expenditure incurred in connection with the various schemes for education, or the universities, ever received popular favour in any quarter in rural Ireland. I think that all this calls for serious consideration on the part of the Government, and that if the taxpayers in the rural areas are to maintain their position there must be, to my mind, a reduction on this class of expenditure.

There is a bit of a racket going on in the country at the moment. Attempts are being made to see that labour on the land is to be paid at the same rate as labour in industrial concerns. If labour is to be held on the land, then we must see to it that there is a levelling up all round. Those of us who derive our means of livelihood from the land are not in a position to provide theatres and picture houses for those who work on the land. These amenities are available for industrial workers. As I say, there should be a levelling up in respect of income-tax, because it is out of their profits that the employers in the cities and the towns have been able to provide these things for their workers. I think the time has come when we should go slow. We have many types of schools in the country and millions of pounds are being spent on education. You have competition among students to get into the universities and to remain in them in after life as professors. I think the Government should examine these things very keenly. Attempts to improve the condition of the rural community have been very few. It must be remembered that in the Act of 1903 it was held out to the farmers that in the year 1959 all rents would cease. I wonder what is the position now. I do not say that this Government can do it at once, but it would be an ideal solution. Not a great deal has been done to keep our rates in keeping with the rates across the water or across the Border. These are matters that weigh against us.

It has been stated in the other House with a great deal of truth that for the past two years the sum of £2,000,000 was deducted from the barley growers and presented to Messrs. Guinness and their shareholders by way of the fixed price. I wonder if it would be possible for the present Government this year— I know they are doing it next year—to give us something like the market value and something that the brewers would give for barley. It would be a very great advantage. There is the necessity to produce cheap food, but there are certain products that are really luxury products. A good price for barley will not increase the cost of living.

Mr. Hawkins

Will it not increase the cost of beer, which was a luxury a few weeks ago?

Mr. McGee

No. I have a very definite answer to that. It will not. Ten shillings per barrel would make a great difference to the barley-producing communities and it has been withheld, and it was not denied in the other House that it was withheld. It was stated by Deputy Sweetman that £2,500,000 has been deducted over the past five or six years from the fixed price. If I am not mistaken, the Minister for Agriculture stated that he would be very pleased to get 700,000 barrels at 55/- a barrel. If the present Government could do something along those lines, it would be a great help.

In a debate not so long ago the question of racing was raised and the question of an extra tax on betting. I question the wisdom of that. The price of beef, mutton, pork and other products affects the consumer. That does not apply to racing. A properly-run stud farm is a great employer in the rural community. The money that is devoted to the development of racing helps the rural community. It may be said that that might lead to too much gambling, but people do things that might be worse, having regard to the amount of money involved and the amount of employment created. It has been suggested that the Government should see to it that the National Army should get more to do in association with racing and perhaps control it altogether. Of course, that is a matter that needs some little consideration, but it is a matter that might be explored with possible advantage to the community.

In connection with the agricultural community in general, I would impress upon the Minister the desirability of increasing the agricultural grant. At one time derating was advocated from various political platforms, but when the people got into office nothing further was done about it. The idea has been created amongst the people that the Government is a Dublin-run concern, the same as the last Government, and that the last Government was the same as the first, and so on. There is evidence of enthusiasm in regard to this matter now, and if we can get Deputy Dillon going on it he may do something to see to it that the old farmers and labourers on the land will be the aristocrats of this country, as they would be entitled to be by tradition, their names being on the tombstones for 600 or 700 years. They are satisfied to live without limousines and detached villas. In many cases they are living in the same house where their ancestors were born. The people in rural Ireland can be made happy and contented if some consideration is given to their position.

I should take this opportunity of expressing the gratitude of my county council to the present Minister for Local Government for the assistance he gave us the other day. We will owe a greater debt of gratitude when we get the Shannon scheme that has been so long delayed. I would impress upon the Minister that every penny of relief in the rates on land, in a community where the population is stationary, will be money well spent.

Mr. Douglas

It is inevitable that the debate on the Appropriation Bill is of a somewhat unsatisfactory character, particularly in the Seanad, where we have only one Minister who can, if he likes, deal with the other Departments, but probably will not be prepared to accept responsibility for the administration of the various Departments. For that reason I had almost decided not to take any part in the debate but there were one or two remarks made which I do not think I ought to let pass. I think Senator O'Dwyer is completely wrong if he thinks the nations of Western Europe are basing their present economy on war. There is intense fear that there may be war. From anything I can read and the contacts I have had, and I have been on the Continent this year and have met quite a number of people in responsible positions, the conviction is that no country in Europe, small or large, is in a position in which it could base its economy on war and that if there is to be a war, it can only be done by united action and by united preparation. It is easy to talk about Joseph and the time of Pharaoh, and it is easy to talk about preparing for a war which may or may not come, but is there any Senator or Minister that has the remotest idea of how that war might come or what our position might be in it? Is there any Minister or any person in public life who knows, if there is war to-morrow— and the only thing people are afraid of is a war between Western Europe and the East—how it will affect us? Can you even make a guess? Can you say you could, or ought to be, or should be, or would be neutral?

