It has been brought to my notice during the adjournment that at the beginning of my speech on this Bill I made a reference to Senator O'Donnell which could be construed as being personally offensive. The reference was not so intended and, if it has caused any hurt, I now wish to apologise.
Appropriation Bill, 1952—Second and Subsequent Stages (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the question: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
On a point of explanation, may I say that I never even heard it?
We cannot get apologies when we ought to get them and we get them when they are not necessary.
I was dealing with the attitude of Senators opposite who speak with both sides of their mouths at the one time. I was referring to the fact that Senators to-day told the Minister he should have been able to effect economies and they criticised him because he had not been able to effect economies. Where the Minister effected considerable economies, however, by abolishing the food subsidies Senators criticised him very severely for having done so. To say the least of it, that is not an honest attitude. It is an endeavour to score political points and it does not fool anybody any longer.
If economies can be effected, then the onus is on the Senators to point out to the Minister where these economies can be effected, even if it is politically unpopular and inexpedient to say so. Senators should not say one thing outside the House and then come in here and propound a diametrically opposite view. I referred to the excellent provision this Government is making for the health services. I have no doubt that the Senators opposite will give their wholehearted approval to the Government's proposals in that respect. I would appeal to Senators not to confine their approval to the proposals outside the House but to give it inside the House also.
May I add my voice in support of what has been said by Senator Douglas with regard to that small body of Civil Service pensioners whose pensions have been affected by the existence of the "super-cut"? I have read the documents that Senator Douglas has put on the records of the House, and it appears to me that there is a most convincing case to show that injustice is being done to this small body of men. They number some 240. The youngest of them is 67 years of age. As Senator Douglas pointed out, the cost to the State would be something in the region of £9,000, and in the natural course of events that will be a diminishing charge and will disappear altogether in a relatively short period of time. I can understand the Minister's point of view as expressed in the Dáil, namely, that it would be difficult to review this particular matter without, at the same time, reviewing the claims of other classes of pensioners. Undoubtedly, that is so, but there is the distinction in this case, as pointed out by Senator Douglas, that it is not a question of an increase. It is merely a question of removing a discrimination.
I believe that the Minister, in the near future, will consider favourably a review of pensions generally. It has been stated that the pensions of the Old I.R.A. will be so reviewed with a view to increasing them because of the lower value of money at the present time. I think everybody must approve of that step, even if it means, as it must mean, a further charge on taxation.
The Minister has the courage of his convictions. If certain things are recommended by Senators and Deputies, things which must involve a charge on the Exchequer, then the Minister must find the funds to implement those recommendations by means of taxation, and when he seeks to find the funds by means of taxation Senators should have a proper sense of responsibility in relation to the matter.
They should not with one voice proclaim that the Minister should not do this, that and the other, and with another voice proclaim that the Minister should increase pensions, make more adequate provision for destitute people and for those who are living below, or just above, the subsistence level. They should not do that, and then criticise him if, in carrying out their recommendations, he has to increase taxation. There is no other way of doing it except by increasing taxation. I have listened to the alchemists on the other side of the House implying that these things can be done without increasing taxation. The bill which the country has to meet is a heavy one.
On a point of order. I do not think the Senator should make those statements without quoting the actual statements that were made. I do not remember any Senator on this side of the House making that statement.
I do not know whether or not Senator O'Donnell listens to the debate. It was stated by Senator Douglas that economies should be effected, that it might not be politically desirable to effect such economies, but that they were necessary—I am paraphrasing what he said—in the national interest. Senator O'Donnell was in the House. It would be tedious to recapitulate the other points because other Senators appear to pay more attention to the debate.
Senator Hartnett said he was paraphrasing my remarks. When he reads my speech I think he will find that he has not given a correct résumé of it.
I must apologise to Senator Douglas. I did understand the Senator to say that the Appropriation Bill was a heavy one, but that it was only adequate to meet the country's fiscal needs. I do not know that he approved entirely of the level of spending at which we had arrived.
May I say that in describing what I did not say the Senator is quite correct?
I wonder who was listening.
I am glad that Senator Baxter is amused.
I am not the only one.
He owes it to the House—he is always so amusing himself. If I may take up at the point where I have been interrupted on so many occasions, I am sure the Minister will review the claims of all pensioners. I would ask him, in advance of that, to consider favourably, as I am sure he will, the claims of these 240 pensioners, because I think they are on a different level, and, as soon as practicable, the claims of all other pensioners, many of whom are now in very straitened circumstances as a result of the decreasing value of money. I hope the Government will pay due regard to them and do as much to improve their conditions as they have shown they are about to do with respect to health services in the case of the whole population.
We are entitled to complain that the Minister gave us such little information in introducing this Bill to-day. He outlined the Bill very briefly and made it quite clear that the Bill had to be passed by to-morrow. I do not think the Seanad should be treated in that way. The Minister should have given us a full statement and it is no excuse for him to say that because he was unable to be here until to-day, he was able to say very little on the matter. Arrangements should have been made whereby the Minister would have been put into the position that he could fully explain to us the terms of the Bill and the reasons for all the money he requires. Therefore, if we cannot make all the suggestions that we might like to make in considering the Bill, we may be forgiven because the Minister has not dealt with the Bill as he should have. Senator Hartnett has really no ground for complaining that we have not made suggestions whereby the Minister will be enabled to effect savings. Later on, I will give one or two cases in which savings could be effected.
In passing, I should say that it is very interesting to hear that the White Paper published to-day by the Department of Health meets with the full approval of Senator Hartnett.
A change of front.
It would appear that now we may have a practical and reasonably good health scheme. Like most people, I have been unable to read the White Paper fully, but I may say that it has all the signs of being a good scheme. The person who prepared it, however—perhaps it was Senator Hartnett; I do not know—has made it quite clear in paragraph 38 that a lot of water must flow under the bridges before the scheme becomes effective. However, it is interesting that it should have the full approval of Senator Hartnett.
Senator O'Donnell told us a great deal about politics, and said that we should not talk politics in the Seanad. Is that not just nonsense? What can we talk about if we do not talk about politics? The sooner Senators who talk like that get it into their heads that this is one of the places in which politics may be talked, albeit it with some little risk, the better.
I think the Senator is unwittingly misrepresenting what I said, that we should not talk Party politics, which is quite a different thing. I hope the Senator does not want me to educate him on that matter.
Perhaps I require some education. Senator Quirke regretted the passing of the horse and told the Minister that he should see to it that considerably less money was spent on mechanised transport. Like Senator Quirke, I regret the passing of the horse, but I am afraid there is really very little we can do about it. The Senator went on then to say a whole lot of other things. He is a very remarkable man. From the time the Seanad commenced to-day and all through his speech, Senator Quirke did nothing but speak about a member of Dáil Éireann. Why he should do that, I do not know. I think he should forget about that Deputy.
He told us about the land rehabilitation scheme and about a land reclamation scheme and suggested that the land rehabilitation scheme was the product of a Fianna Fáil Government. It was no such thing. The scheme to which Senator Quirke referred was a small land reclamation scheme of which very few people took advantage, and it was only when the inter-Party or, as Senator Quirke would have it, the Coalition Government, came into office that the land rehabilitation scheme, as we and the people of the country know it to-day, was brought into force. He may claim whatever credit he likes for his small land reclamation scheme, but let it be quite clear that the land rehabilitation scheme, otherwise known—certainly in the country—as the Dillon scheme, was the product of the Coalition Government. We approve fully of all the moneys being spent on that scheme.
Senator Hartnett suggested that we should help the Minister in regard to saving some money. I suggest he should look at the Estimates of the Minister for Finance and should endeavour to prevail upon him not to proceed with this transatlantic aviation scheme. I believe that plans for this are very well advanced and that any day we shall have the pleasure of paying for the transport of comedians and comediennes to and from America.
There is no provision in the Estimates for that.
I am not saying there is. I have not said that there is any provision in the Estimates for a transatlantic service. I have asked that the Minister would see to it that none of the moneys he is going to give to the Minister for Industry and Commerce will be spent on such a scheme, and I say to the Minister that I believe that some of the moneys he is providing at Item 52 for aviation and other services, will, as sure as we are here, be spent by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in inaugurating a transatlantic service.
Is it being provided for in this Estimate?
It is provided for, I suggest, in Item 52, Aviation.
I would like to assure the House that nothing in the Estimate provides for a transatlantic air service.
I suggest that they must provide for the expenses of people going to and from America out of the money we are voting.
I beg the Senator's pardon; I do not like interrupting, but obviously he is not aware of the fact that the Seanad cannot vote money.
The assent of the Seanad is necessary for this Bill, and in so far as the Seanad is discussing this Bill it is voting money.
Oh, no.
This is a proposal for money; everybody knows that.
I am as clear as the Minister is as to what the Seanad can do about money. I am also clear that, as the Minister told us to-day, he must have this Bill from us not later than to-morrow. If he will assure us that he will see that none of this money is spent on inaugurating a transatlantic flying system I will be quite satisfied. I would ask him to see that the money is not spent in any such way.
Item 59 deals with contributions to the Council of Europe and the Organisation for European Economic CoOperation and towards certain projects of the United Nations Organisation. I am sorry, I know very little about this, but the sum of £37,400 is being provided. I do not know how this money is spent or what advantage it can have for us or for our civilisation. I suggest that we should not give this money.
Why did you not suggest it two years ago?
Like Senator Hartnett, I was not a member of this House two years ago.
You had a lot of influence.
I had not as much influence as Senator Hartnett. I suggest that we should not agree to the expenditure of this money. It may be that the Minister will give us later on very good reasons why we should spend it. Perhaps if he had in advance explained fully the terms of the Bill we would not have any difficulty about this or any other item.
We all wish the Minister every success in his projected loan. We sincerely hope that it will be the success it deserves to be, and every assistance will be given to him with a view to that end. The Minister must do something to encourage saving in this country. Practically nothing is being done to encourage people to save. Nothing is done to educate people as to why they should save money. The Minister and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs may say to us: "Why should we go about teaching business people about the excellent results that will be obtained from saving?" My answer is that excellent results would follow for the Government if people were encouraged to save and did so, but nothing is done to develop the idea of saving. The Post Office and perhaps the Department of Finance put up a few coloured posters here and there, but nothing is done, so far as I know, in the schools to educate the young as to the value of saving. Nobody seems to care whether or not we save. The Government, through the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, should step in and help the people.
There is one other suggestion I would make—this is by way of supporting the Minister. Every effort should be made by the Minister to restrict imports particularly from hard currency areas. It always seems strange to me that articles which are in the nature of luxuries should be allowed to be brought into the country. Particularly am I amazed when I see that luxuries are allowed to be imported from hard currency areas. The Minister, I agree, has himself stressed the fact that we should cut down imports. By way of encouragement, I say that he should go out of his way to prohibit imports, particularly imports of luxuries and imports from hard currency areas.
If we on this side of the House have been unable to indicate to the Minister where he could save money he cannot complain, when he comes into the House on the 30th July with the indication to the Seanad that they must put the Bill through by to-morrow, and when in order to give us time to speak he says only a few words, although he should have presented the Bill with a wealth of detail.
I, as well as every other Senator, and I presume everybody in the country, agree that the bill presented this year is definitely huge. We have traversed a lot of ground and discussed the reasons for the magnitude of that Bill. I think that all the people agree that we have probably reached our limit.
I would like to address myself to some of the remarks about greater production. If this idea were very closely examined with regard to agriculture, which we all admit is our mainstay, it would be seen that it is not as easy as it appears to increase production. The reason is that a pile of land is held by smallholders who are producing the last ounce they are able to produce because they must do so to exist. If any extra production can be procured it must be procured from the ranches. If we are to have extra production we must revolutionise our agricultural policy. I wonder will that be popular whenever it is introduced? When a Minister dares to bring a measure into the Dáil to increase the holdings of a certain percentage of small farmers in the parts of the country where they are and transplant those who are redundant into the richer lands, the plains of Meath, then there is definitely a possibility of increased production. That Minister will definitely justify himself but will that measure be popular?
It is very easy to say "increase production" but let us examine the whole thing. It has been admitted that we are poor in mineral resources as a raw material for industry.
We had one effort made to allot the bogs and work them in order to help to stem emigration and prove a source of income to smallholders, but every effort was made to depopularise the use of turf—until it had to be used— until the gun sights had decreed that no more coal would cross the water. It never got the opportunity to which it was entitled. If coal were cut out definitely by Act of Parliament and everybody had to use turf or a percentage of turf, there would be public protest meetings. We hear talk about more production and more cooperation, but there does not seem to be any consistency. If everyone did as much for production as the farmer has done, things would not be as bad as they are.
Emigration and unemployment have been talked about here and I suppose we could stay here for the next two months arguing about those problems. It must be remembered that these problems are not the direct fault of any Government. Science has produced a number of inventions which have displaced a lot of men while placing a few. Contrast the methods of husbandry now with those of even 30 years ago. How much more can one man do to-day with machinery in comparison with half a dozen men with spades and scythes? We can think over the last war, when science was responsible for an economy of armed forces while it was responsible for the greater destruction of the civil population of the countries at war. Owing to the work of science the civilian population suffered more, because the bomber came down on them while the fighting men had only to face those in the trenches in front, as in the 1914-1918 war. We should examine these things to realise that while science is doing a good job it may put men out of production. We never examine that; we just say that science is wonderful and we forget the reactions. We must see how far we can go in this fast travelling world of speed. Drapers will tell you they would be much richer if the young ladies wore long skirts like their mothers and grandmothers, as they would sell three times as much cloth, and milliners would do better if the ladies would wear more hats instead of the scarves one sees to-day. Furthermore, if the boys and men wore hats or caps there would not be such loss to the manufacturers. You must take these things into account. However, the people are entitled to do that and that is the hard fact of the problem. If this were worked out the figures would be as staggering as any in the Minister's Budget.
I said before and still maintain there are too many handlers here, too many in between the producer and the consumer. That is the cancer, and while it exists there will be hardship. This competition in trade——
That matter does not arise.
Give him a chance. He is on a good point.
I am sorry. People think that these things can be changed by a wave of the hand, that we can get rid of them by increasing production. I want to point out that increased production is not as simple as it appears to be. I would also like to remind Senator O'Reilly, regarding the land reclamation scheme, that there was in existence under the previous Fianna Fáil Government a farm improvements scheme which was working very satisfactorily. It provided a certain sum for every farmer if he did a certain amount of drainage every winter, and did it satisfactorily. He did that and did not put down imported pipes, but went to the nearest quarry and used Irish manufacture, as in his grandfather's day. As to whether the reclamation scheme was good economy or not, to me it was not, and I am a farmer myself. I maintain it is not good economy and not fair to the taxpayers to give £60 per acre drained and only charge £12. I can understand subsidising, as was done under the farm improvements scheme, when a lot of good work was carried out. I am not finding fault with the reclamation scheme because it was brought in by another Minister. Let anyone go and inspect the work done. I saw a lot of it done in my own parish.
The Senator would be surprised how many people embraced the new scheme and benefited under it.
I saw £60 spent on some of the drainage there and the charge to the men who benefited was only £12. Thank God, I did not need any work done under it. Of course, if you subsidised only to half that expenditure, twice the number of acres could be improved and our commitments under that part of Marshall Aid would not be as heavy as they are and we would have not such regrets, since we would have made better use of the money which we have borrowed and must pay dearly for. As far as borrowing money is concerned, all capital development is dependent on the floating of loans, as it cannot be carried out on ordinary finance; but when you are borrowing for a number of years you reach a point where the amount needed for repayment of interest and sinking fund comes to such a high percentage of the national income that it could have the effect of retarding progress in other directions. In that respect, any Minister for Finance, be he who he may in any Government, must take into account that he might be robbing Peter to pay Paul. We are moving quickly in that direction and we have jumped up a lot in ten years. The amount necessary ten years ago was only a small percentage but it has increased. It is dead money, despite the fact that it is money being paid back for work carried out—and it is only right, of course, that borrowed money should be paid back, whether it be the case of a nation or an individual.
I hope that the new loan will be a success, since we know that it is necessary. If it is not floated, the housing programme will have to be stopped. The money is necessary to continue the important works on hands, including rural electrification, which is very much sought after. In areas where it is not being used to-day, they are pressing forward to get a scheme recognised so that it can start there. Rural electrification is costing a lot of money and unless money is borrowed for that development the work will have to cease and people who are not blessed with it already will have to go without it. I dare say no one wants to do that. One must, however, be careful. One could easily reduce the Minister's demand to half, but the result would be ridiculous. For instance, one could reduce the Vote for the Department of Education to half and say that everyone with an income of £300 or more should pay for the education of their own children. There is no Estimate that could not be cut down, but it would be very false economy. Certain sums of money are necessary and the Minister has had the courage to look for them. I hope he will realise them to the fullest and, please God, when we meet here in 12 months' time we will meet in more pleasant circumstances, to the extent that things will be going well and the Minister will not have to dig so deeply into our pockets.