If we are going at this particular stage to adopt what, not only Senator O'Dwyer, but certain other Senators on the opposite side have in various hints indicated they think should be the policy, to proceed on the basis that there is certain to be a war within the next few months, what it simply means is, we are going to destroy the possibility of the rehabilitation of this country by adopting a war basis. I think that kind of panic would be fatal and I do not believe that if Fianna Fáil were in power to-day they would adopt it. I may be wrong in that but I do not believe they would. A responsible Government, while keeping its eye open and saying very little of what it may see in the way of danger, must endeavour to see that in the meantime the ordinary people can carry on on as decent a standard of living as they can, that business will be maintained, particularly, that agriculture will be developed to the greatest extent and as quickly as we can—and everybody knows it cannot be done very speedily. That is the commonsense preparation because it is a preparation to enable people to live. They will live better with such a preparation, if there is peace, and if there is war they will not be very much worse off for the fact that that was the policy.

If, on the other hand, you adopt a war mentality, go on spending, spending with little regard to what effect it will have on inflation or the cost of living or anything else, then we are making calamity certain. I am extremely glad that there has been no indication, at any rate, so far, that that is going to be the policy of the Government.

I do not want to make little of the danger of war, but I do not believe that it should be regarded as in any sense inevitable, but, if there is a danger, that danger to a large extent is due to disunity, difficulty of co-operation and uncertainty. Thanks to some extent to what is commonly called the Marshall Plan, thanks to the fact that there is now a fair amount of co-operation between the 16 nations, there are very good grounds for hope that the war which I do not believe anyone on either side of the iron curtain wants, can be averted. Certainly I think it would be lunacy for us to start now basing our economy on the assumption that there is going to be a war in the next month or two.

Senator Summerfield was very much concerned about the shortwave station and he assured us that if we read the debates—I take it he means in the Dáil and in this House—we will see the case that was made, I think he was in America when we had the debate here and I hope he will read the debate and see whether he agrees with the case that was made. I have a strong suspicion that he will not be impressed. Of course, you can make a case for a shortwave station. The question is, can you make a case for spending money on a shortwave station when you have decided that in the national interest there should be a policy of economy?

Senator Hawkins started the debate. The Minister paid us the compliment of making a short speech, on the assumption, I presume, that if we had not read the Estimates and had not paid attention to the discussion on the Departments, there was nothing he could do in half an hour to enlighten us. I thought he was extremely wise, on this Bill, to make a short speech, and I took it as a compliment to the House. Senator Hawkins went simply on the spendthrift line. If it was the speech of a private person, it would be the speech of a millionaire—we should go on spending on all the things we liked to do.

It is easier in private life, and certainly easier in business, to spend, but if we spend and cannot get the money we go bankrupt. That does not operate with the State. Times do come when judicious spending is wise. There are also times, during a period of rise in prices and a certain amount of inflation—and particularly if there is an excess profits tax, which is calculated to tempt people to spend, so that they will not have to pay taxes— when there will be a good deal of spending which will be unnecessary. At some point you have to stop and then you have the extremely unpleasant task of deciding what is essential and what has to be cut, and it is inevitable that there will be differences of opinion.

I have been present during the majority of debates in the last ten years on the Appropriation Bill and the Finance Bill. Both sides of the House, but mostly the Opposition, have asked for retrenchment, but we never had a hope under the old Government that it would happen. We have now a new Government that has to face an enormous bill, and we are assured that they are making an effort to get reductions in expenditure and taxation. We should give them our most sympathetic support, not only by making speeches but by trying to influence people in business or with whom we are associated, to curb unnecessary expenditure for the next year or two. It seems to me a policy the Government has a right to demand and one which we should be ready to carry out.

Senator Hawkins mentioned a case where a certain type of boots had been increased by 8/1 and a certain type of material by 5/- per yard. He did not give us an idea of the particular type in either case. If he tells me that someone was charging 5/- a yard more for material I will take his word for it, but if he brought that forward with a view to indicating that Irish manufacturers are unnecessarily increasing prices, I say that is an insult to them and that it is not a fact.

Mr. Hawkins

I did not make such a statement.

Mr. Douglas

The impression that would be given by such a statement, if it got a lot of publicity, would be to make people assume that materials running from 5/- to 15/- have been increased by 5/-. I know something about the textile industry and say that any such increase is not justified, nor do I believe it has taken place—except perhaps in an isolated case, which may be explained and is not typical. I do not doubt the Senator's word, but if he suggests that textiles generally have risen it is not true. I am not suggesting that if they had risen the Government would have had anything to do with it, and I am not claiming anything in their favour for its not being a fact. There has been, and there is at present, a tendency to decrease in most clothing prices and I would not like to go from this House with an idea to the contrary. There may be some luxury materials worth £5 a yard, where there has been a 5/-increase, which would not be material. In cotton, woollens and probably rayons, the prices in Britain have increased. We are able to import considerably more and the British price in most cases is considerably cheaper than that at which they can be bought elsewhere. The net result is that, even in import goods, the price is lower. It is better in the case of Irish manufacturers. In many cases there has been increased production, and unless there is a slump in decreased production prices will have a tendency downwards. On the other hand, if a serious slump were created artificially or through political action, you would not necessarily get prices down—except through some firm nearly bankrupt having to clear out—as the cost per article would be higher. I am convinced that prices have dropped and will drop still further. I am not sure, but I hope it will be a gradual drop, as that would cause less dislocation and better chances of a healthy position than otherwise.

Senators Concannon and Burke referred to valuations. Whatever the relationship of the Valuation Office to the Department of Finance, I am satisfied that the officials have a very high standard. They are, generally speaking, men of a conscientious type who will endeavour to carry out with absolute fairness, as between one person and another, the general instructions they are given and the policy that is being adopted in the particular year. The fact remains, however, that there are few subjects on which there is more dissatisfaction and —more or less inevitably, because of our present system—few things where there is such inequity. I know of a case where oldish premises were condemned by a local body. The firm found it difficult to get money to rebuild and when they managed to borrow the money they found the valuation doubled because they had rebuilt the same premises a little smaller than before. The answer was that the old valuation was very low and there had to be a revaluation on a somewhat higher basis. The fact is that that firm feels it has a grievance. The same applies to individuals where a certain amount of alteration involves a revaluation. I still think it is done fairly, as between any two people in similar circumstances at the same time, and I do not believe there is any ground for the belief that there is not a very high standard. However, it works out that you have people paying on similar premises double the rates, and that causes intense feelings of injustice. If you introduce a general revaluation Bill, there will be a yell and a howl from almost every quarter. We will all be scared. I will be scared myself as to the effect on me, though I am not at all certain that we have not reached the stage at which, if we could get a general agreement, it would not be the commonsense and proper thing to do.

Senator Burke wanted different instructions to be given by the Minister. That would not help. If the instructions were to value on a lower basis, it would suit me very well if I happened to get the valuation; but if I had been valued last year and found it was coming now, I would have a grievance. Nothing but some general form of revaluation would do. I find resentment coming from all quarters—Dublin and elsewhere—and some of the increases have been very serious. The case given by Senator Mrs. Concannon is one with which we all have sympathy. It might be an isolated case, but I do not think it is. I do not know how the Minister can deal with it, but it was a matter that should be raised.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view taken by Senator O'Farrell. I have advocated a policy with regard to Partition on somewhat similar lines, and perhaps in a little more detail. I am not sure if he was quite consistent when he said he raised it on the Vote for the Department of External Affairs, but that is only a minor detail. There has been a great deal of talk and there have been campaigns of very doubtful value, in my honest opinion. Those of us keenly interested in this subject would probably be very well advised to say very little about it—at any rate for six or nine months. We have a new Government and we know their view. There is no fundamental difference between any of the Parties as to what we would like to achieve. Instead of agreeing with Senator O'Farrell in that he hoped the Minister would say something more to make the position clear, my advice, if I had any influence, would be to say extremely little. Make your attitude perfectly clear and do not say much about your policy, as too much talk could easily do harm. While I am in agreement with Senator O'Farrell and think that, sooner or later, it is the line we have to adopt, I do not think a new Government, in the interests of unity, should be pressed, nor would it be advisable for it to make any hints as to the line of policy, for six, nine or 12 months.

For the first time for a long time, I feel we have turned the tables and that a genuine effort is going to be made to reduce expenditure on things which, however desirable, are not essentials, so that there may be a better chance of spending more on what everyone admits to be essentials. We must accept the position that we will have to do without some things for a few years in order to get our economy on a proper basis and, therefore, I believe that the efforts of the Minister should get every support.

Mr. Séamus O'Farrell

I wish Senator Douglas would make it clear that when referring to Senator O'Farrell he was not referring to me, as I do not share my namesake's ideas regarding the Border and I do not approve of the rattling of the Orange drum here in this House.

Mr. Duffy

I protest against such a remark and ask that it be withdrawn. I consider that the remarks of Senator O'Farrell are offensive and are not usually used in this House and should be withdrawn.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I did not catch clearly what Senator O'Farrell said.

Mr. Duffy

It is clear to everyone in the House. He protested against the rattling of the Orange drums, suggesting that Senator J.T. O'Farrell did that. I protest against that view.

Mr. Séamus O'Farrell

That is the interpretation his speech conveyed to me. It is not the first time he rattled the Orange drum, and I understand——

Mr. Duffy

Is this going to be permitted or not? You are in the Chair, and I protest against this.

Mr. Séamus O'Farrell

Senator Duffy is not in the Chair, so he cannot give a ruling.

Mr. Duffy

I protest again against this thing. It is an insult to this House and it should be withdrawn.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Will not the Senator's protest go on the record?

Mr. Duffy

If you rule that way, there is not much use in my carrying on. If that is your ruling, I will have to obey it, but it is not the practice of this House.