When this Appropriation Bill appeared this year, it occurred to me that the Seanad is given the opportunity of discussing a very wide field of subjects—in fact, the whole system of Government and the actions of the Government—and I felt myself asking what line the Seanad should take on an occasion like this. From my experience of four years in the Seanad, I have come to the conclusion that for this Chamber to follow the lines adopted in the Dáil is somewhat futile, because the powers of the Dáil and the powers of this Chamber are totally different. I feel that we should have a different approach in this House to Bills. I am reinforced in that view by the fact that to-day we are faced with this Appropriation Bill, and we are asked to deal with it in one short session of a few hours.
I would like to start at the beginning. In spite of Lecky's warning that no worse habit can be implanted in a nation than that of looking for prosperity to politics rather than to industry, people continue to look more and more to the State for the necessaries, amenities and luxuries of life. When I say "people" I mean not only the people of this country but the people of every country in the world to-day and, of course, we are no exception. The result is that we see an ever-increasing encroachment of the State into all phases of our national life and into all phases even of the individual's life. This process is carried on by a continuous flow of legislation in the forms of Bills presented to the Dáil and which eventually come to this House, giving more and more powers to the State, considerably adding to the numbers of people employed by the State and to the cost of running it.
This trend towards ever-increasing State control and planning must be accepted as an accomplished fact. It is of no use to rail and complain against it. I have been one of the people who have been constantly complaining against this tendency, but I am a realist, I realise that nothing can be done to stop this trend nowadays.
Most thinking people do regard this encroachment of the State more and more into the public and individual life with perturbation and apprehension, but I am afraid this phenomenon must be accepted; it is, apparently, inevitable and irresistible.
I think it is true to say that, individually, most citizens deplore this. If one talks to any individual of any class or any degree of society one finds that they all deplore this tendency but, collectively, they do not seem to be able to do anything about it, and they seem to acquiesce in a sort of fatalistic manner in this pheonomenon.
The movement is there and it is a fast movement and a strong movement. It is so fast and so strong that little seems to be done about it. We have the warnings and protests of social thinkers, particularly of the Churches, constantly talking about this matter, but very little notice is taken of it. I suggest that we should be realistic about the matter and, instead of just talking against it and objecting to it privately, we should sit down and see what can we in Ireland do about the whole thing.
I feel that what we could do is: we can accept the fact that people nowadays seem to accept that the State is going to do more and more in the individual and the national life, and we should try to see in what way we can harness that movement and control it and bring to bear our Christian outlook on life upon this strength and power of the State. I believe that we can evolve a policy that will satisfy both the State-minded people and the people who feel that the protagonists of individual liberty should have control over the State's actions.
The first thing I would suggest is that the State should take into its confidence the representative and vocational bodies and the people who are concerned with and affected by legislation. We have in this country very fine representatives of education, people who are interested in education, representing both the parents and the teachers. We have in all phases of the national life such representative bodies. We have representatives of the doctors. We have agricultural and industrial organisations of all kinds. All these can be called into consultation by the State and by Ministers when they are about to enact legislation affecting these particular forms of life.
I can say, and I think the House will agree, that our experience in this State in the past has been that where Ministers and Governments have consulted the representative bodies in the preliminary stages of legislation we have had quite satisfactory results, not only to the people concerned but to the nation generally. It will be agreed that where the State consulted the trades unions' and the employers' organisations in connection, for instance, with the Trade Union Act and the Industrial Relations Act, the Acts have worked comparatively well and have had the co-operation of the people they affected and the people whose advice was sought early on. On the other hand there have been cases, not only under this Government but under the other Government, when proper consultation was not entered into at the preliminary stages, where there were sometimes very fatal results. Things were done that were unworkable and unpractical and which caused more harm than good by their enactment.
At the moment certain legislation has been introduced in which my own particular interests are concerned—the Restrictive Practices Bill. A Bill of that kind can be made acceptable to all if proper preparations are made beforehand; if it is properly handled in the preliminary stages and will have the co-operation of all. Otherwise it may only be a menace.
The difficulty at present is that, where Bills are conceived and drawn up in a purely political atmosphere, that is, where they are brought in by a Government which is a political Party or dominated by a political Party, when they are introduced into the Oireachtas, it is impossible to effect any major alterations because any alterations, however necessary, involve loss of prestige to the Government and very often the Government knows in its heart that a Bill is not right and that certain things in it are not right but they dare not withdraw because it would involve loss of face. That is wrong because legislation does not involve only the particular Government at the particular time. It will go into our code of laws for all time and, if it is bad law at the beginning, it will be bad law for ever.
I suggest that it is about time that we set about thinking seriously in a long-term manner. Therefore, I suggest that it is obvious that we should set about devising some means of examining thoroughly our legislative actions, always having regard to their long-term effects. At present, we know that much of the legislation that is introduced is of a short-term nature. It is sometimes on a year to year basis, very often on just an election to election basis and very often with an eye to the next election. Bills are prepared hurriedly and they are passed in a highly-charged political atmosphere. Moreover, there always seems to be hurry and speed in the putting of these Bills through the Oireachtas. This speed is bad enough in the Dáil, but it is much worse in this House. Here it is merely a matter of having time for a few cursory remarks about these important Bills. As I said already, we must remember that the legislation which we are hurrying through in this manner is legislation for all time. Extreme powers have been taken which may have immediate beneficial and justifiable uses. However, later on they may prove to be of a most dangerous character. We are all familiar with the spectacle of Ministers coming in here asking for the most dictatorial powers. We are told that the present Minister for Finance, or whoever may happen to be the Minister in question, is a decent man and that we can rely on him. However true that may be we cannot always rely on the future Ministers charged with these particular powers. They can very easily compromise in the future the liberties and rights of our citizens.
Might I suggest here a few lines worthy of examination in dealing with this whole problem? I would suggest, first of all, as I have done already, that Governments should make better use of representative bodies and individuals when bringing in and framing legislation. Secondly, I would suggest that a better use could be made of the Seanad. As regards representative bodies and individuals, these already exist here in sufficient numbers, and they are sufficiently expert to give any advice and help that the Government may need. We have agricultural bodies, trade bodies, associations of doctors, lawyers, teachers, trades unions and employers. We have all these bodies and representative individuals competent and ready to help. There is no reason why we should not make use of them.
The Seanad itself can serve a very useful and distinct function from the Dáil in the purifying and improving of legislation. I think this is a matter that is engaging public attention, and that we should not ignore it. I feel that every member of the Seanad is conscientious and anxious to make his contribution to the national life. It is a pity we are not allowed to do so to the fullest extent of our powers. There are many criticisms of this Chamber to-day, but the criticism is not against the idea of the Seanad as a second Chamber—but against the manner in which its functions are being carried out. The Seanad has little or no control over Bills and legislation, especially, the way matters are being conducted and the way voting is being carried out in this House. It is a purely mechanical form of voting. The questions at issue are not really the points that matter when a vote is called here. It is merely a matter of the side on which you have been lined up. I suggest that this is not a right approach for a second revising Chamber. We do not want to be regimented to one side or the other.
The fact is, and we must face the matter frankly, that the Seanad is merely a rubber stamp for the Government of the day rather than being a Chamber composed of persons—as far as the Constitution predicates—with specialised qualifications, whose experience would fully qualify them to take the broad outlook on public affairs for which their experience and knowledge befit them. They are able to carry out a more objective examination of political policy than is possible in the Dáil where Parties must be regimented and lined up on one side or the other. When the Seanad finds itself dealing with the Bills on exactly the same lines pursued in the Dáil, it becomes a "mere shadow" of the Dáil, and it is merely a waste of time and energy for its members, and a waste of the nation's money.
I suggest there is a very important function which could and should be performed by the Seanad, namely, the examination of legislation by a Seanad composed of persons elected for their responsibility and distinction in their own particular avocations in an atmosphere of calm deliberation— one in which basic principles and long-term policies would have a primary place. The present system of election to the Seanad indicates that it was intended to contribute a more objective type of examination of legislation than is possible in the Dáil. As we are a vocationally elected body this examination could be one based on the vocational and specialist qualifications of the Senators. If this Chamber is to fulfil a separate function and a function differing from that of the Dáil, it would be necessary for Ministers of State to come to the House with a more receptive and inquiring attitude. At present, the Seanad has no duty except to say: "Yes," and the quicker we say "Yes" the better the Minister likes it.