Mr. Séamus O'Farrell

I do not see why Senator Duffy should attempt——

Mr. Duffy

Where is this going to end? I want you to rule on something, Sir.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We will hear Senator O'Farrell.

Mr. Duffy

On what?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

On what I think is the point of order upon which I am asked to rule.

Mr. Duffy

I protest against that. You have nothing to hear. You are called upon to rule.

A Senator

Order.

Mr. Duffy

There will be no order unless there is some ruling by the Chair. I protest against this misuse of the House.

Mr. Douglas

I regret if my reference to Senator O'Farrell could have been taken to mean Senator Séamus O'Farrell. I will try to use Senator J.T. O'Farrell's name in full in future. I was referring to the speech made by referring to the speech made by Senator J.T. O'Farrell.

Mr. S. O'Farrell

That satisfies me, so long as it is put on record but I have been accused before of making statements which my namesake had made, and the views in which I did not share. One was made in Cork recently.

Mr. Duffy

Might I ask again if you, Sir, are going to rule whether offensive remarks made about members of the House in a most irresponsible manner are to be permitted without protest from the Chair?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Offensive remarks are not permitted in the House.

Mr. Duffy

Are they withdrawn then?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The question is whether the remark made by Senator O'Farrell is to be construed as an offensive remark.

Mr. Duffy

I am suggesting to you that it is most offensive to Senator J.T. O'Farrell to say that he was beating the Orange drum here. That is most offensive, and, on his behalf, I am protesting. If you are willing to let that kind of thing go I am helpless, and so is the House.

Mr. Gibbons

I suggest that Senator Lynch be asked to continue his speech.

Mr. Duffy

The Chair has got to rule and say "yes" or "no." This "codology" cannot go on. The Chair must say whether it is permitting these remarks or whether they must be withdrawn. They will not go by default so far as I am concerned.

Mr. Hawkins

Is the Senator intimidating the Chair?

Mr. Duffy

I am asking for a ruling and surely that is not too much to ask from the Chair.

Mr. S. O'Farrell

You are demanding it.

Mr. Duffy

I am, and I am entitled to demand it; that is what the Chair is for.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator's protest will go on the record. Beyond that, I cannot go.

Mr. Lynch

I cannot understand the attitude of some of the Senators here and especially the Labour Senators who have supported the Government and have tried to justify the savings proposed. There was reference here to the saving of £85,000 in respect of mineral development. I come from the vicinity of the coalmining district of Arigna where coal has been mined for the past 100 years and in my time I have seen that industry having many a struggle for its existence. In 1918-1920 a light railway was built through the Arigna valley for the transport of coal and in 1924, during the time of Cumann na nGaedheal, I saw that light railway lifted and coal mining fall to practically nil. In fact, the output of the coalmines in the years 1925, 1926 and 1927 was around 20 tons per week.

In 1934, when the beet factories were established and a market provided for the slack, it was the first ray of hope for the Arigna coalmining industry. We then had the sugar company going to Arigna and arranging for 100 per cent. of the slack to be sent to the beet factories and we saw employment in the mines increased and conditions and wages improved. The employment went up from 25 or 30 men, who were employed for two days a week prior to 1934, to 200 men in the years 1934-1940, as a result of the policy of the then Government and a market found for the slack by the establishment of the beet industry by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce. In 1940, when coal could not be imported, employment increased from 200 to 600, and, for the first time, Irish railways used Irish coal. The Irish railways ran skeleton services from 1940 to the beginning of the present year on Irish coal when coal was imported into this country.

A deputation from the area met Deputy de Valera and Deputy Lemass, and the former Minister for Industry and Commerce told the members of the deputation that the same protected market as they had from 1934 to 1940 would be provided for them and that Irish industries would be made to use all the marketable coal that would be produced and that these 600 workers would thus find good employment. To-day, however, the Irish railways are not taking one lb. of Irish coal. Irish coal is used in only one instance at present and the quota within the last month has been cut by 100 tons a month. I claim that if this sum of £85,000 were spent on the development of the Arigna coalfields, we could employ 1,000 men at good wages. We have for the past several months been applying to the Department for the paltry sum of £6,000 to help a coalmine which spent £20,000 in bringing in electric current and providing electric coal cutters.

Mr. Duffy

The £85,000 was not for the development of a coalmine, but for exploration looking for new minerals.

Mr. Lynch

It was to facilitate the existing coalmines in further development.

Mr. McGilligan

You could not get a shilling for that out of the £85,000.

Mr. Lynch

We could get grants for improving the roads from the Department of Industry and Commerce, and we got them before.

Mr. McGilligan

Where are they in the Estimates?

Mr. Duffy

They are not in the Estimates. Is that not the important thing?

Mr. Lynch

It is very hard to understand Labour's attitude. They are now supporting a Government which is throwing trade unionists out of employment and forcing them to seek employment in Britain, where they can hew coal to be imported into this country by the inter-Party Government. The Labour Party stands for that and the cause of Labour has been lost because of the giving of offices to the Labour Party.

Mr. Duffy

The Senator had not got one word to say for the past seven years when they were going away in thousands. They were leaving at the rate of 50,000 a year and he had not got a word to say. He was dumb like the rest of them.

Mr. Lynch

We had plenty of employment and development.

Mr. Duffy

Where—in England?

Mr. Lynch

I hope that the protected market that the Arigna coalfields have with the sugar company and the railway company will be maintained. In that mountainy area hundreds of men were thrown out of employment by the abandonment of hand-won turf production. The first happiness I ever saw these people enjoying, the first comfort that ever came into their homes, was wiped out by one scrape of the pen and then it was suggested that it was the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce who abandoned hand-won turf production. The sooner the Labour people forget the leaders who forgot the cause of Labour and sold the pass on them, the better.

I have been a member of a local body for the past 20 years, and I have the greatest respect for any man who will do anything to eradicate the tragic disease of tuberculosis which has wrought so much havoc amongst our people. An auxiliary mental hospital was built in our time at a cost of £150,000 and we built a county hospital at £107,000 which is second to none in Ireland. We installed a staff and a surgeon there who have done more to save life than any other institution.

Mr. Sweetman

On a point of order——

Mr. Lynch

If I am out of order, there are many others who have been out of order.

Mr. Sweetman

I want to say that I have not got the faintest idea of what the Senator is saying. He has not referred to any county or to the part of Ireland he belongs to. He has referred to a hospital I never heard of, because he has not said where it is, and I fail to follow the debate.

Mr. Hearne

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Lynch

The Minister for Health went down there and opened it——

Mr. Sweetman

Where?

Mr. Lynch

Castlerea, County Roscommon. He opened this temporary sanatorium and there had to be cutting of tapes and the blowing of whistles. Having been entertained at the expense of the ratepayers of County Roscommon, he went to Galway, and later we find this heading in an English paper: "The Same Beds and the Same Soup as in 1847." That is what he says about our county homes.

Mr. Duffy

The soup must be stale after 101 years.

Mr. Lynch

I did not interrupt you.

Mr. Duffy

I am not objecting to interruptions.

Mr. Lynch

I believe that if that is read in countries abroad, it will give the impression that we are nothing but unchristian savages.

Mr. Duffy

Would the Senator answer one question: Is that an Irish or an English edition?

Mr. Hawkins

It does not matter.

Mr. Lynch

It is the Catholic Herald.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Deputy Lynch will proceed to address the Chair and not pay attention to interruptions.

Mr. Lynch

I regard that as an indirect attack on the religious Orders who run 90 per cent. of our county homes and I am convinced that it is an effort to sow the seed about which we were warned day after day which will seek to destroy our christianity.

Mr. Duffy

It is a pity the Senator would not read a copy of that paper for 1924 or 1925 and see what it said about himself.

Mr. Lynch

With regard to the Department of Agriculture, I have had some experience of the Minister in charge of that Department. I was on local bodies with him for a few years and from what I know of him I believe that the Department will not be long a Government Department, but a Department run by Jimmy Dillon.

From what I know of the Department to-day it will be run for the benefit of the rancher. We had experience of that here to-night. Those are the people who will dictate policy to the present Minister for Agriculture and not the Ministers of the Government. As Senator O'Callaghan said, there have been many wrongs inflicted on agriculture in the past 200 years, but the greatest wrong ever inflicted on it was when the present Minister was installed as Minister for Agriculture, the man who believed that the manhood of Ireland should have been on the battlefields of France and on the battlefields of Russia during the critical days instead of producing food for our people at home.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It would be better if the Senator confined himself to the business before the House.

Mr. Lynch

I am finished now, a Leas-Chathaoirligh.

Professor Stanford

A good deal has been said already this evening about higher education. One Senator said he would prefer to have the money spent providing bath tubs in country clubs. I believe in spending the money on both if there was an equal demand for both, but I would emphasise one thing, and that is that higher education does not stand or fall on material results. I want to emphasise that and I want to refer to another aspect of education especially which has been ignored up to the present and which has been an undoubted asset that has been paying dividends to us for 2,000 years. I am referring to literary education, education for clear thinking and human living. We live in an age of propaganda and unless we are educated in a literary way to deal with propaganda we will go down as a national entity. Political propaganda, commercial propaganda and ideological propaganda is aimed at us from all sides, and the only way we can counter it is by good literary education. Our life to-day is full of examples of the dangers of half-education. Take one example: a great many people of this country know of the word "Milton" and "Wolsey," but they do not know that the man in the first case was a great poet, and in the second case a great cardinal, who, perhaps, made a mistake, as some of us think. That is the result of commercial propaganda. I could give examples of far more serious things facing us and only higher education can make us fit to counteract them. The farmers have been mentioned here very often which is only right in the legislature of a country so dependent upon the farmer. But if we educated the farmer better in literature we would not be so much in need of cinemas or dance halls, although I am more in favour of dance halls than some of the elderly members of the Seanad, who dislike these forms of activity. But the farmer will take down a book and read it instead of playing pitch and toss at the crossroads. In this country we are fortunate in possessing a magnificent literary tradition and the fact that we have our own legislature to-day is largely the result of the literary contributions. If the poets of Ireland had not written what they wrote I do not believe that we would be here to-day. We have our modern poets and novelists still maintaining our independence in the highest possible way. It was the word as well as the gun that won for us the independence we have. I need hardly remind you of two literary men whose names were mentioned here this evening, Thomas Davis and Patrick Pearse. If you prefer bath tubs to these, if you prefer bath tubs to the institutions which trained men like Thomas Davis and Patrick Pearse, you know, gentlemen, how to vote, but I do not think you will.