The Seanad can be good, and it is, I believe, vitally necessary to satisfactory democratic Government. The Dáil is elected on general issues, and many electors who might vote for a Dáil candidate or a Party on such general issues might be strongly opposed to particular measures that a Government might put forward. The function of the Seanad should be to protect the country against ill-prepared and faulty measures forced upon it by the Government majority in the Dáil. Vocational examination of Bills in the Seanad which does not prejudice the prestige of the Government would provide a means of rectifying and improving legislation.
I suggest that, if a Minister comes to this Assembly and, as a result of our debates here, realises that certain things should be changed, there should be no loss of prestige either for the Minister or his Government if he accepts them. I think it would be a good day's work if the Minister came here and accepted some of our recommendations. If that were the case, it would be found in time that the Seanad would react to the situation in such a manner that we would put our best foot forward in order to improve the legislation brought before us. I think we are big enough and nationally minded enough to do that. I know that, for myself, I will always be prepared to suggest what I think is best for the country rather than what is best for the particular Party I support. I feel that I will be backed by my own colleagues in this House in that particular view.
One of the most glaring of the weaknesses of the growth of the present purely political atmosphere of the Seanad is that it leaves men elected here on a vocational vote from vocational bodies and from universities in a futile position. They do not know whether they are to speak here from a vocational point of view or from a political one. They are in a quandary to know on which side of the House they are supposed to be. This makes a farce of the whole idea of vocationalism. I realise, of course, that if we have men here who are here purely because they are experts, I am realist enough to know that they might easily be very unpractical. However, I suggest that it is possible to have a Chamber composed of experts who, at the same time, are politically educated, —who, so to speak, know the political facts of life.
Before I conclude, I would like to say the Seanad is nothing if it is not a consultative body and an advisory body. It has got no other powers. Members of the Seanad have no real voting powers, no powers over money matters, as we have been reminded again here to-day. Hence, if we are not a consultative and an advisory body, we are nothing.
The Seanad, therefore, should be recognised for what it is and used for what it is. It should act as a consultative and advisory body and should be accepted as such.
In order to safeguard against hurried and faulty legislation, which nowadays is the order of the day, more and more power being given to the State, I would suggest, first, that the Government should, as it has done in lots of cases in the past, consult in the early stages of the preparation of Bills with representative bodies, thereby linking the outer community concerned with the legislation of the State. In the second place I suggest that a greater degree of consultation with the Seanad should be used. Thirdly, I would suggest that there should be a greater degree of acceptance by the Minister of the Seanad's advice and guidance because of its specialised wisdom and experience.
On this latter point it might be argued that a Bill coming from the Dáil bears the democratic imprint of that Assembly and that, therefore, no major changes should be made in the Seanad. There is an idea that the Dáil is a sort of body that the Seanad should not dare interfere with, but I think that this argument ignores the fact that the Seanad is an integral part of the mechanism of our democratic legislation and government. It has its place with the Dáil in passing legislation. It must furthermore be remembered that the Dáil itself has, of course, the final word in regard to the sanctioning of Bills, since they have got to go back to the Dáil from this House.
In conclusion I should like to say that every person, committee or assembly is ultimately judged by its own valuation of itself. Instead of blaming Ministers or the Government in this matter the Seanad should take upon itself the role of trying to improve legislation and act as an advisory body and as a real, deliberative assembly. If we only persist in that attitude I feel that Ministers and Governments will react. They will realise that we are a body that can give real, constructive help in preparing legislation, improving Bills and in ensuring that we get a type of legislation on our Statute Books that will stand the test of time.
I do not intend to delay the House long. It is a remark by Senator P.F. O'Reilly that encouraged me to get up to make a point to the Minister. Before doing so, however, I would like to say that I admire Senator McGuire's tenacity. If I mistake not the Senator made the same points over the last couple of years. He preached the same gospel to the Ministers of the previous Government whom he himself supported. He still preaches the same gospel. While I do not disagree with much of what he said I must admire his tenacity, but with all due respect the greater portion of his speech had no relation to the Appropriation Bill. However, that is beside the point.
Senator O'Reilly suggested that there should be a restriction on the import of luxury goods from hard currency countries. I think we would all agree with that, but I would not like to specify the goods altogether as luxury goods. We are importing goods other than luxury goods. I have in mind American magazines and so-called American comics with which this country is being flooded. Many people, who take an interest in the educational welfare of youth, are much perturbed at the amount of this stuff which is being imported. Some of it is absolutely indecent.
I understand that representations have been made to the Minister for Justice to see if some prohibition could be put into force against the importation of this stuff. These things must be paid for with hard currency which we cannot afford to dissipate. We must be very careful of all our hard currency, and we ought not dissipate it on the importation of trash.
I suggest that the Minister for Finance should examine the position as to whether dollars are being spent on the importation of these magazines and so-called comic papers from America to the detriment not only of our national finances but to that of the youth of the country in the sense that the greater portion of these American magazines and comics is very harmful.
I would ask the Minister to look into this matter. Representations have been made to the Minister for Justice on the grounds that the greater portion of these magazines and comics is indecent. I am making the point that we cannot afford to waste one dollar. We ought to see that hard currency dollars are not made available for the importation of this stuff if we can do well enough without it.
In dealing with the Appropriation Bill, the Seanad, I understand, gets one of its few opportunities of dealing with general matters of Government policy in relation to economics and finance. I would like to join with other Senators in deprecating the fact that the Seanad should only be allowed a few hours at this late stage to initiate and partake in a debate dealing with matters of Government policy. However, the position is that, as the Minister explained at the outset, it is essential this Bill should receive the sanction of the Seanad by to-morrow at the latest. I think that most of us on this side of the House are willing to facilitate the Minister. I hope that, when he is concluding this evening, he will be a little bit more expansive than he was while introducing the Bill.
I would like him, for instance, even at this late stage, to tell us whether he, the Minister for Finance, or the Tánaiste has won the tug-of-war regarding financial policy which has obviously been going on within the ranks of the present Government for the best part of 12 months.
Senators will remember that at the time the Minister for Finance published his notorious White Paper and at the time of the Central Bank Report, most thinking people in the country were seriously disturbed by the open cleavage demonstrated in the Dáil between the Minister for Finance on the one hand and the Tánaiste on the other. Senators will remember that after the Central Bank Report had been published, after it had been used by the Minister for Finance and by the Government organ as a weapon with which to beat their opponents. the Tánaiste went into the Dáil and completely threw overboard the Central Bank Report and, despite the fact that the Minister for Finance was sitting beside him, announced that as far as the present Government were concerned their policy would be diametrically opposed to the recommendations in the Central Bank Report. I have not got the Dáil Debates here, and I do not claim to quote the Tánaiste, but I do not think the Minister for Finance will contradict me. It is definitely on record in the Dáil Debates that the Tánaiste made it quite clear—and he was talking as Tánaiste for the Government— that the Government were not accepting the recommendations of the Central Bank Report, and that their policy was to be diametrically opposed to the recommendations made in that report.
That was the voice of one Minister, a responsible Minister in the Government—the Tánaiste. The Minister for Finance kept very silent during that discussion regarding the Central Bank Report. But the extraordinary thing about it is that ever since that report was thrown overboard by the Tánaiste each and every one of the main recommendations made in the report has been implemented by the Minister for Finance. There is a clash there between the two Ministers. The Tánaiste was more vocal. The Tánaiste was the man who was most emphatic in giving his views to the Dáil and to the public. For once the Minister for Finance was silent. But the Minister for Finance is coming out as the strong man. He is coming out as the winner, as the man who was able to pull more weight in this tug-of-war.
That was some months ago. Then the Budget was introduced and we heard the Budget statement of the Minister for Finance. All of us will remember the main features of that statement. Again, I do not pretend to quote the Minister. But will any of us question the fact that in his Budget statement the Minister was making the point that it was necessary for the people of this country to save? He was to assist them to spend less money, to live less well, not to eat as much and not to drink as much by ensuring that they had less money in their pockets to spend on eating and drinking or on living well. To that end he intended to abolish the food subsidies, or at any rate practically reduce them. Over and above all that assistance which was to be given to the people by the Government, the Minister made an appeal in his Budget statement to the people to save at least 10 per cent. over and above the money he proposed to take out of their pockets.