Mr. Meighan

There are just two points I would like to raise, and one is in connection with the dairying industry. A good deal of money has been spent on premiums and so on, both by the Department of Agriculture and by the county committees on improving the progeny of the dairy cow. So far the results obtained have not been very gratifying. Now that larger feeders are getting out of cows the country will be more dependent than ever on the small milk producers, those people who milk their own cows, the people of the West in particular. I think that the dairying areas, particularly in the West, will be very important in the future. Notwithstanding the fact that schemes have been in operation for the last 35 or 40 years, the results achieved to date are not gratifying and definitely I think that this is largely attributable to the fact that heifer calves are not being retained in the country. Until the Department devises some scheme whereby heifer calves, the progeny of good dairy bulls and cows, are prohibited from export and retained in the country this position will continue. I would like to tell the Minister for Finance that any money spent in this way in preventing the export of these heifer calves will be well spent and will result in much better-type cows within the next ten or 15 years. Now, to come to the question of unemployment, I think that every Party realises that the giving of money to able-bodied men is a most undesirable thing. I think that there will be general opinion that if these people were usefully employed it would be much better. Speaking for the West, where there are a great number of small farmers registered as unemployed during the winter, I think that a great many of them could be employed on drainage schemes or in planting the countryside. There are large tracts of cut-away bog not far from where I live which are no use for anything except for planting. I have no hesitation in saying that men would be much better employed on schemes like these than drawing the dole, as it is called in the country, and such a policy would be welcomed by everyone. I do not stand for victimising anybody. I think there are other people and that, no matter what their political opinions or convictions may be, they are just of the same opinion. I think it would be much more desirable to have people usefully employed than to be drawing the dole.

I would like to support Senator Lynch in so far as the Arigna coal is concerned. I would ask the Government to be as sympathetic as possible to the working of that industry. The district is a poor one, in which there is not much employment. The land there is not very productive and hence I would ask the Government to be as sympathetic as possible to that industry. While I would not like to go as far as Senator Lynch did with regard to the county homes, I do want to say, as a member of the Roscommon County Council, that the members of it, ever since we got a native Government and irrespective of what Government was in power or the political Party to which they themselves belonged, were always unanimous in their desire to do all they could for the poor people in the county home. The county manager and the boards of health that we had there from time to time spent what they thought was within reason and within the capacity of the ratepayers to bear in order to make it as comfortable as possible for the poor people. If further improvements can be carried out to the county home, nobody will be better pleased than the members of the Roscommon County Council to do that.

Mr. McGilligan

I want to open my reply with an explanation to the Seanad on one point, although I do not think there is any misunderstanding in regard to my attitude. Certain critical comments were made that I did not enter into a long disquisition on details of policy. I had always understood that policy, in so far as it had a special relationship to finance, was developed in the finance quarter of the year on the Financial Resolutions and the Finance Bill, that in the period immediately following, when the detailed Estimates are under consideration, Departmental policy, inside the framework of the more general policy discussed on the Financial Resolutions, came under review, and that in the end there was the Appropriation Bill, which was merely a gathering up of the fragmentary Estimates and the putting of them into one piece of legislation. I do not know that it has ever been the habit to have a reiteration of policy on the Appropriation Bill. It was not the practice when I had anything to do with the Government before, and I find no examples to the contrary in the period in between.

I take it that the statement which comes from Fianna Fáil Deputies and Fianna Fáil Senators—that the Government have made no declaration of policy—is their way of getting over an awkward moment. It may be their aim that if they persevere in making this claim that, out of sheer boredom, one may be again driven into dealing with it. I doubt, however, if anybody who has followed the debates in the Dáil can have any doubt on that point after reading what was said on the Vote for Agriculture and the Vote for Industry and Commerce, as well as the winding up speech of the Taoiseach last week. I doubt, I say, if after all that anybody can have any doubt as to what the general line of policy of the present Government is. If people want any information on any separate point they can ask about it. But as far as the general lines of policy are concerned I abide by what was said by my colleagues on important Estimates.

Senator Hawkins complained that unemployment and emigration had been caused. I am entitled to challenge him for figures. It is easy to produce the records and they do not bear out his statement. There was an upswing in unemployment amounting to several thousands before the last Government left office. The Senator knows, probably as well as anybody else, and if not, might have taken the pains to find out, the numbers that may be affected by the change. He knows very well that a change was made, and that people of certain valuations were allowed to register as unemployed— people who, no matter how destitute they might be before, were not allowed to register. If the Senator will get some view of the increased numbers who in that way were permitted to go on the unemployed register, he will share the surprise of most people that whatever increase the registered figures show, they have not been much greater than what there is.