Only three or four weeks ago I was present at a function attended by the Tánaiste and the Tánaiste was publicised widely in the newspapers. What had the Tánaiste to say at this function organised by the Drapers' Chamber of Commerce? The Tánaiste's message to the people was: "Do not save; now is the time to spend. Do not think that prices will come down. If you have money to spend, spend it and spend it now." The Minister for Finance tells the people that they are to save; the Tánaiste tells the people that they are to spend. I want to ask the Minister at the end of this parliamentary session will he tell the Seanad at this stage who is the winner. Whom are we to believe? Are we to place any reliance on the deputy chief of the Government when he tells the people to spend or are we to heed the Minister for Finance when he tells the people to save? Are we to believe the deputy head of the Government when he says that this Government will have nothing to do with the Central Bank Report or the recommendations of that report, or are we to heed, as we are forced to heed, the Minister for Finance when he implements those recommendations one by one?
Senators will remember what the main recommendations of that report were. There was to be a restriction of bank credit. All of us know that such a restriction has been in force, has been imposed on traders and businessmen, not alone in the City of Dublin, but throughout the country for the last six or nine months. According to the Central Bank Report subsidies were to go. The Tánaiste said that the Government would not pay any attention, that their policy was to be diametrically opposed to the recommendations in the Central Bank Report. The Minister for Finance was silenced, but subsidies are gone or are going.
Thank goodness.
That was not what the Tánaiste said. Apparently this Senator is with the Minister for Finance. It is interesting to see the line-up. That is what I want to get clear. We remember other recommendations in that report. One was in criticism of the land rehabilitation scheme. The Tánaiste said: "We are paying no attention; our policy is diametrically opposed to these recommendations." Was it not a fair assumption from that statement that the Government, instead of cutting down on the land rehabilitation scheme as proposed by the Central Bank, would continue it in force in all its vigour and would expand and increase it? But, no; the Tánaiste says one thing and the Minister for Finance then cuts down on the land rehabilitation scheme.
There are two other recommendations in that report and I am firmly convinced that they are in the process of implementation at the moment. They will have even more serious repercussions on the lives of the ordinary people, particularly the working people in Dublin City. I do not want to wrong the authors of the Central Bank Report. It was not a recommendation, but it was at least a viewing with complacency of the idea of creating an unemployment pool in this country. Again, I do not claim to quote the actual words used, but I am clear in my own mind from the particular paragraph in question in the Central Bank Report that there was a most complacent attitude to the idea of an unemployment pool being created. That unemployment pool has been created and is growing larger and larger I assert because the Minister for Finance is implementing one by one the recommendations made in the Central Bank Report. I would be glad if the Minister would either tell this House honestly that whatever squabbles there were between himself and the Tánaiste in the past are over, that he has won outright, that the Tánaiste has been routed in this battle of finance——
I wonder is it proper that this Senator should refer to squabbles between two Ministers in the past. It does not seem to me to be perfectly correct.
I have no doubt that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. I am placing evidence before the Senator.
In connection with every statement made by the Senator he said he was not quoting.
It seems to me it has nothing to do with the Appropriation Bill.
I am placing the evidence before the Senator.
We are not discussing the Central Bank Report or the differences between Ministers in regard to it.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator should be allowed to proceed without interruption.
I am appealing to the Minister to tell us when he is replying, if the squabble is over, if there ever was one, and if there never was one, will he tell us——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator might continue his speech on the Appropriation Bill.
I just want the Minister to tell us if there never was a squabble, why the Tánaiste and himself talk a different language when they speak about the finances of the country?
The people have left no room for misunderstanding anyway.
Suggestions have been made by Senator Hartnett that there is something unfair in a Senator or a Deputy saying that the bill is too high unless he is able to give chapter and verse for the economies which could be made. I remember, as a member of the other House, making a somewhat similar point myself when the present Minister for Finance was in opposition, and I remember the reply I got from the present Minister for Finance and his colleagues was: "You are the people in charge now; you are the people responsible for making economies and for cutting down the bill." I want to make the same reply to Senator Hartnett this evening. Senator Hartnett, and his colleagues in the Fianna Fáil Party or supporting it, are the people who are now responsible for presenting the bill, who are responsible for paring down the bill, who are responsible for making economies if the bill is too high, and there seems to be general agreement— Senator Hartney was one who agreed— that the bill is particularly high this year.
There are certain ways in which moneys can be found and in which economies can be effected. I have never agreed, and I do not yet agree, that there is any necessity for expanding the Army or for spending more and more money on the Department of Defence. I have no hesitation in saying that I disagree with the policy of the present Government in that matter. I believe that as much as £1,000,000 could be saved in the Department of Defence. I believe also that there was never any justification, other than the desire to honour a sordid bargain, for removing the dance tax under the Budget. I believe that the money which the Government would have secured in the course of the year from the dance tax would go a long way towards meeting the grievances of the people to whom Senator Douglas and Senator Hartnett referred in the course of their contributions to this discussion. I would recommend to the Minister, even at this stage, to consider giving a helping hand to those people, to consider listening to the pleas of people like Senator Douglas and Senator Hartnett rather than to be concerned with honouring a bargain made with the dance hall proprietors, a bargain made by the man with whom the present Minister appears to have so many squabbles, the Tánaiste.
Finally, I should like to refer to a matter introduced by Senator Hartnett —that is in relation to the White Paper published by the Department of Health. I have not had time to give this document very close study but it does appear to me from reading over the document once, as I say without studying it, to be a worth-while production. Certainly it does appear to be a very much more realistic approach to this matter than the approach made by a former Minister for Health who published circulars dealing with health services and promising, for instance, the free care of children's health up to the age of 16 years. It is a more realistic approach because of what appears in paragraph 38 of the White Paper and because the Government do point out to the people that these proposals are going to come into effect only very, very gradually. Section 38 of the White Paper points out that the full additional benefits proposed in the scheme can be made available gradually only.
"The enactment of legislation, the recruitment of staff, the provision of clinic buildings and other facilities are steps which must be undertaken before the full services can be made available."
I think that that is demonstrably true. I think that that paragraph speaks for itself and exposes to a very great extent all the bluff which caused such a furore regarding our health services a little over 12 months ago.
My contribution to this debate will not be altogether on the lines of the speeches made by other Senators on either side of the House. I should like to avail of the opportunity which this Bill affords to appeal to the Minister, or at least through him to his colleagues in the Cabinet, notably the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Health, to be a little more co-operative with the representations made by local bodies in matters of local administration. At the present time in Mayo, and I suppose the same applies to several other counties, huge expensive schemes in the way of water supplies and sewerage schemes are being carried out. I am not satisfied, and neither is the general public, that value is being obtained for the money spent on these schemes. On more occasions than one, it has been pointed out to me that work done 40 or 50 years ago, when piped water was first introduced to some of the larger towns in the west, showed evidence of far better workmanship, far more attention to detail, and much more careful supervision than at the present time, when we have a horde of officials, architects, consulting engineers, clerks of works, etc., employed. I myself have seen, within the past few months, pipes set in a water installation scheme, removed because they were defective, before the scheme had come into operation at all. Times out of number attention has been drawn to this matter by local councils, and we feel that if our officials, the local survey staff of the county, were allowed to supervise these works, far more successful and effective work would be done.
There is another matter to which I should like to draw attention. The Local Government Department at the present time seems to have a mania for the appointment of new officials. If any improvement is indicated as being necessary in any of the county institutions and the local body meets and goes into the matter and makes a report to the Minister, on the character of the building to be carried out, that report is turned down. You have to employ an architect to draw up the scheme, to write up the specification and generally to supervise the work. Within the last three or four weeks a case arose in which an effort was made by the local body to provide accommodation for 34 nurses attached to the county hospital, who have to board outside. When the council met, and was anxious to put up an annexe to the county hospital, it was informed by the Department of Local Government that an architect would have to be employed. We adopted that view. The architect was employed and planned a very nice scheme to provide accommodation for the 34 nurses in a building which was estimated to cost £34,000 to start with.
I assure the Seanad that these are matters which have given a headache to the local bodies. There is no question of political divisions on them. As far as Mayo is concerned they are the concern of every party and section. The whole council is united in trying not so much to get the Department to see sense as to make them understand that the people living on the spot understand matters of this particular kind, and ought to have their views respected. I know several engineers who have retired on pension, and who, at the present time, are lucratively employed in drawing plans for new buildings, for the first-class houses that are being put up throughout the country. At the same time, they would not be allowed to co-operate with the local bodies, their employers, in drawing up plans for the building of labourers' cottages and for supervising the building of them, or for the building of additions to county institutions and so on. The position is that all that must be left to an outside official.