I come back to the challenge made in this House and before that in the Dáil. We are told that the one great change made which is causing unemployment is that in relation to turf production. We set up a special committee to deal with that matter. We brought forward certain moneys to develop certain schemes, and we have not been able to find enough people to work these schemes. I put the challenge again to Senators—to go to their respective counties and try to pack the register with all the people whom they will try to get, people who were alleged to be turf employed and are now unemployed. I have made that challenge before and I make it again. There has been very little attempt made to meet me on it.

It is significant that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Finance, when opening the Brosna scheme recently, indicated that there was a certain need for men to work on that scheme. At a later stage he was able to say that he required 400 men and could only get 100. I wonder why it is that there are not others going to that scheme. Senator Hawkins attempts to make the case that it is because there is no provision made by way of hutments or catering. That would certainly be a peculiar reason in the case of a drainage scheme. I do not think people are so delicate, particularly if in search of employment which they need, that they would halt because there was not some sort of a hutment to provide refreshment for them during the day. In the Dáil, the Parlimentary Secretary indicated that the turf board had offered co-operation on certain of these matters and had not been able to find people who required that co-operation.

Senator Hawkins also spoke of what he called a reduction in the Vote for the Office of Public Works. According to him it has been curtailed and is the cause of great unemployment. Again, I say that the figures do not show that. I want to come to the root of this matter and say that there has been no significant cut in the Vote for the Office of Public Works. For years figures have been paraded on that Vote, but no attempt was made to spend the moneys. It was not possible to spend them. The Office of Public Works has to depend on two things: (1) materials for building, and (2) men of the building operative type. For years there has been a scarcity of both and that is not over yet. If the Senator will undertake an investigation himself he will find that the issues in respect of the Office of Public Works have been very much lower than what appear on the face of the Estimate. In fact, I feel that the charge can be levelled against me that I am pretending to get economy by the deliberate action which, in fact, would accrue to me in any event if the practice of the last few years was adhered to. But there has been no lack of employment caused by any curtailment in the Vote for the Office of Public Works.

The only change that has been made, and I put it to the Senator that it is a good change, is that in so far as materials and labour suffice, there is a deliberate policy of directing these to houses, particularly houses of the local authority type, and, secondly, houses of the type that come under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act. We much prefer to have whatever labour and materials there are devoted to these two things rather than to some of the multitudinous things that were scattered through the Vote for the Office of Public Works. The Senator again rolled out all that has been said in the debates on these matters since the Dáil opened on the 18th February— about the farm improvements scheme, the farm buildings scheme and what the Minister for Agriculture said, that when he came into office he found 24,000 applications under the farm buildings scheme, most of which had not even been opened.

Mr. Hawkins

It is only fair to the Minister for Agriculture to say that he withdrew that statement and apologised for having made it.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister's statement was misconstrued.

Mr. Hawkins

He was misinformed.

Mr. McGilligan

It is a fact that there was a very big number of applications under the scheme which had never been attended to and could not have been attended to. I wonder if there was a vote with regard to priorities, would not the vote be cast for devoting whatever labour and materials that may exist to slum clearances and to local authority housing or small dwellings rather than to cowsheds.

Mr. Hawkins

I suggest that if the Minister and the Government are prepared to make the case that slum clearance and other items should come before the farm buildings scheme and the farm improvements scheme that they should make it and not be making the ridiculous and uncalled-for statement that there were applications in the Minister's office which had not been opened.

Mr. McGilligan

There were numerous applications unopened.

Mr. Hawkins

And the same staff was being maintained?

Mr. McGilligan

I am not making any criticism of the fact that they were not opened. What would be the good in opening things when, clearly in regard to farm building proposals, the most that could be done was to send a reply saying that there was no possibility of these being reached within a year or two.

Mr. Hawkins

If the same staff was being maintained in the Department would it not seem to indicate a lack of courtesy?

Mr. McGilligan

I am not referring to a lack of courtesy but to the substantial number of applications that were put in. If courtesy is brought in I have not any criticism of that at all. What I have said is not meant in that way, but it is the criterion of how impossible it was to get these schemes attended to, and that is all.

The Senator pretends to be confused with regard to housing, and whether the rate of interest will have any adverse effect on housing. When speaking on budgetary matters earlier I did try to establish the principle—it is one on which there ought to be very little disagreement—that the rate at which the State can borrow ought to be the rate at which the State is expected to lend. I did say in the financial statement in the early days of May that, if that had any serious effect on housing then it was going to be alleviated by an increase in the subsidy, and later I said it would be alleviated in full. Does anybody want anything plainer than that?

Mr. Hawkins

The Minister for Local Government would like to have it.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister for Local Government has been so informed. I had at least three conferences on this very point, and there is no confusion in his mind. I make the statement again in case there was any confusion before in answer to Senator Hawkins, who has been complaining that he does not know the position in regard to interest rates for housing.