There is another matter in connection with which the Department of Local Government has turned down suggestions put forward by Mayo County Council. I refer to the provision of the new service—fire-fighting services. I happened to be chairman of the county council when that matter came before us two years ago. I was quite familiar with the excellent work that had been done by the county surveyor and his staff during the emergency when they organised and supervised fire-fighting services throughout the county. They are the people who could do that because they have contacts throughout the different parts of the County Mayo which, as Senators know, is one of the largest counties in Ireland. When this matter came before the county council, I had a discussion with the county surveyor during the adjournment for lunch. I asked him if he would be prepared to take on that service. He said: "I certainly would like to". It was agreed by the county council that the county surveyor should look after that particular service, but the provision of that fire-fighting service on those lines has been turned down by the Department. I put this to the Seanad: If the county engineer and his staff are not capable of organising an efficient fire-fighting service, how in the name of Providence could a stranger, appointed by the Local Appointments Commissioners, do so? We all know that, coming into the county as a stranger, he would first of all have to start to organise the service. That would mean more than one appointment, because he would require staff. That would mean an expensive fire-fighting service which would not be nearly as efficient—we are all agreed on that in County Mayo—as a service which would be looked after by our own engineering staff, the members of which have their contacts right through the county.
There is another matter. On a previous occasion I commented on the question of the medical inspection of schoolchildren. In the initial stage that inspection is certainly carried out in a thorough and efficient manner by the county medical officer of health, but it ends there. He prepares a history sheet for every child examined. He never sees any of those children again. He can seldom visit a school more than once in five years. Some time ago the local body decided that the dispensary doctors throughout the county could effectively co-operate with the county medical officer of health in looking after the children who needed care as a result of his inspection; care in regard to their eyes or any other defect. Though a scheme was drawn up under which the dispensary doctors would be paid on a capitation basis—they were prepared to co-operate and visit each school at least once a year and attend to those cases which needed special attention— so far nothing further has been done.
I understand that in some places where part of the inspection is concerned with eye-testing and attention to defective vision some amusing incidents have taken place. They would hardly be credible here in Dublin, but the fact is that infants in schools have been examined for defective vision and have been provided with glasses which they did not need, because it was not their vision that was defective but their knowledge. Senators are aware of the requirements of the Department of Education at the present time. These definitely provide that the babies or the infants in schools are not to hear any word of English from the day they enter the school until they leave it. They are taught word-building and everything else through Irish. When the medical officer or the optician visits the school and puts up his chart, which is in English characters, the children do not know what they are being asked, and are supplied with glasses, not because their vision is defective but because their knowledge is. I should like to avail of this opportunity to draw the attention of the Minister to some of these matters.
There is one other matter that I would like to refer to. Last year, when the Minister was replying to the various points raised in the debate here, he referred in a rather critical manner, and perhaps from his point of view deservedly so, to the fact that the previous Government, during their three years in power, allowed over 250,000 tons of cement into the country that could have been manufactured here and sold at a cheaper price. I, personally, am anxious to know whether that position has been improved during the past year, and how the cement situation is now.
These are the few remarks that I have to make on the Bill. I sincerely hope, as a result of what I have said about the necessity for more understanding between the Department of Local Government and the different counties throughout the country that it will pay more attention to the representations which are sent up to it from the local bodies. They are in close touch with the people and have a very intimate knowledge of the services which they are administering and, therefore, know or should know what they are talking about.
It is generally agreed that the sum which we are being asked to vote under this Bill is a very heavy one. It is further agreed, I think, by all Parties that the best way to meet the bill is by increased agricultural production. Senator O'Reilly, on the other side, advised us that this was a House in which to talk politics, and that it was sheer nonsense to talk anything else. Senator McGuire took the opposite view. I am inclined to agree with Senator McGuire. I think that this House could be very useful, indeed, and that the more it avoided politics the more it could do. The few remarks which I have to make concern how we can increase agricultural production. The greatest asset we have in this country is the sugar beet industry. It is valuable from many points of view. It gives very considerable employment. It is very useful to the tillage farmer who grows beet. Molasses, beet pulp and beet tops are very valuable for feeding animals when winter feeding is very scarce. At a time like this, when the importation of foods and cereals is difficult and very dear it is a pity that the sugar beet industry is not supported by everybody. Remarks have been made from time to time by people in high places about the sugar beet industry but I think that it is a very good industry. We could grow one and a half times the amount of beet we grow if everybody put a shoulder to the wheel and helped along with the industry.
Every effort should be made to increase the cattle population. The dairy cow is the foundation of the cattle industry. Everything should be done to improve the quality of the dairy cow. High-class bulls have been imported recently and cow-testing is very important to ascertain whether these high-class animals are producing the type of cow required. We want the dual purpose animal. We want the animal which will give us a reasonable supply of milk and a good carcase of beef. The development of cow-testing is important and the Minister might direct his attention to that matter.
Tillage and mixed farming is, generally speaking, the best policy for this country. A great many people prefer grassland; it is easier. It is a pity that the farmers who keep grassland do not put it to better use. I believe that the liming, manuring and reseeding of our grassland would have the effect of easily doubling the live-stock population of our country. That would be a valuable achievement.
Senator Hartney made a very good point in connection with increased agricultural production when he said that it would have to come from the big farmers. It is difficult to get it except by compulsion, and that would be a very unpopular thing in this country. However, there are ways by which it could be achieved. An increased allowance could be given to farmers employing labour. At present the allowance is about £6 10s. per worker off the poor law valuation. That allowance could be doubled. In that way farmers who employ little labour would be induced to increase it.
Soil analysis was discussed. I am not entirely in agreement with Senator Baxter's viewpoint that the credit for soil research in this country must go to one man. That statement is hardly correct because before the man mentioned by Senator Baxter entered public life I had the soil of my farm tested and several speeches were made on the matter of soil research before the gentleman mentioned by Senator Baxter ever spoke of it in public. The then Minister ought to be thanked for the work done in connection with that research station. It is doing very useful work for the farmers. They are informed of the deficiencies of their farms and of the economic ways to put the matter right.
Very little work is being done by private landowners in connection with forestry. All the planting is being done by the State. If private landowners could have the advice and help of an expert from the Forestry Department, and pay him for it, it would help them to do some planting. Needless to say, that would be a step in the right direction. Landowners have not the experience, the skill or the tradition required in connection with reafforestation. If they could get some help, such as that which I have suggested, it might prove very useful indeed.
I have spoken before in this House about the distribution of petrol. There are many rural areas where it is impossible to get a petrol pump although it would be very useful to have one. The petrol companies and the retailers are barring the way. They are preventing a better distribution of petrol. That means that, in remote districts, people often have to travel five, ten or 15 miles for petrol before they can start their day's work. That matter ought to be looked into with a view to ensuring that there is no racket.
The harvest is about due now. In my locality the general view is that, as there is a considerable quantity of oats in the millers' and farmers' lofts, there is great danger that there will not be a good demand for oats and feeding barley. If that view is correct, then action should be taken about the matter now. If there is no market for the grain which is harvested it will mean a considerable set-back in tillage for the coming year.
The Minister for Agriculture talked about the eradication of tuberculosis. That is very important. He should go ahead with that work as soon as he can find the finances for it. I think it could be done very well at this particular moment when the price of beef is better than the price of dairy animals. I think much money would not be lost in the transaction and that it would be very useful work. We are spending a lot of money erecting sanatoria but we are doing nothing about eradicating tuberculosis in cattle.
Senator Quirke made a plea for the retention of the horse. I entirely agree with him. I understand that 700 horses a week leave this country and that three or four horses in a particular district have to go when a tractor comes into that district. We might find ourselves in an awkward position if we had no horses and if Joe Stalin decided to take a certain line of action. In that connection also I think we should keep big stocks of oil in the country.
Senator Hartney referred to the farm improvements scheme and contrasted it with the land rehabilitation scheme. I am inclined to accept his view. The farm improvements scheme helped those who helped themselves. If the farm improvements scheme were extended in scope to three or four times its magnitude I think that generally it would be a better scheme for the country and the agricultural community than the land rehabilitation scheme.
Is dóigh liom go bhfuil beagnach críochnaithe againn le díospóireacht faoin rud atá ós ár gcóir agus níl mise chun breis do chur leis. Tá cách ar aon aigne go bhfuil an Bille seo trom, an-spíanta trom. Tá sé amhlaidh ach cad é an leigheas dá réir atá air. Tá an Bille seo ann toise éileamh an phobail ar sheirbhísí ilghnéitheacha in gach uile cuid de shaol na tíre. Ag scrúdú an chaiteachais dom, ní féidir liom, lem thoil nó lem aigne, cinntiú ar aon ní d'fhéadfainn fhágáil as gan cúis gearáin a bheith ag daoine, gan mí-shásamh do bheith ar chuid éigin den phobal agus gan an baol a bheith ann go n-éileofaí go daingean agus go himníoch go gcuirfí an tseirbís thar n-ais arís. Níl aon duine a bheadh sásta le laghdú a dhéanamh ar vóta an Gharda Shíochána nó ar aon vóta eile dá bhfuil ann, mar is é an pobal a éilíonn na seirbhísí sin. Is é an pobal an máistir agus is trua a rá gurb é an pobal céanna a chaithfidh díol as.
Ma tá locht ar bith agamsa ar an mBille is é go bhfuilimíd in Éirinn éirithe in ár bpobal beag an-chostasúil ar fad. Tá costas do réir £33 nó £34 ar gach fear, bean agus páiste sa chuid seo d'Éirinn agus, le fírinne, is costasúil do riarachán é sin, ach, mar adúirt mé, is é an pobal, na fir agus na mná agus na páistí, a éilíonn na seirbhísí a gcaitear an t-airgead seo leo. Níl aon dul as. Locht amháin atá agam ar na meastacháin seo ná nach bhfuil soláthar sásúil ann im thuairim-se, chun aon ní a dhéanamh don bheag-cheantar cinnte go dtugaimid an Ghaeltacht air. An Bille a cuireadh i bhfeidhm agus go ndearnadh dlí de cupla mí no trí ó shoin, níor bhain sé sin dá ríre leis an áit seo go dtugaimid an Ghaeltacht air, agus is baol liomsa nach mbeidh aon chuid de thairbhe an Bhille seo i bhfeidhm sa Ghaeltacht céanna. Nuair a bhí an Bille ag dul as an Tigh seo d'iarras go ndéanfadh an Rialtas iarracht éigin ar rud speisialta a chaitheamh i gcóir an beagán Gaeltachta atá ann. Níor deineadh é sin fós. Níl aon tsoláthair ina chóir sna meastacháin seo agus is é sin mo locht orthu.
Ag tagairt do ní eile a bhaineann le Gaeilg, is é sin ceist na Gaeilge ins na scoileanna, más ceadmhach dom ba mhaith liom a iarraidh é a chur láthair Aire an Oideachais tríd an Aire Airgeadais gur cóir, b'fhéidir, athrú beag a dhéanamh ar dhúngaois múinteoireachta na Gaeilge, ar chuspóir mhúinteóireachta na Gaeilge sna scoileanna agus go luífí anois níos cinntí agus níos forleitheadúla ar theagasc cainte na Gaeilge do leanaí na mBunscoil ar fad na tíre go léir. Bhí tráth ann, b'fhéidir, nár bhféidir é sin a dhéanamh go ró-éifeachtúil, ach tá an bhun-obair déanta anois. Tá roinnt mhaith eolais ag gach uile leanbh i mBunscoileanna na tíre ar ghlór na Gaeilge, ar abairtí na Gaeilge, ar chaint na Gaeilge agus measaimse gurb é labhairt na Gaeilge cuspóir na hoibre ar fad, gurb é labhairt na Gaeilge a bheadh mar phríomh-chuspóir sna scoileanna. Ba mhaith liom an ní sin a chur i láthair an Aire Airgeadais ó is é a chaithfidh an soláthar a dhéanamh, go gcuirfeadh sé i láthair an Aire Oideachais gurb é labhairt na Gaeilge príomh-chuspóir gluaiseachta na Gaeilge uilig agus gur chóir go mbeadh an teagasc sna scoileanna dá réir sin.
Rud beag amháin sar a scaraimid leis an scéal. Is easnamh é, agus baineann sé leis an ngá atá le Musaem sa tír seo. Is aisteach an scéal é i dtír go bhfuil an oiread sin gradam agus cuimhne againn ar an sean-saol nach bhfuil aon Mhusaem i mBaile Átha Cliath go mbeadh saol na tuaithe ar léiriú agus ar taispeáint mar bhí sé ochtú nó céad bliain ó soin. Do mholfainn agus do dhéanfainn a thafaint go ndéanfadh an Rialtas a chur rómpu gan a thuille moille samhail baile beag tuaithe, mar bhídis im óige-sa agus in óige na ndaoine anseo go bhfuil ceann liath orthu, a chur ar bun i mbaile Átha Cliath agus an tslí agus an nós maireachtála a bhí ag daoine an uair sin a léiriú sa chineál sin Musaem, Musaem tuaithe de shaol na tuaithe. Sa saol seo nuair atá gach rian den sean-saol á scrios fé réim bungalows, concrete, agus mar sin de, sílim go bhfuil sé an-riachtanach go gcoimeádfhaimís sompla de na nithe sin a bhain le saol na ndaoine a tháinig romhainn. Do dhéanfainn do thafaint go gcuirfí baile tuaithe den seandhéanamh in áiteanna áirithe sa , go gcuirfí gléas a bheadh ina ábhar inspéise ag lucht cuartaíochta ach go speisialta baile iomlán a chur ar bun anseo i mBaile Átha Cliath chun go mbeadh eolas ag an bpobal ar an saol do bhí in Éirinn blianta ó shoin. Do dhéanfainn é sin do thafaint ar an Roinn Oideachais. Bhíos le déanaí in Inis Manainn agus tá dhá tithe acu ann a thugann caoi do an daoine tuigsint a bheith acu ar an saol a bhí ann le linn na tithe sin bheith ag na daoine chun maireachtaint iontu. Ar son gach duine sa tír seo go bhfuil spéis aige i stair an chine daonna ba mhaith liom a thafaint ar an Rialtas go gcuirfí a leithéid ar siúl.
I have been rather astonished at the attitude which has been taken up here by a number of Senators. There have been complaints —and I will admit at once the complaints are well-founded—that the Seanad is presented with this Bill at a very late hour, in what may be described as the first third of the year. We are within a few days of the period when the money already granted by Dáil Éireann for the maintenance of the public services will be exhausted. If the Seanad were to hold up this Bill and if the moneys provided under the Vote on Account and the issue which was authorised by the Central Fund Bill from the Exchequer were to be exhausted and that authority were to be spent we would be in the position then in which our public services would have to close down because there would be no authority to spend any money on them. On behalf of the Government I must disclaim any responsibility for that situation.
We endeavoured to have the Estimates for the public services passed by Dail Éireann and this Bill disposed of by Dáil Éireann in sufficient time to permit the Seanad to consider it during the 21 days within which, under the Constitution, the Seanad may consider Money Bills and return them with such recommendations as the Seanad may care to make to Dáil Éireann. Unfortunately neither the wishes nor the desire of the Government in this regard were effective, with the result that the Seanad, as several Senators have rightfully complained, is presented with the dilemma that they must either dispose of this Bill after a somewhat cursory debate or by insistence on its constitutional prerogative allow the public services to close down. I can readily concede to all those Senators who have been critical of the position in which they find themselves that they have every ground for complaint but the complaint, as I have already said, should not be directed against the Government.
Surely the present Government created the tradition when they were in opposition. I know they did because I was here.
Two wrongs, as the Senator is no doubt aware, do not make a right.
I quite agree.
There was another attitude adopted by some Senators which somewhat surprised me. I would have thought that in the limited time the Seanad had at its disposal Senators would in general have welcomed the fact that I made a very brief statement when introducing the Bill, but, brief though that statement was, it was an all-embracing and a comprehensive one and a quite sufficient explanation of the purpose of the Bill.
Senator O'Donnell was one of those who were most critical. He, and I think Senator P.F. O'Reilly, seemed to feel sorry that I had not occupied at least two hours, if not two days, of the Seanad's time in explaining in detail the purpose for which this money is required. Senator O'Donnell said that this was the most important occasion upon which the Seanad met to discuss public business. Naturally I do not wish to put myself in the position of the Senator in a matter of this kind, and I would not venture to try to adjudge its importance in his view or to relate the importance for him of one occasion to another. I should have thought that, so far as financial business is concerned, there are two more important occasions upon which the Seanad can discuss public business, namely, when the Central Fund Bill comes before the Seanad, because the Central Fund Bill, as Senators know, embodies the proposal which Dáil Éireann has already adopted in relation to the granting of a Vote on Account to enable the public services to be carried on until such time as the Estimates have been discussed in detail and the necessary financial provision has been made to provide the moneys essential for the carrying on of the public services.