Senator Hawkins made another statement with regard to the Brosna drainage, to the effect that different machines have been ordered from those previously ordered. There were certain types of machines on order. They were not coming fast enough. Other machines were ordered. Only for that, the drainage would not have been done. There is no defect in any of the machinery put on to that job.

Mr. Hawkins

I have not suggested there was a defect.

Mr. McGilligan

Why does the Senator complain of a change in the machinery? I certainly have a note here to the effect that "there were not the same results being secured."

Mr. Hawkins

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

I wonder where the Senator gets his information. The information we have through those who are attentive to this matter is that the machines are in no way inferior to the ones that were previously ordered. Surely for those who are pressing forward to have employment, it is a bit captious to make the criticism that other machines were ordered and then to suggest that there are not the same results being achieved. I have already said that it is never the practice to provide any housing or catering facilities in connection with drainage workers and there is no evidence that any facilities of that type are demanded by those who are inclined to go and work on the Brosna drainage.

The Senator, I think, also made complaint with regard to the type of people going there. The workers are drawn from the unemployed register. When that register is exhausted other people, small farmers in the neighbourhood, are employed. There is no question of confining employment on the Brosna to people who were previously employed on turf, but I have asked, and I will continue to ask, that people who register ought to say whether or not they were previously on turf schemes, so that we can have the statistical information in respect of this claim that is made that serious unemployment has been caused through anything that has been done in connection with turf.

I do not know if the Senator's remarks about £4 an acre had relation to the Brosna. I take it that it had not?

Mr. Hawkins

No.

Mr. McGilligan

Because there is no question of any deduction in connection with the Brosna drainage. There is the other deduction. It is open to a land owner to say whether he will take a field drainage scheme or not. If he does, he has to estimate is it worth his while paying £4 an acre. He will get a scheme done for him, no matter what it costs. If he does not think it worth while, he will not pay the £4.

Mr. Duffy

Would the Minister say whether it has been calculated that the cost of field drainage averages £16 an acre?

Mr. McGilligan

Certainly. The Brosna drainage will cost over £20 an acre, but the other, field drainage generally, will go very much above £4.

Mr. Duffy

He will get £16 worth of work for £4.

Mr. McGilligan

A man looking at his land may say it is not worth paying £4 for it. The field drainage is not intended to meet every case and certainly not the case that Senator Hawkins dragged out as if it was a typical one of the man whose son had a poor bit of land in the neighbourhood of a bog.

Mr. Hawkins

He must employ labour that was originally employed on the production of turf.

Mr. McGilligan

It does not mean that he has to employ that labour immediately beside the bog. Let there be no mistake about this: When we are providing schemes of this type, which are going to improve land, which will lead to greater production, we are not going to bring the employment to the people. They will have to move a bit to get it. All turf work was not done by people working a perch or two away from their own place. They will have to put themselves at least to a little bit of trouble to get work if work is being provided. The Senator says that business is depressed. I have not seen any signs of it. I have been looking for it. I have some hopes that business will become depresed. Otherwise we are going to go on as we are. Does Senator Hawkins hold that we are at the ideal situation or that we were at the ideal situation, say, last autumn or the early part of this year and that no change could be made but one that would be for the worse?

Mr. Hawkins

One has been made.

Mr. McGilligan

One has been made. If it is a movement downwards in regard to prices it will be for the good. I suppose the Senator will recognise that there is a situation of some degree of inflation in the country. Apparently he thinks any move away from that is bad. I do not share that view and I am going to ask this House not to share that view. Senator Douglas has talked here about a deflationary movement, which may lead to a slump. Nobody wants that and a watchful eye will have to be kept against that, but there is a situation in between which is a desirable one. Senator Douglas has said he hopes any movement downward in regard to prices will be gradual. That is my own hope, but I have had some conferences with various people in the business world recently. Some people have been good enough to meet me at my request to discuss things like prices and costs, and, while the discussions I had with those people were conducted mainly in the atmosphere of privacy, I am not breaking any secrets when I say the general conclusions these people gave me as theirs were that prices are coming down, that materials that they buy have come down and most of them have told me that, if it were not for the tourist-buying that is going on at the moment, there would already have been a noticeable fall in prices. That, I suggest, is desirable. If that is what the Senator believes to be a depression then we have different terms for the situation.

Mr. M. Hayes

May I say that this Bill must be law by the morning of Wednesday 4th, and if we were to take it next week, as had been arranged, we would have to meet on Tuesday? Tuesday follows a bank holiday. It has been, therefore, thought that we should finish the Bill to-morrow, taking the other stages to-morrow. I think there is agreement on that. It would be for the convenience of members. We shall have to meet next Wednesday for other business, including perhaps the motions on the paper, so that business to-morrow would be the conclusion of the Second Stage and the other stages of the Bill. Perhaps we could take the motions in my own name which, I think, are not contentious after the Second Stage of the Bill, and before the other stages.

Agreed.

Debate adjourned.