The Central Fund Bill is the first opportunity the Seanad has of considering in a general way the proposals which the Government makes for the carrying on of the public services and the expenditure which the Government proposes to undertake in regard to those services. The only prerogative which the Seanad has in relation to departmental Estimates is to consider them in a general way under the scope of the Central Fund Bill. It is on that occasion, before the Dáil has debated the proposals in detail and has assented to them, that the Seanad can most usefully make suggestions for the consideration of the Government and of Dáil Éireann. It is on that occasion that the Minister for Finance, who represents Dáil Éireann here and is responsible for putting the views of that Assembly before this House can, having heard the debate, most usefully go back and convey the suggestions which have been made to the Government. If the Government thinks well of those suggestions and thinks it wise ultimately to submit those suggestions to Dáil Éireann it can do so when Dáil Éireann, in the exercise of the prerogative preserved to it to grant money, is considering the Estimates themselves in detail.
I use the word "suggestions". I want to make it quite clear that I use the word "suggestions" as distinct from "recommendations" because it is, I think, very difficult for the Seanad to make recommendations in regard to either the Appropriation Bill or the Central Fund Bill. If the Seanad were to make a recommendation to the Central Fund Bill or to the Appropriation Bill that would undoubtedly necessitate a detailed debate on those items in the Estimates in relation to which the Seanad makes its recommendation and that would, in turn, entail such a user of parliamentary time that it is not unlikely that the statutory period of 21 days would have elapsed long before the debate had concluded and the Central Fund Bill would in the meantime have become law.
The other occasion upon which the Seanad has a full opportunity of discussing the general financial policy of the Government is when the Finance Bill comes before it. As the House knows, the Finance Bill is usually discussed at greater length in the Seanad than is any other measure. It is discussed in detail and in the course of the debate on the Committee Stage of that Bill the Seanad has an opportunity, and sometimes avails of it, to make recommendations which naturally go back to Dáil Éireann and have subsequently to be considered there. These, I suggest, are the occasions upon which a more detailed discussion than has taken place here to-day can usually be embarked upon.
The Appropriation Bill comes to the Seanad after Dáil Éireann has devoted a considerable time—months, in fact— to the discussion of the individual Estimates for the Public Services. In the course of these debates, the Dáil takes the opportunity to consider and to criticise the administration of the public Departments. It does that because, as I have said, it is the Dáil which has the prerogative of granting money for supply and it is to Dáil Éireann that the Government and Ministers as a whole are responsible under the Constitution for the administration of their Departments. The debates on these Estimates extend over many months and, in general, they occupy the greater part of at least two bound volumes of the Dáil Debates.
What sort of a situation would I be in if I were to come here, and, in my introductory remarks on a Bill of this kind, were to traverse the whole ground which has taken Dáil Éireann months to go over? I should like to see the faces of some Senators if I began to open a marathon speech of that sort. The first to complain would be some of the Senators who have been critical of the fact that I was commendably brief in my introductory remarks. I was brief not out of any disrespect to the Seanad but rather out of regard for the fact that the Seanad had comparatively little time at its disposal and that, while it was unlikely that I would be able to deal in detail with any of the points which may be raised here, nevertheless the suggestions and criticisms which individual Senators wish to make would appear on the record and would ultimately be considered. I trust, therefore, that this suggestion that the Government is treating the Seanad with any disregard for its constitutional position, or in any way endeavouring to minimise its position as a component part of the legislature, has been disposed of.
I should not do it because I am not a member of the House, but I sometimes am annoyed by some suggestions I hear Senators making here from time to time about the Seanad being of no service, being a mere talking shop. After all, what is a deliberative assembly except, in one sense, a talking shop? Of course, it should be talk informed by thought and inspired by deep consideration of public issues, and when it is so informed and inspired there is no service being done either to the Seanad or to the legislature of this State, of which the Seanad is a component part, by using denigratory phrases of that sort. I am naturally jealous of the prerogatives of Dáil Éireann and I assume that Senators are jealous of the prerogatives of Seanad Éireann. I want to make it clear that I do not desire to see the Seanad usurping the functions of the Dáil or the Dáil trying to override overthrow or whittle down the important functions of the Seanad. I take pride in the fact that we have a second Chamber in our legislature. I think I may say now that I was one of those who fought hardest for it and who recognise the great value of the Seanad.
In the Seanad there is a different atmosphere and a different approach, and views are not held so stubbornly as in the Dáil. There can be in the debate between Senators a real exchange of sentiment, to put it that way, an exchange of ideas which ultimately leads, and has led in many cases, as we all know, to very useful amendment of proposals from the other House. I fought very hard to ensure that this House would have its full 21 days to consider this Bill. I would have wished that the debate on it would have been fuller and I would have wished that we had had a longer debate on the matters raised by Senators like Senator Ruane, Senator Hartnett and others, who spoke on really important matters which it is useful for the Government to have discussed in the calmer and more sedate atmosphere of the Seanad.
I do not know that I can say very much with regard to the general questions which have been raised. I have been asked what I have to say about the general economic position. I do not think we are out of the wood by any means but I think I can say that the balance of payments situation, which does reflect our general economic position, appears to be improving. It has been suggested that the Budget has resulted in unemployment and slackness of trade. I think the slackness of trade and the consequent unemployment this year is the natural sequel to anticipatory buying, to purchasing in advance of actual requirements, which was so pronounced a feature of the latter part of 1950 and the early part of 1951.
We have been told by one Senator that we have reached the limit of Government spending and when I heard Senators say that I thought how tragic it is that the public should be deprived of the newspapers at this time. They could interest themselves in reconciling the attitude of certain members of this House with the attitude of their comrades and particularly of the Leader of their Party in Dáil Éireann. In Dáil Éireann, the Government has been criticised by colleagues of Senator Hayes in the Fine Gael Party for not spending enough. In this House, we have been criticised on the ground that we are spending too much. Every measure of social amelioration introduced since this Government took office has been criticised by the Opposition on the ground that the benefits proposed were insufficient, that is, that they did not cost enough. It would be easier to square the circle than to demonstrate that there is any element of concord or concurrence of view between Fine Gael Senators and Fine Gael Deputies. I do not want to create a constitutional crisis between these two wings of the Fine Gael Party. I shall leave them to reconcile their actions.
Senator Hayes did, however, say one thing which, I think, is worthy of note. He emphasised how much more political Parties in this country are agreed upon principles than Parties are elsewhere. I think that we may congratulate ourselves on that, but if we do, how much more must we commiserate with each other on the fact that these common principles seldom inform or shape our handling of public problems? If our State is to survive we must give more than lip service to these common principles. When, for instance, they tell us that the weight of taxation, the burden of public expenditure, is more than the community can bear, then they should show their sincerity, I suggest, in that matter by opposing further spending and opposing it not merely by speeches but by votes, opposing it not merely in the safe security of this House but also under the spotlight of Dáil Éireann.
If there were a real live Opposition in favour of economy substantial economies, I think, might be secured, but what has been our experience? The Government have sought to economise and their proposals have been bitterly attacked and misrepresented, as they were misrepresented here this evening by Senator O'Higgins when we were told that our remedy for the present economic situation was to make the people eat less and drink less. When the Government took measures to balance the Budget and put the public finances in order their measures were opposed most strenuously by the Opposition. The same applies to the measures which were taken to deal with the heavy deficit in the balance of payments. We were told then that we were trying to reduce the standard of living, trying to make the people eat less, but this time in order that we might have a larger surplus to spend.
Now the Government—and no Irishman, I think—wants to make the people eat less, but we want them to waste less, which is quite a different matter. We want to bring them back to the reality that the first charge on a man's earnings should be, not his needs in tobacco, whiskey, beer or petrol, but the provision of food and clothing for himself and his family. That is one of the social principles on which the Budget which has now received the approval of those sections of the people to whom it was put was based. If we could get real agreement on that principle, and if all Parties strove to give effect to it, then something positive would be achieved. If we were all agreed that our Budgets must be balanced on the due dates every year, and that that balance must first be sought by using the sharp knife of economy, and that if that fails to give the required balance taxation must be imposed to secure that balance, then we would have achieved something signal indeed, but having regard to our experience this year, having regard to the long course of opposition which often degenerated into obstruction and which was responsible for the late presentation of the Bill to the Seanad, it appears to be futile to hope for it.
I do not think there is anything else I should say regarding the questions raised in this debate. I have been particularly gratified, however, at Senator Professor Johnston's speech. Neither the Government nor Dáil Éireann can claim any merit for having regard to the historic place of Trinity in the Irish nation. We all of us, I know, adopt, have adopted and are prepared to honour the pledge given by the seven signatories to the proclamation of 1916 that when the Irish State was established it would cherish all children of the nation alike.
Question put and agreed to.
Agreed: to take the remaining stages now.
Bill passed through Committee, reported without recommendation, received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.